Talk:Armenians/Archive 1

history

I've incorporated material on religion from History of Armenia (it's really part of the history of the ethnic group more than of the Armenian state; we may want to remove the material from that article.), a digest of Armenian Genocide and various newly researched material. -- Jmabel 23:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title

Is it "Armenian People" or "Armenian people"? Danny 23:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I left the article where it was. On my own, I would probably choose "Armenian"; right now, "Armenian" is a disambiguation page. Good question whether "people" or "People" is more correct when used in this sense. I don't really care, but I suppose there should be a redirect from one to the other. -- Jmabel 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you don't mind, then, I'd like to move the article to Armenian (people). Danny 00:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No objection from me. There was barely an article here before I got at it. -- Jmabel 01:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to "Armenians" because moving it to "Armenian people" served little or no purpose - it obviously doesn't disambiguate ethnicity from nationality (as is apparent from the fact that someone added a semi-disambiguation notice at the top of the article linking the other meaning), and it's less popular than the plain plural word. --Joy [shallot] 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

population in Georgia

Another anonymous edit without citation: population in Georgia: changed from 437,000 (est.) to 248,000 (est.). Does anyone have any decent sources on this? -- Jmabel 06:20, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

No list of famous Armenians?

Off the top of my head, and because I was working on them today, William Saroyan and Ross Bagdasarian. Others, Cher, race car driver Freddy Agajanian, California governor George Deukmajian. Sure there are many more. Ortolan88 17:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is: List of Armenians; just that there was no link to it on this page. Bogdan | Talk 19:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Population statistics

Population statistics were recently (and radically) changed by anon User:162.84.184.95 with no documentation whatsoever. Since I don't know the facts of the matter myself, I am not reverting, but I strongly suggest that someone research this and cite a source. -- Jmabel 02:01, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Happened again, this time by User:129.70.136.205. Again: I don't know the facts of the matter. I am not reverting. However, this is bound to go on until someone has some citations of where these numbers come from. -- Jmabel 21:51, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've now found sources for 3 of the four largest populations, plus Nagorno-Karabakh, and (for these) the previously unsourced, anonymously contributed numbers seem reasonably accurate. U.S. number seems reasonable, since there are at least half a million in California. Citations for any of the other numbers would be very welcome, but I've done enough to make myself comfortably we are probably not saying anything wildly inaccurate. -- Jmabel 00:07, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

I've now found sources for all the numbers. I am extremely open to people revising this information based on more authoritative sources. I am extremely opposed to people revising this information based on numbers they have pulled out of thin air or off of somebody's personal web site. -- Jmabel 04:18, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

The three links in "population data" #6 don't work (at least not as of right now). BSveen 11:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I accessed it only days ago. Their server must be having problems. The Internet Archive lacks a useful backup. Let's check this again in a week or so; failing that, I'll seek other sources for this data. -- Jmabel 18:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Lezvur: the alternate estimates you are coming up with for Georgia are fine, but why do you keep removing the others? Your most recent edit didn't just delete my earlier sources, it deleted your own! How could the source be good enough for you to cite 2 days ago, and now merit removal from the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

By way of apparent response to this last comment, Lezvur this time made only a partial revert (still without summary or comment) removing only the Nationmaster estimate. I would like to know on what basis he/she considers the Nationmaster estimate not to be good enough to merit inclusion, and will continue to insist on its inclusion in the article unless some evidence is given as to why it is not a plausible estimate. -- 04:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

... And then his next edit, which I've also reverted, was to change the July 2003 date (given on the cited Nationmaster page) to July 1989 (I will refrain from conjecturing what part of his anatomy he pulled that out of). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to these articles

Recently, User:Skylooker and an anon user have been making edits that would indicate that the Armenian Genocide did not happen. This is not the generally accepted truth outside of Turkey. Both Skylookers and the anons edit are POV from this standpoint and that is why I have reverted them (the anons edits wheren't just POV, those were vandalism pure and simple). I have tried to get contact with Skylooker, both in the edit summaries and on his talk-page, but he has not responded. He was blocked for violation of WP:3RR (note: I myself was pushing that rule a little to hard, for this I apologise), and after the block expired he immediatly came back and reverted again.

I now URGE User:Skylooker to make some sort of contact with me, preferrably here or at my talk-page, but email is fine too. This revert-warring is stupid, I know that we can hammer out a version which we can all be happy with. If this continues, I fear that soon the page is going to be protected, and none of us wants that! gkhan 13:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have found a reference for the version of things that I support [1]. If you don't provide any references yourself, I am going to revert back again. I will leave the disputed tag since the article is obviously disputed. gkhan 20:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Here my references and some sites

Here my references and some sites about the governmental pressure on the historians living in your country [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] - aozan 17:04, June 11 , 2005 i will show you more references about this case later. Have a nice day Mr Gkhan

Statistics again

When people are changing statistics, could they please provide references?

I have no idea whether some recent changes are corrections or fantasies. "It is estimated that there are at least 7 million Armenian speakers in the world" became "…at least 10 million…, but followed by numbers that don't add up to that. "According to US Census figures, there are 203,000 Americans who speak Armenian at home" became "…300,000 Americans…".

Without citation, I have to guess that there is no basis for these changes. If there is a case against reverting these, would someone please state it here? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Can Not Be An Encyclopedia While It Is Containing Unofficial And Illegal Articles

If "Armenian Genocide" was carried by an international agreement or if there was a INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION about this case , it could be OFFICIAL and LEGAL , after that you can put the "Armenian Genocide" as an article in an another article that is called "Armenians" in this ENCYCLOPEDIA. Recognisation of this case by USA , UN (It was not recognised officially and by accord as "Armenian Genocide" in UN General Congress) , European Countries does not make it OFFICIAL AND LEGAL , recognisation of a case in a country is about territorial law , but this case is an international law case , and in territorial it is the problem of the Turkey and Armenia. Armenian Genocide is not official to the international law and it is illegal , WHY? BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECOGNISED OR CARRIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE HAS HAPPENED. WIKIPEDIA CAN NOT BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHILE IT IS CONTAINING UNOFFICAL AND ILLEGAL ARTICLES. Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow these:

• Neutral point of view
• What Wikipedia is not

-aozan

The Armenian Gencoide may not be recognised by the US but it is by France, Netherlands and the European Union, when you consider the masses of information and opinions on this matter by world renowned historians such as Martin Gilbert the evidence simply cannot be ignored, what is even more puzzling perhaps is stubborn Turkish denial and attempts to discredit any fair reference to the events that happend in the First World War.

Some example about the opposite voice to your decision, there are another mass of information opposing to the Armenian Thesis: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

how is it "illegal" to have an article about these events, and since when do we have to get an international court's decision before we can write an article? Any specific factual disputes can of course be detailed in the article, if they are attributed to notable sources. Just that the Turks don't like to be confronted with their imperial past is certainly not a reason. dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Armenia Rejects Turkey's Dialogue Call

March 11, 2005

Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan: “There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians”

Jan SOYKOK -

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHP’s Ledar Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said on Tuesday " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides… Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives… We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment.” However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the ‘genocide’ argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as ‘genocide’.

Why are Turkish nationalists turning fact such as the Armenian Genocide into debate, it happend, proof from both Armenians themselves and foreign witnesses who were there at the time and saw it for themselves such as American doctor Clarence Ussher whose notes on the events he saw were made into a film entitled Ararat (which was discredited in Turkey) There is no need to see "both" sides of the coin, how would people feel if Germany began to deny the holocaust and begin to focus on the poor SS men who were killed during the Warsaw uprising or various other concentration camp uprisings by Jews, we would be appaulled if this happend. Turks need to forget what they were taught by their own bias schools whose curriculum taints the truth, the world knows what happend, the world saw what happend and there is a Turkish conspiracy to hide and sloud the truth from their own people and the rest of the world.

Armeno-Greeks

An anon just added, without justification, the claim that the Greeks are a related ethnic group. I don't specifically know this to be false, but I have serious doubts. They just added the one word in the infobox, so I have no idea what relation is claimed. If no one justifies this with a reference within 72 hours, I will feel free to delete. -- Jmabel 20:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is a tenuous link. The languages are remotely related and the peoples are both Christians living in Asia Minor, but that's about it. I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny. — Jor (Talk) 20:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to Herodotus, the Armenians were colonists of the Phrygians, and in the early 5th century BC, they were still identified as the same people. So it may be justified to talk of an Armeno-Phrygian people. The Phrygian language, in turn, was quite closely related to Greek, but it wasn't Greek. There was probably a family of Paleo-Balkan languages from which all of Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, the Ancient Macedonian language, and possibly others were descended. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

They do have the historical circumstance in common that they are both modern ethnic groups that had absorded and assimilated the now extinct peoples of Anatolia in the pre-Turkish and pre-Byzantine eras. The modern Turks have in turn absorbed large numbers of these Greek, Kurdish and Armenian-speaking populations into their modern mainstream society. But linguistically, I doubt that theres is any close relation. //Big Adamsky 18:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

image

I removed the national flag from the Template:Ethnic group parameters. The idea of the "image" slot is to provide an image of members of the group (people), not a flag. Compare other use. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Can you please put the flag back? Is there a written rule that the template is to be of images of people only and violators will have their national flag images removed if posted? Why are there so many envious Armenian-haters out there who want to erase their rich culture that has miraculously managed to survive for the past six thousand years?

what are you talking about? Are you saying the flag is 6000 years old? Your flags are right there, on Armenia, Flag of Armenia, Coat of arms of Armenia, Flag of Armenian SSR. This article is about the people, not about their flag. Especially since not every ethnic Armenian has an Armenian passport. Oh, and don't remove other people's comments. dab (ᛏ) 30 June 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Will this image do? Dmn / Դմն 30 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Armenian Musicians

Yes, that is fine. Thank you for replacing it with the nice image of the musicians, even though the flag looked beautiful there. Just as Armenians around the world are Armenians regardless of not having an Armenian passport, the flag also represents Armenians regardless of where their passports are from - Russia, France or the US. It is one of our unique qualities that has sustained such a small number of people over many many years (not sure why my edits are not time-stamped).

Probably because you are not ending them with ~~~~. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

pov banner

there doesn't seem to be a lively discussion about the article's alleged bias. What exactly is disputed? Can we remove the banner? dab (ᛏ) 2 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to see it gone. The allegation of bias comes from those who deny that genocidal events occurred by the Turks against Armenians in the WWI era. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 17:08 (UTC)
• "genocide" is a difficult, emotional term. It means "murdering a people", i.e. strictly speaking you need to completely eradicate a people before your actions qualify as "genocide". This is the theoretical meaning of the term, and according to it, there hardly ever was a "genocide": clearly there still is an Armenian people today. But curent usage of "genocide" of course includes the killing of a "substantial" percentage of a given people, with the intent to eradicate it, at least from a given area. It may be better to use ethnic cleansing, because it is more literally applicable (holocaust like genocide implies that each and every member of a people was killed, which of course wasn't the case even in "the" holocaust. but the intent is bad enough of course). bottom line, I'm saying, of course there was an "Armenian genocide" as common usage of the term is concerned, but if you really want to pick hairs, you may insist that "ethnic cleansing" is used instead. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

@dab: Your misinterpretation of the meaning of the term "genocide" is quite common but also incorrect. Genocide, as defined by the UN et. al., does NOT mean the complete eradication of a people. See Wikipedia's definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide or Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" (ISBN: 0060541644) for definition of the term.

Jm3 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• • checking the article, how about democide? dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
    • I think "democide" is obscure. Historians almost always refer to the event either as the "Armenian genocide" or (mostly among Armenian historians) the "Armenian holocaust". As you can see if you consult the article genocide (or the appropriate UN conventions on the topic), despite its etymology "genocide" does not mean "the complete destruction of a people". It means the deliberate mass killing of civilians based solely on ethnicity, which is exactly what happened in this case. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:02 (UTC)
      • I know, and I agree. I was saying the literal meaning would be "murder", and conceivably objection to the term might be based on such grounds. They are not my objections, and I readily agree that "genocide" as commonly used is a term perfectly applicable to the tragedy. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide article is disputed, there is a passage about Armenian Genocide in the article, so this article is disputed too-- aozan

by this logic, we can apply the pov banner site-wide. The question is if there is a specific statement on this article which is one of the disputed statements on the genocide article. Only referring to a disputed topic doesn't make this article disputed. You are expected to make suggestions here about rephrasings that would remove the bias from this article. The only statement we took over from the genocide article is the approximate one million figure. This is afaik a low estimate, only including deaths in prison camp. Are you saying we need to quote the two million estimate alongside it? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

If "Armenian Genocide" was carried by an international agreement or if there was a INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION about this case, it could be OFFICIAL and LEGAL ,after that you can put the "Armenian Genocide" as an article in this ENCYCLOPEDIA. Recognisation of this case by France , UN (It was not recognised officially and by accord as "Armenian Genocide" in UN General Congress) , European Countries does not make it OFFICIAL AND LEGAL , recognisation of a case in a country is about territorial law , but this case is an international law case , and in territorial it is the problem of the Turkey and Armenia. Armenian Genocide is not official to the international law and it is illegal , WHY? BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECOGNISED OR CARRIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE HAS HAPPENED. WIKIPEDIA CAN NOT BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHILE IT IS CONTAINING UNOFFICAL AND ILLEGAL ARTICLES. No body can accept or deny the Armenian Genocide in the Wikipedia, but there could be a word about massacres, but there is no evidence about any order given by Ottoman Government to kill the Armenians, this thing is disputed , so by calling that thing "genocide" in this article makes this disputed too.

Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow these:

• Neutral point of view
• What Wikipedia is not

--aozan

ah, you're the "ILLEGAL" guy from above. Look, WP doesn't need an international court decision for its articles. We need to observe:

• English use
• notability
• npov

instead of pointing out what is biased about the passage, you start ranting about international courts and illegality? It is you who should be reading up policy, sir. Are you suggesting we await an international court's verdict before we write about the London bombings, for example? I will do my third revert now, and then hope for other users watching this. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Putting a POV article is not against the Wikipedia policies, or it is not vandalism or something.If you said this thing in these thoughts --aozan

it is not vandalism. But since you don't make constructive suggestions as well as plastering the article with the banner, I trust that your edit will be considered inappropriate by most editors, und therefore reverted. we'll see. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

OK ask it to the editors, if any editor says that "this article can not be POV" I will accept his/her decision. Otherwise I will continue to putting POV. There was a POV also before. --aozan

And I want to say something more, about London bombings, we can say that London bombings were happened of course, there are documents and it is a fresh fact but we can not say yet which terrorist organisation did this thing yet until it is proved, Islami Jihad, Hizbullah, El-Kaide, Ensar El Islam, IRA, you can not write to Wikipedia who murdered this people until it is proved and recognised by the related official organisations, until these organisations find who did this thing , we can write only to wikipedia it as "Probably London Bombings were made by El-Kaide" until it become official and until it is proved . Otherwise someone can send a letter to police to defame, to accuse the Protestant Northern Irish people "I am talking for ERA , we take the responsibility" but this could not be a proof. But if Police Department says "it is done by ERA" you can write here it as it has done by them, otherwise you can not accuse anybody in Wikipedia. So you can not say Ottoman Government is responsible of these massacres , until it is proved enough, if it become official you can write it to here as they are the responsible.Of course in my opinion, so there must be a POV. But if it become official and proved that means you are right, in my opinion. Don't think that me as a Turkish nationalist, if it is proved and becomes official ofcourse I could accept your decisions , I don't have any problem with you or someone, and I hope the same thing for your thoughts about me, before everything we are human , I am human , You are human, the important thing is humanity, and to help each other to solve our problems. Cheers --aozan

ok, so are you saying you dispute the Ottoman empire was running these prison camps, until an international jury says it was? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a quite spurious objection. Who do you suppose ran the camps? The Incas? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

And there is no primary document,that supports "ottoman concentration camps" and also there is no primary document that supports that any order was given by Ottoman Government to kill the armenians, on the other hand I can't believe that Ottomans were Racist , because there Abdulhamid were appointed some Armenian viziers , for example Agop Kazazyan Pasha and Abraham Pasha, until it is proved by original documents this article can not be neutral -- aozan

of course there are documents, like Image:Armeniangenocide_Aleppo1915.JPG. Look, it's just about time to face the past. Nobody here is saying "Turks are evil" or anything. That's just some crazy thing that happened 90 years ago, and nobody aged 95- has anything any guilt from it, ok? It's a tragedy that people should look at and learn from, that's all. You are doing nobody a service by this sort of denial, least of all yourself, or the Turks of the present. dab (ᛏ) 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

No, the image that you showed is not containing information about any order that given by Ottoman Government to kill the Armenians, there must be a historical document about an order that given by Enver Pasha or Talat Pasha, to call these events "Genocide" these murder activities must be systematic, it should be called massacre until you show any primary document about an order or a plan to make an ethnical annihilation, also there were Non-Armenians killed in these events by Armenian Gangs between 1880-1918 -- aozan

this article is not naming any individuals. Nor should it, I agree, use the term "massacre". "Genocide" otoh is simply the current 'neutral' term for that sort of occurrence. I am not disputing the npov tag on the main articles, I don't know enough about the details to do that. For the sort of general reference we make on this article, there simply isn't any room for serious dispute. Go and try slapping an npov warning on holocaust, for that matter, and see how people react. dab (ᛏ) 9 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

OK , but by saying in there "ethnic annihilation" by Young Turks the article is naming individuals and a nation, if you can't show primary sources while using these sentences , there will be of course a disputed tag, this thing is a different thing from holocaust, see the Armenian Genocide there is a disputed tag on top of the page, so there is a need to be a NPOV ,you must show primary sources about that thing, if you can do that means you solved the situation on the Armenian Genocide page, you must show a primary source about an order or a plan that belongs to Ottoman Government or Young Turks to kill the Armenians, otherwise you can only use the word of 'massacre' in there, but if you insist on using the 'genocide' word , there will be a POV-- aozan

A genocide is a genocide Aozan. Do not try any of those denial lines, I have heard them too many times from Turks. The only reason why I am not reverting you this minute at Turkey is that I have filled my three revert quote, there.--Wiglaf 21:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, there was a word that "debated" about Armenian Genocide,in text of the Turkey's History article , so there is no need to delete it from there :-). -- aozan

yeah, grow up and read the genocide article. the genocide of your great-grandfathers is not what's keeping you out of the EU, if anything, it is the dodging of responsibility and honesty of the nationalists of this present generation. dab (ᛏ) 22:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Until the situation is solved , I will continue to put the disputed tag on the article, I asked it to an administrator, if he says "no" to me about this I will stop, on the other hand until you show a primary source about any order or a plan about this thing to make it a "systematical annihilation" like I said above (But you coludn't as I see) , I will continue to doing it. And about Turkey article , Armenian Genocide is not related with modern Turkey's history , like the Treaty of Lausanne and WW1 , you can write to Tukey's History to WW1, Treaty of Laussane , but you can't write there Young Turk Revolution, Armenian Genocide, because these events has no effect on today's Turkey's Society you can write this thing to Ottoman Empire History ,but there is no more reason to delete it because there is a word "debated" about that thing in there, cheers  :-) -- aozan

The inhumane Turkish cowards continue to unsucessfully try to change history. With all the evidence of the genocide, they still deny it and sadly invade articles. My great grandfather's family was slaughtered in front of his eyes as were many of my other ancestors by the Turks during their genocide in an attempt to get rid of all Armenians, all documented. Please leave this site alone and don't try to erase history that is not to your liking. We don't see neo-Nazis attacking the Holacaust's occurance on Wikipedia. Get a grip.

User:68.101.111.161

Aozan, you are being reverted by admins all the time. They don't get more of a say than other people. But if three or four admins think that your behaviouris problematic, it may be time to take some time to think about it. Anyway, you are not putting an argument. Putting up the npov banner requires you to present a precise discussion about your concerns. All you say is that you don't like the term. dab (ᛏ) 12:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

First my grandmother's mother murdered by Armenians in Mardin in 1914 too!! Second I will continue , until you show me primary evidence about any order or a plan , you can only accuse me , nothing more, if you are right so show primary documents, then I can accept the allegation , and you must write here what Armenian Terrorism is! -- aozan

So, it is a personal vendetta of yours against the Armenian nation. Note that this hardly makes your edits more likely to be accepted by other editors. Your demands for primary documents are outrageous since they presuppose that such documents must have survived and because they presuppose that such documents would be made easily accessibly by a goverment which still denies that it was a genocide.--Wiglaf 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

removed copy-paste of entire text of www.armenianreality.com/armenian_terror/armenian_terrorism_chronological_rundown.html — use hyperlinks please, WP is not googlecache. what sort of argument is this? "we didn't do it! they did it, too!". link to external references like this: [23]. The basic facts are not disputed by anyone but foaming Turkish nationalists. That doesn't really make for a better case than those of classical holocaust deniers. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the guys should be treated like holocaust deniers.--Wiglaf 17:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

welcome to the free world, where truth is not government-defined. Ask the Germans, they do have some bitter stuff in their recent history, and in general they do not such a bad job of putting up with it, and they have matured as a nation, dealing with this enormous historical guilt (of course there are a lot of idiots in Germany too, just like in Turkey, but at least they are hooted down in public). dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Germans in general have the courage to face their past, and the courage to openly discuss what has happened in their country.--Wiglaf 17:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Administrator

Aozan, I'm an administrator, and I am one of the people who has been reverting you. I think there is no question which side in this dispute is in line with Wikipedia policy, and it is not yours. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I do not see this article as 100% neutral. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• • "This last was to prove particularly disastrous, with two genocidal campaigns against the Armenians in 1894–1896 and 1915–1916."
  • "The worst persecution of Armenians took place in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. The years 1894 to 1896 witnessed persecution on a scale that bordered on genocide. This was followed in 1915 and 1916 by one of the worst cases of ethnic cleansing in modern history. With World War I in progress, the Turks saw the (Christian) Armenians as liable to ally with Imperial Russia, and chose to deal with the entire Armenian population as an enemy within their empire. The exact numbers of deaths in the latter period is a very controversial matter. The total number of victims is hard to establish. It is estimated by some sources that close to a million perished in prison camps. This excludes Armenians who may have died in other ways."

These statements are hardly NPOV. Also Jmabel, please do not bite the newcomers. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hence I see the {{NPOV}} tag aproporate. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aozan was invited to suggest alternative wordings, see above. Do you have a suggestion as to how to rephrase the passage you object to? I actually agree "Persecution in the Ottoman Empire" doesn't need its own subsection, but could be merged with the rest of the section. the template is for cases where your suggestions for compromise were turned down. If you propose better wordings, I am sure people will find a compromise. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, last thing I want is conflict. I will reword the phrases as you suggested. Good/bad thats open to debate. I sincerely believe all external referances to the Armenian Genocide should neither establish the incident as a fact or as fiction. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

First italicised sentence is the original form second is how I would reword.

This last was to prove particularly disastrous, with two genocidal campaigns against the Armenians in 1894–1896 and 1915–1916.

Events during the final years of the Ottoman Empier has arosed several serious accusations of Genocide, commonly referenced as Armenian Genocide, against the Armenians between 1915–1916.

I did remove one date referance as it is not covered in the linked article. I wrote this on-the-fly so typos may be present. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

that's fine, I suppose, although I don't know what to do with the "several accusations". There is really just a single accusation, namely, "these guys killed some 1.5E6 Armenians!"; How about "the persecutions during the final years of the Ottoman Empire are widely considered as being of genocidal nature,..." dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dab, here. It is not reasonable to brush away the death of at least hundreds of thousands of people as accusations. Do not try to hide the fact that it is widely considered to be a genocide under the pretext of NPOV!--Wiglaf 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I made a suggestion based on Coolcat's. I agree that the genocide was shoved into the readers face, a little bit. how is it now? dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable. Firstly from what I see we do not have any idea exactly how many died. Secondly it isn't necesarily a genocide from one perspective. Thirtiarily this article does neither discuss the history of armenians nor it discusses Armenian Genocide. This is like an article about electricity discussing newton as newton invented calculus making electricity and electonics a posibility. This or any article aside from Armenian Genocide present any views regarding the incident. Just a cloudy topic. If user cares to read about the mater as they should the remote article is sufficient. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Several accusations because there isn't one case or document discussing the matter. There are many cases and many documents. I just tried to emphesise that there arent two solid sides but many sides conflicting/agreeing on various points that are of no concern to this spesific article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is improvement but definately room for more. I suggest removing details regarding Armenian Genocide as with all due respect the entier topic is an international dispute. I am trying to NPOVise that peice so it supports neither view. Granted many people died. That is not something either side is denying. The numbers however are the reason of a significant disagreement. A range may work. Minimum suggested - Maximum suggested may work best or removing numbers completely to be discussed on remote article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The topic should not be discussed anywhere else than Armenian Genocide article as it will be a double reference. The topic is significant enough to have its own article and it does. All details belong to that article not here or anywhere else. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree, we could be guided by Jew#Persecution which simply gives a link to the main article. But it is also customary to give short summaries. In the present case, we have a similar summary both here and on Armenia, which is after all a tad redundant. (History of Armenia has the laconic World War I saw the depopulation of large parts of Historic Armenia ruled by the Ottoman Turks during the Armenian Genocide.'; we could also use that here.)dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How about something like below --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

World War I saw a decrease in population of large parts of Eastern Anatolia, also referanced as Historic Armenia, ruled by the Ottoman Empire commonly referanced as the Armenian Genocide.

um, no. largely for stylistical reasons, this time. the Ottoman Empire is commonly referenced as the Armenian Genocide? What's wrong with the sentence as posted from History of Armenia? Also, you seem to be unaware that the case is less ambiguous than the Turkish government would like you to believe, so be careful not to adopt weasle terminology that is really just thinly veiled propaganda. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What I ment was is below. I am suggesting it is a very serious, contraversial topic with lots of argument. We do not know for example how many people died accurately. Estimates are fine but they are estimates. So what I am trying to do is cover the topic as little as posible on external articles as it is a very important yet contraversial topic. I am not suggesting it insignificant, on the contrarary it is significant. I do not care who says what at this point as many parties, important historians, are conflicting each other. So for example if I say 300 people died inthe incident you willm say another historian says 600 etc. If I remember right arhives are conflicting each other. I am trying to make this a "No Point of View" rather than a "Neutral point of view" as there is high level of disagreement on almost any detail I can think of regarding the incident. Some parties are even dismissing its genocide status. Hence sticking to NO point of view is a lot better than a neutral point of view as the neutral point of view ends up being an article. Lenghtening this while sticking to NPoV is impossible IMHO. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell are you trying to fool this time? [Mr]. Coolcat? Been there, done that... and here goes again the Mr. "They treat me unfairly, I will leave" but never leave self admitted liar. BTW, when will you lunch another Arbitration? Fadix 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In sum I suggest sticking to a general statement which no party will disagree to. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

World War I saw a decrease in population of large parts of Eastern Anatolia, also referanced as Historic Armenia, ruled by the Ottoman Empire. This decrease is commonly referanced by some parties as the Armenian Genocide.

I seek perfection. I am trying to improve the statement you gave me. My statement does not hint/imply anything, the way it should be. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I do not see an opposition I am introducing that statement. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that the only reason you do not have opposition is because your change is so ridiculous that it doesn't even require any answer. The version already there seem to be NPOV already, which is BTW not "no opinion,"(or "no point of view") which is a concept that you have just introduced in Wikipedia, but rather NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW(Entirly DIFFERENT CONCEPTION, when will you understand what NPOV really means?). To think that you even oppose to the term "ethnic cleansing" here is even more problematic, and just further convince the reader the nature of your "worthlessness" here on this article. I will clarify so that you don't go cry telling I did not justify the revert. To think that it is the decrease of population that is called the Armenian genocide, is to completly ignore what a genocide is, as well as ignoring the subject at hand. There could have been a million, ten million, hundred of million Armenians in Turkey right now, it would have not changed a bit of the nature of the massacres in 1915. That there is no Armenian alive in Western Armenia picture the gravity of the crime, but in no way play a role in wherever or not there was a genocide there. Wikipedia will shine the day you respect your threat of leaving Wikipedia, I just, like many others, have enough of you. Truly yours, Coolcat. Fadix 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

hm, Coolcat, if you seek perfection, maybe you should start with concentrating on spelling. Or, for pity's sake, use a spellchecker. dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not care too much about spelling when npovising. One problem at a time. You have edit power. Why not spell check for me? I am not to great with spelling anyways. Since you are an expert you can assist me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Fadix the reason as discussed above. I do not want "ethnic cleansing" to apear here because the "revisionists" dispute it. What does the word Genocide mean? Why is it necesary to mention what it means here? There is a real disagrement on anything you said. Including how many people died. Since there is no scientific concensus in almost no part of the incident. Armenian genocide is not a "worthless" topic. That is why there is an article by that title. Oh and btw please do not spice the talk msg with referances to what migh have happened etc. I am not debating the armenian genocide here. I am debating how it should apear here. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There could have been a billion armenians. But original research is not wiki material. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's so unwiki of you. Again for the millinion[nt] time, Wikipedia present the major positions regarding a topic, and as well present some minority positions. It does NOT delete informations just because there are people that contest the nature of. There still are weirdos that contest that Earth is not flat, this doesn't mean the form of Earth should not be mentioned just because it is not agreed by everyone. What I agree is there should be an indication that Turkey reject the charges, and this was exactly what was done with Encarta, when the Turks protested to take the word genocide out. After continual debate, instead they added that Turkey reject the charges; because an Encyclopedia does present positions and do not supress them. When someone come here and read the entry, he/she should know that there is a clear position(the majority position), that a large scale massacre happened, and this massacre is called genocide by many, including the UN, and many other international bodies. And this, independently from if there was a decrease of Armenian population. It isen't the decrease that is called genocide, it is the nature of the massacre. As for ethnic cleansing, even Turkish historians like Mango that don't like applying the term genocide, use the term ethnic cleansing, the other side doesn't deny there was an ethnic cleansing, they just ignore or skip that word. Ethnic cleansing as well reffer to the result, that there was an ethnic cleansing can even not be debated, because not even the Turkish government would deny that term, knowing what it really means. Fadix 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

more to the point, there are weirdos who deny the Jewish holocaust. The holocaust article says it happened, and killed 5-6M Jews. Why is there no NPOV template on it? What do you think will happen if you try to put one there? We can state that the Turkish gov has its head stuck in the sand, but that doesn't make theirs a notable position. They are simply trying to deny things, just because they don't like it. NPOV doesn't mean that we should give spurious, or fringy, or hypocritical positions equal weight. WP would be a madhouse if we did. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever concerning the legitimacy of the term "genocide" as it concerns the Armenian Genocide

Any suggestion to the contrary is a partisan political issue stemming from efforts by the Republic of Turkey to distort and deny history. The term "genocide" was created - in large part - specifically to describe the deliberate killings of Armenians and destruction of the Armenian nation by the Turks. This is fact. Additionally the International Association of Genocide Scholars has recently very eloquently affirmed just why it is Genocide and how incontroversial the use of this term is. I post their letter to Turkish Prime Minister Erodogan now (and for additional discussion of this matter I refer those interested to the Armenian Genocide Talk pages):

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President: Robert Melson (USA) Vice-President: Israel Charny (Israel) Secretary-Treasurer: Steven Jacobs (USA)

Respond to: Robert Melson, Professor of Political Science Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA

April 6, 2005

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan TC Easbakanlik Bakanlikir Ankara, Turkey FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an "impartial study by historians" concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. Another million fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey's wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world's foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the "incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide" and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas's Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called "scholars" work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participant in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

[signed] Robert Melson Professor of Political Science President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

[signed] Israel Charny Vice President, International Association of Genocide Scholars Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

[signed] Peter Balakian Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities Colgate University

The Turkish view

Like it or not, the Turkish view exists. I've done my best to write a sentence describing the Turkish government's stance on the genocide. I don't have any notable expertise, and I may not have it quite right, but I think this is the best way to resolve this. To report accurately what the Turkish government says (1) is NPOV (2) should satisfy the few partisans of this position, and (3) for the rest of us, displays their denial for what it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The "Turkish View" concerning denial of the Armenian Genocide should be dealt with the same way as the Neo-Nazi "view" denying the Holocaust. (and I should add that not all Turks support this view and in fact it has been seriously challenged by a new generation of Turkish scholars who understand a bit of what integrity and scholarship is all about). Obviously we acknowledge it (that the current Government of Turkey denies the use of the term "genocide" and disputes aspects of the historical record) - but in serious circles this “Turkish View” (as it is called) deserves no credence - it is a political position and not a factual one. I would also argue that at best it might be presented within the Armenian Genocide discussion (again properly caveated) - though the nearly century long campaign of denial perhaps warrants its own Wikipedia entry itself. However I would no more expect to see denial of the Armenian Genocide in a section concerning Armenian history or culture then I would expect to see Holocaust denial in a section concerning Jewish history. To include such - to include unsupported heresy and non-credible and unsupported claims such as this (that the Genocide never happened or perhaps was not a genocide - when the entire historical record verifies that it was beyond any doubt - and then to give any credence to a position that attempts to place blame upon the victims...) well this is highly insulting to Armenians and to any who hold the truth in any regard and it is an entirely academically bankrupt position.

All that being said - I am highly in favor of a detailed and accurate presentation of the complete history - warts and all - as it were - in the Armenian Genocide section (so not every Armenian was perhaps a saint - no matter - it was still a genocide [even if one were to believe the highly exaggerated and in the majority of cases false Turkish accusations against "Armenians" used to justify the severe, inhumane and brutal actions taken] and there is nothing that can ever justify the barbaric, comprehensive application of state power - using official apparatus and sanctioned and directed proxy forces – and bloodthirsty religious based fanaticism and use of other motivations such as greed and jealousy - - that the CUP party employed to coral and incite the Moslem population of the Empire against specific ethno-religious civilian minority elements within the Ottoman population that resulted in their destruction in toto...and where this clearly was the aim of the policy and its enactment was pursued with no regard to human decency or concern of life – in fact it was pursued in the most brutal and barbaric means imaginable). These specifics need to be presented and discussed in the Wikipedia section specifically concerned with the Armenian Genocide and it should be referenced from here.

In this section I would expected that the Armenian Genocide be briefly referenced (with no language that aims to taint it or suggest it as falsehood - because it most certainly was not – and is not – as the denial and attempts to further obviate the Armenian presence in Anatolia and the truth of what occurred is ongoing and thus the Genocide is in fact continuing to this day!) and likewise readers should be made aware of its impact on today’s Armenians (creation of the Diaspora and the significance of the Genocide to all Armenians [survivors and descendents of survivors] from that time on and continuing to today as a result of the huge impact on all Armenian families and due to the ongoing Turkish denial – these are the relevant facts for this section…) - etc) and this article should clearly present why an Armenian presence is entirely lacking in their historical homeland of Eastern Anatolia and how this remains a sore point for Armenians – particularly of the Diaspora – comprised largely of Armenians whose families were “cleansed” from these areas - but also the article should highlight how Armenians have rebuilt themselves and are prospering throughout the world in spite of these loses.

This event – the Genocide – and all that it entails - is no less important and fundamental to the world view and psyche of modern Armenians as the Holocaust is to the Jews of today. To interject false revisionist propaganda into this section is most hurtful to Armenians and it has no basis in fact. Again - consider the Holocaust and how Jews feel (and how all of us should feel) when misguided individuals and such attempt to legitimize false revisionism in this regard and to use such to deny the Holocaust and disparage Jews - Armenians deserve no less consideration because this is exactly what is occurring and is being attempted by certain Turks and by the Turkish Government itself. The historical record is entirely clear concerning the causative factors, the buildup to genocide, the sequence of events, and the specific actions taken against the Ottoman Armenians and who bears responsibility. An overwhelming body of scholars, historians and academics have verified and legitimized this knowledge and nothing of the sort has ever occurred to legitimize the shameful "Turkish View". I am truly beginning to doubt the humanity of some folks around here in addition to wondering about their possession of intellect and the ability to understand things in a scholarly capacity. What more does one really need to say concerning this matter? --THOTH 10:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Turkish government realizes how much the denial damages their reputation and PR in the world. They have nothing to gain, since their policy is interpreted by most educated Westerners as dishonesty.--Wiglaf 10:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

the current approach would be the way to go on the main article. In this article, we only need to point to the main article, so details of the Turkish technical contortions are not needed. We can say the Turks deny anything happened, but we shouldn't allow the section to become too long. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was saying, both position should be presented, but as much space should be given to a position as it is supported in publications. If there is 100 vs 1 publications, it is expected that fold more place is left to the position that got 100 publication. Giving equal space is to mislead the reader into believing that two positions are supported equaly in the accademic world, when it isen't the cases. Fadix 15:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

23rd century BC?

User:Moosh88 recently added (in the lead) a claim that the Armenians can be traced back to the 23rd century BC. I am pretty certain this is wrong. I am removing it. In the unlikely event that I am mistaken, please provide a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You wanted a citation, here is one. It's from the book by M. Chahin, The Kingdom of Armenia: A history, Curzon, London, 2001. On page 182 it states "Thus Urartuian history is part of Armenian history, in the same sense that the history of the ancient Britons is part of English history, and that of the Gauls is part of French history. Armenians can legitimately claim, through Urartu, an historical continuity of some 4000 years; their history is among those of the most ancient peoples in the world." So this would take it back to about 2000 B.C. How did he got to 2000 BC? The answer is that the Urartuians were a Hurrian sup-group. The Hurrians appeared in northern Mesopotamia between 2500-2200 BC. They're home was the Caucasus mountains. 2200 BC would be the 23rd century BC, so my edit has historical proof.--Moosh88 17:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have nearly the knowledge of the ancient history of this region to say how relevant the Urartuians are to the Armenians. I will bow out of this and leave it to others to sort out, but I would suggest you reconsider, because this citation does not seem to me to be particularly favorable to the case for your edit, especially because your edit completely omits the distinction of Urartuians/Hurrians from Armenians. We certainly would not say that the history of the English people begins with the Britons (though we might say that for the Welsh, and even the Cornish), and it would be contentious to say that the history of the French begins with the Gauls. I suspect that the case here is similar, though the date at which there come to be an identifiable Armenian people is certainly at least a millenium earlier than the date for the English or the French. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This article is about the current Armenians of the world, who have Hurrian/Urartuian blood in them. Even before the Urartuian kingdom came to an end, Armenians had been mixing with the Urartuians. But it wasn't until the demise of Urartu, that the Urartuians adopted the Armenian language and the Armenians adopted certain aspects of Urartuian social, politcal and cultural institutions. The Urartuians thus became the Armenians and vice versa. On top of that modern Armenians claim descent from the Urartuians.--Moosh88 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The history of Armenia begins with Urartu, certainly; the history of the Armenian people, however, begins at earliest with the fall of Urartu. Also, the Urartians were not a Hurrian subgroup, but rather a relative of the Hurrians. - Mustafaa 11:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The history of "Armenia" begins with the cooling of the Earth's crust. That's completely offtopic. Urartu deserves mention as the predecessor of the Armenians in that area, and as an early influence. All statements to the extent "Urartu is Armenian" are nationalist nonsense. I imagine the Georgians have more claim to Urartu than the Armenians, but it's an ancient culture without direct continuity anyway. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Neutral point of view, doesn't end with the presentation of positions, but as well adding misplaced statments that don't really have a place in an article. While "Biblical Armenia" is allegedly milleniums BC, "Armenians" is another story. Fadix 19:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Urartians were a sub-group of the Hurrians. Before the rise of Urartu at about 850 B.C. Hurrian cheiftens ruled small areas until the cheiften of Tushpa (Van) united them. As for the georgians having more claim, I highly doubt that, since in almost all books about Urartu it is the Armenians who are mentioned. I don't know how much ancient history you may know, but you should do some reading on the topic. The Armenians have been around for a very long time and are one of the oldest peoples on the planet.--Moosh88 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I respect a NPOV.

The Armenians have been around for a very long time and are one of the oldest peoples on the planet.

define "Armenian". is there a particular mutation that makes you Armenian? Because, if being Armenian has anything to do with the Armenian language, Armenians can hardly be older than the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and probably younger than the Prygians. Before the 7th century, there may have been an Urartian identity, which made an impression on the later Armenian identity, but that doesn't make Urartians Armenians. The 23rd century claim is ridiculous. I could claim the French nation is aged 40,000 years because there are cave paintings in France. dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are to believe Herodotus, the Armenians were almost indistinguishable from the Phrygians as late as 500 BC. For dates as late as that, Herodotus is quite reliable, and to be taken serious. If you want to concentrate on ancient Armenian history, look to Phrygia, not to Urartu. dab (ᛏ) 07:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense

The sentence "Until modern times, the history of the Armenians is the history of Armenia" doesn't make any sense at all. Am I missing something? --Hottentot

• I think you are. It makes sense to me. I suspect that it is the closeness of the words that confuses the matter. It is grammatically parallel to "Until modern times, the history of the Magyars is the history of Hungary." Maybe it should say "Until modern times, the history of the Armenian people is the same thing as the history of Armenia as a geographic entity". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • makes sense, but is it true? it appears the area of modern Armenia was defined only in 1918 or so. Maybe some clarification is needed. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Like many longstanding national territories, Armenia has moved around a bit. Similarly for Poland. Yes, clarification might be in order, but the statement is not inaccurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The picture on this page is not representative

The picture is a poor representation of Armenians, as the guy on the left looks more like a Turk. (anon 1 Aug 2005)

What would a Turk be doing playing Armenian folk tunes outside of a church in the middle of Armenia? Dmn / Դմն 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out how unlikely it is that the man on the left is Turkish. Dmn / Դմն 01:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the picture needs to be changed. Also anon didn't imply that the guy was actually turkish just that it's not a typical Armenian phenotype. This page needs to have a picture that can give an idea what the majority look like.

numbers

since an anon just changed some population numbers, somebody should look into them, and if possible attribute them to specific censuses. dab (ᛏ) 07:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indo-European theory

I deleted the "little support" and "lack of credible linguistic evidence" part because Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to assess or evaluate existing scientific theories--that is not neutral point of view. To ensure neutrality and accuracy, we need to only present the current state of scholarship on the subject--that most scholars think Armenians came from outside, and a miniority think that they are native. That's it. It's the reader's job to read Ivanov and Gamkrelidze and others to decide whether it's credible or not. The "lack of credible evidence" part was added by 66.75.110.44 (on 07:27, October 13) without any explanation whatsoever--we don't know where he read that there is no "credible evidence". Actually, there is much evidence presented by Ivanov and others (it's not just these two)--mainly, the numerous direct loan words in the Proto-Indo-European from Semitic, Caucasian, and Sumerian languages, suggesting that PIE was spoken in an area enclosed by these languages (i.e. Armenian Highland). As much as we have our own knowledge of the subject and are tempted to make our own assessment, we need to resist that temptation for the sake of neutrality and accuracy.

Also, the "little support" part creates an appearance of non-neutrality as well. The article already says that most scholars agree with the Phrigian theory, while a minority suggests the nativity theory. First, it's redundant, and its additional mention seems to give extra "credence" to the majority theory (which is something that we as editors should not do), and second, "little support" give the reader the impression of "little evidence," which is not necessarily true when it comes to Ivanov's theory.

Third, Ivanov and Gamkrelidze do not limit the PIE homeland to lake Urmia. In fact, they place it in the area known as Armenian Highland.

Finally, it's not the "predessessors of the Armenian language" that were spoken in the area (there was only one predessessor--the PIE language), but, according to Ivanov and others, it was PIE and its derivative Armenian that were spoken there.

TigranTheGreat 13:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

of course there were "predecessors of Armenian" that post-dated PIE. All stages of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium BC in fact, that's 3,000 years of post-PIE, pre-Armenian dialects (the first preserved samples of Armenian dating to the 4th century AD or so). As for the qualification of academic theories, they are demanded by NPOV. We are not to give our own assessments, of course, but a fair evaluation of academic communis opinio. Do you have any idea what Wikipedia would look like if all theories were given equal weight, regardless of their acceptance among specialists? dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the US State Department Website as a source for ancient Armenian history.

Here is why I removed the link for "http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/a/29974.htm" and added "The first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC" The deleted part was added by me on August 11th, right before I opened this account. It read as follows:

While the 2003 U.S. Department of State website states that the first Armenian state was founded in 190 BC (http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/a/29974.htm), the official view traditionally accepted in modern Armenia, based mainly on Herodotus, Xenophon, and 6th century BC Persian records, is that the first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC.

10:35, August 11, 2005 172.192.39.110 (→History)

The text before my edit read "The first Armenian state was founded in 190 BC," which I clearly knew was wrong. I discovered that it was taken directly from the "Background Notes on Countries" page on the Department of State website. However, since Dbachmann asked for evidence of the 6th century Armenian state, at the time I didn't have time to look for non-Armenian sources (which are well known, as I will explain below), so I decided to leave the erroneous information, linking it to its source.

The problem is that the "Background Notes on Countries" page on Department of State website cannot be an authoritative source on ancient Armenian history. It can be on current statistics (population, etc), but their brief, uncited "historical" comments are not intended as a serious academic source, but mainly as a quick background info for someone who decides to travel to that particular country. So, as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't even use it as a source for ancient history.

Now, I have never seen any reputable academic source stating that the first Armenian state was established in 190 BC. What the clerk at the Department of State must have meant apparently (and got wrong), is that, after the defeat of Seleucids at the battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, Armenians restored their independence from seleucids. The state was restored, not first found The only other place I have seen the "first state was 190 BC" have been dubious Turkish websites filled with blatant misinformation including "Armenians committed the genocide of Turkish speaking Urartuans" etc.

Now, numerous sources, including Xenophone and Strabo, indicate that the Armenian kingdom existed by the early 6th century BC. This is not the "Urartu was Armenian or not" debate, this is something that's well established. For example, Strabo, in his Geography states that:

"In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity" Strabo, Geography, 11.13.5

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&layout=&loc=11.13.1

So, clearly he means that Armenian state existed before Cyrus and Astyages (6th c. BC).

Xenophon, in his CYROPAEDIA, says the same. Here is a conversation between Cyrus of Persia and the Armenian king (Cyropaedia, Book 3, verse 10):

[10] "Answer then," said Cyrus, "did you once make war upon Astyages, my mother's father, and his Medes?" "I did," he answered. "And were you conquered by him, and did you agree to pay tribute and furnish troops whenever he required, and promise not to fortify your dwellings?" "Even so," he said.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_xenophon_cyropedia_3.htm?terms=cyrus+business+furniture

Obviously, if the Armenian king was conquered by Astyages, he had an independent state before then. The same Book 3 of Cyropaedia is filled with references to the Armenian king being a king, and Xenophone was careful in distinguishing between kings and satrapes. Here are some segments:

[29] Say he may not sit upon the throne of Armenia, will he suffer from that as we shall suffer?

[4] And when the king learnt what had happened, scarcely knowing where to turn, he fled to the summit of a certain hill.

[5] So the mass of the army was collected under Cyrus, and then he sent a herald to the king with this enquiry: "Son of Armenia, will you wait here ..."

[7] Meanwhile Tigranes, the elder son of the king

[9] Nay," answered the king, "ask me whatever you will"

[13] But the king sat silent and perplexed

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_xenophon_cyropedia_3.htm?terms=cyrus+business+furniture

There are dozens of references in all of Cyropaedia referring to Armenia as kingdom.

Now, these two authors are two of many sources speaking of an Armenian state existing in early 6th century BC. Given the fact that this is a well established fact, the sentence should read "The first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC"--TigranTheGreat 02:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. The first Armenian Kingdom and Commagene were ruled by the Orontid dynasty. The Artaxiads restored the Kingdom.--Eupator 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Eupator. Am I not supposed to marry your daughter or something? :) --TigranTheGreat 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Martin the Armenian"

I have cut the following recent addition, pending a better citation.

Since the arrival of "Martin the Armenian," one of the 102 original Mayflower settlers, Armenians have dispersed all throughout the United States.

The only online reference I could find to a "Martin the Armenian" on the Mayflower is Afterthoughts to Thanksgiving: Excerpts from remarks at an Armenian Thanksgiving celebration in Pasadena by Fr. Vazken Movsesian November 29, 1997. This might even have been a joke, it's hard to tell, but the Complete Mayflower Passenger List, which I don't believe is a matter of much contention, lists no such person. The only Martins on the Mayflower were Christopher Martin, and his wife Mary, both of whom died the first winter at Plymouth. I am not aware of any reason to think they were Armenian. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I don't know whether he was on the Mayflower, but Martin the Armenian is indeed a historical figure--the first recorded name of an Armenian-American. He is first mentioned in 1618 in Virginia, though he could have been there earlier, and maybe arrived there on Mayflower. There are many mentions of him on the Internet. Here is one, from an article complete with citation and bibliography: "... "Martin the Armenian" established himself in the tobacco business of Virginia in 1618 ..." http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/us_armenians.htm. --TigranTheGreat 09:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Jmabel couldn't find more on Martin the Armenian, but a simple Google search brings many hits on him. He has been mentioned in many Armenian books and a court document in which he testifies has been found, so we know he existed and is not a joke. The reason for much of the confusion though is due to the unfortunate dominating notion that anyone who came to America in those first years came on the Mayflower to Plymouth Colony. Martin actually arrived in America before the Mayflower and settled in Jamestown Colony, Virginia. That is probably why you couldn't find more on "Martin the Armenian" and the Mayflower, but a simple search of just Martin the Armenian yields a lot about him. -- Vartan84

Why couldn't I find more? Simple: the claim was that he was on the Mayflower. The passenger manifest of the Mayflower is well-documented. I checked it. He wasn't there. It wasn't my job to track it any further. (Actually, it wasn't my job to track it even that far: the person who adds information to the article is supposed to cite sources.) -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamshenis

Shouldn't hamshenis be mentioned in this ?

They consider themselves armenian. As far as ive heard, most armenians do consider Hamshenis "armenian" - a different kind of armenian, but armenian nonetheless—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renk210 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2005.

That's not what the Hamshenis says. --Khoikhoi 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed the picture

I don't think the previous one had a good selection of prominent Armenians. This one has a longer span from, Tigranes to Ambartsumian and includes a female.--Eupator 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

60,000 in Iraq

Wikipedia is not a properganda machine, according to "6" [[24]] the referal; I clicked on it and said:

"After Iraq's revolution of 1958, political instability resulted in Armenian emigration from Iraq. The Armenia community there now numbers about 10,000."

So how did you come up with 60,000? Chaldean 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

SEARCHING TO:HO LIVED ISTANBUL FROM ARMANIAN FAMILY

SEARCHING TO:HO LIVED ISTANBUL FROM ARMANIAN FAMILY

HIII;

I AM SEARCHING ARMANIAN FAMILY WHO LIVED IN ISTANBUL.BECAUSE OF THEIR LIE, FAMILY, FAMILY SHEETS, OLD ARMANIAN HOUSE WHICH IN ISTANBUL.. SO THAT IF ANYBODY CAN HELP ME ABOUT IT SEND MAIL TO ME....

EXACTLY FAMILY F THESE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM LAST CENTURY OR NEW GENERATION FROM THEM 1- DIMITRI 2-GEORK 3-ANGELIDIS 4-ANGELIDES 5-ERIH 6-RODI [email protected]

Why was the picture removed?

Why on earth was the picture removed?--Eupator 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Who removed it?--Moosh88 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea! Someone put it back. 24.205.27.237 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

I think this page needs to be updated a litte bit. -->[25] --Karaman 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do.--Eupator 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly interesting the issues about Turks in Wikipedia my friend.--Karaman 11:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted some input on the issue of who the Armenians are related to

The genetic testing done (in numerous studies in Armenia) indicate a close relationship with their neighbors (yes both Georgians and Azeris), while there is no discernable relationship with the Greeks. The people doing the tests include Armenians by the way. I'm at a loss as to how the Armenians are connected to the Greeks here. Since we're not naming the Azeris to avoid messy edit wars, I thought I'd just add Peoples of the Caucasus instead to make it general. I think we need to remove the Greeks as a related people as that relationship is highly questionable, while the relationship to their neighbors appears more likely. Or we could just leave that they are related to the Hamshemis, but it seems absurd to believe that the Armenians are somehow unrelated to their neighbors after millenia of co-existence. Tombseye 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You have confused the Armenian nation with the Armenian ethnic group. Not all Armenians originate from the Caucasus, therefore you are incorrect in asserting that. Of course genetic testing done in Armenia will indicate a close relationship with its neighbors, but how about the 5 million Armenians of the diaspora? Hakob 06:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Well, the Armenians are an Indo-European people linguistically and obviously invaded the Caucasus and evolved into the current Armenians and then they moved out to other places. The related section would still be accurate in that, at least 3 mil. are related to peoples of the Caucasus. If you have evidence supporting other relationships, then by all means add it. I wasn't trying to exclude other Armenians, I was simply trying to make the article as factual as possible based upon some sort of evidence (in this case genetic tests). Tombseye 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayasa

I cannot see a good reason why Hayasa is not regarded as the starting point of the Hai people. Assuming that the -asa is a version of "assa", which means "land", it is as clear-cut as anything one might wish for the earliest recorded Armenian state. I don't understand why we must wait in the chronology until Greeks or Medes misname the people (who call themselves Hai) as Armenoi or some such. Furthermore, the alternative name for Hayasa, the name Azzi, is essentially identical to the word Azk (where -k presumably denotes plural) in Armenian, which means "nation". What else does one need to set the "official" beginning of the nation to the first mention of Hayasa?

It seems there are two extremes of "orthodox" views, and a "reconciliation" of the two, which is basically the worst of the both worlds, and all miss the point of what defines a nation, not to mention common sense.

Version 1 (Herodotus): Armenians are Phyrigian colonists. Herodotus was so wrong about so many "origins" that it is incredible to see it taken as the basis of a supposedly mainstream viewpoint. A desire to be connected directly to the Europeans (via the Phrygians) can explain that version of Orthodoxy. Not a good reason.

Version 2 (Soviet Union and then Armenian republic): Armenians are Urartu. The first Armenian kingdom was the Urartu kingdom. A desire to be connected to the kingdom that actually ruled where the current Armenian republic exists and the fact that Hayasa was (presumably) much farther to the west of that land explains the favoring of Urartu and relegating of Hayasa to "one of the constituent tribes". Not a good reason.

Version 1+2: Armens come, conquer, and assimilate the Urartu people, all without being recorded, with no major wars or massacres. And between the fall of Urartu in 580 BC and the "appearance" of "Armenia" in 520 BC, with no previous record of aggressive state-building or assimilating other peoples, they erase all traces of Urartu identity in mere 60 years. And then they retreat to become a fairly docile client kingdom for much of the rest of their existence. Does this make any sense at all?

Seems to me that the "published" and "respectable" "sources" (of opinion and not much more it seems) are the ones to be viewed with suspicion. The mainstream "consensus" is no more than a group of scholars parroting one another about emotionally-based hypotheses and a clumsy reconciliation of the two groups of speculations. --71.107.251.90 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We can mention all of that. But those are all just theories. We cannot dismiss one theory over the other. --Eupator 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your open mind. If the linguistic merit of Hayasa-Azzi is presented, the importance of "Hye" and "Az" self-designation is stressed, and a reasoned critique (that I tried to give) of what passes as "conventional wisdom" is presented along with it, it would be quite good for now. I agree that omitting the "conventional wisdom", however silly I might feel it is, would be unwise. People would simply assume that the deviation from oft-repeated narratives is "nationalist history". Note that I am not disputing the probable fact that Armenians are anthropologically a mixture of native Anatolians, caucasus people, as well as invaders/immigrants from the east, west, north, and south. Mixing happens all the time, and we cannot date the beginning of the nation based on the time when some preferred (for whatever reason) mixture happened. The exact makeup of a nation changes from day to day; there is no end to it. But a coherent nation that called itself Hay seems to predate both the Phrygian arrival in Anatolia and the Urartu Kingdom by hundreds of years. It would be good to devote to this definition of "when it all started" at least as much space as that devoted to the conventionally repeated theories. Thanks again for your efforts.--71.106.136.135 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Amateur

There are many problems with that. See the article for Hayasa-Azzi. Most historians and linguists think that they spoke a Hurrian language. Looking for a linguistic link between Hayassa and Hay or Azzi and Azg is not what one would consider as a solid fact. We can mention with a citation that some believe that Hay and the name Haik are derived from Hayasa. Anything beyond this is speculation.--Eupator 14:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "most historians and linguists think that they spoke a Hurrian language". And if we conduct a survey and find out that they indeed do think that, it would be without any factual basis nevertheless. In the absence of direct linguistic records, the same linguists and historians would most likely think Hittites "probably spoke a Hurrian language", as well, based on their neighborhood. At some point we must recognize circular thinking for what it is. We just don't have any record or even circumstantial evidence for the nature of the language of Hayasa. But that's not the crucial point. The point is what they called themselves. If Hay-asa --> Hay-assa == "Land of Hays" in Hittite and Az-g --> "Nation" in Armenian qualify as mere speculation, then Herodotus' story, as well as the quick melting of Urartians into Armens qualify as something substantially less. And I was proposing an equal footing for these "speculations". You cannot call the "Hayasa-Azzi is the origin" anything less than whatever you call "Armenians are Phrygian colonists" or "Urartu was the first Armenian kingdom", or "In sixty years following the Urartu state, Armens completely assimilated the (supposedly distinct) Urartu people and erased any memory of Urartu". Well, you can call it "more speculative", but that would be simply wrong. Just give the Hayasa-Azzi the respect it deserves in the context of what we know, what we don't know, and what we can rationally surmise. Their being presented as just one of the constituent proto-Armenian tribes is inappropriate. Regarding Hayasa-Azzi as the proper starting point of the "Hay" nation must at least be presented as an equally valid possibility as the Phrygian hypothesis or the amalgamation theory. Thanks.--71.106.136.135 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Amateur

Scientists assume they spoke Hurrian based on their names, all of their names in Hittite inscripions were Hurrian. This doesn't mean that they were Hurrian since Hittites had Hurrian names as well. You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you speak of the lack of evidence regarding Hayasa (amateur linguistics are not evidence) on the other hand you propose to place it on an equal footing with a quite logical hypothesis (Phrygian) supported by Classical sources, lingustics and a good number of modern scholars and the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov theory. How should it then end up on an equal footing with the other two? Other than the similarity of the names Hay and Hayassa we have nothing else. Feel free to write a paragraph that suits you and present it here though.--Eupator 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. This is getting long. Without explicitly admitting, you concur that the same "historians and linguists", in the absence of written records, would think that the Hittites were Hurrian, and they would be dead wrong.

Perhaps.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We have Hittite inscriptions, and we don't have Hayasa inscriptions. That's all there is to it. We cannot know with certainty the language of Hayasa.

That's what I wrote in the article I created for Hayasa.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not about the exact nature of the language spoken in Hayasa. It's about how they designated themselves, and the linguistic evidence I give is entirely independent of what Hayasa spoke. You can reasonably interpret Hayasa in Hittite as "Hay-land", and Azzi as the origin of the word for "nation" in Armenian.

That's just a speculation based on word play, reasonable enough to be mentioned but that's it.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayasa was neighbors with Hittites and Luwians, both speakers of Indo-European languages.

They were also neighbours with Ishuwa and Kaskas who spoke an unknown language and Hurrians to their South and East where there were states like Kizzuwatna--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayasa-Azzi dealt with those people for a long time, and eventually were incorporated into the Hittite empire. There is a better than even chance that they spoke an indo-european tongue at that point if not earlier, and undoubtedly colored by Hurrian influences. Whatever.

Either case you're jumping into original research. I have no objection in including any information that's sourced and verified as long as it's not by the likes of Aivazian or Kavoukjian.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Phrygian hypothesis is "quite logical" you say. It's only "logical" if you use circular logic and ignore antything that contradicts it. According to the said "classical sources" (i.e. Herodotus), Phrygian is the "oldest language" and the basis of all other languages. The poor guys did not know of any earlier cultures than the Phrygians (who by the way left only a minute amount of linguistic evidence behind).

Accoridng to Heorodotus Pharaoh Psammetichus I thought the Phrygians to wee older than the Egyptians on the basis of the word bekos.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as they were concerned, "Phrygian" was another way of saying "as old as we can imagine".

Highly unlikely. --Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So it was their perception of Armenians. And how do we explain the speedy disappearance of Urartu when those oh-so-efficient assimilators called Armens gobbled them up with no trace in a mere sixty years, with no contemporary record of their march across Anatolia, and an abrupt stop to their aggressive nature right after that?

Never heard of the Mushki I guess.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And why do Armenians call themselves Hay, if those mythical Armens were the driving force for the formation of the Armenian nation? Given those big holes, how can "logic" lead one to conclude that 520 BC is the "most reasonable" date for the beginning of the Armenian nation proper?

The only thing I disagree with is the date but for reasons very different than you have outlined.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

These are supposed to be more "reasonable" and more "based on solid fact" than the Hayasa-Azzi origination point?

There is no point! All you have is the name Hayassa sounding like Hay.--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorenatsi's history, when interpreted rationally, contains much more reliable information than what Herodotus makes up for lack of any knowledge preceding Phrygians.

Yes, quite reliable especially when given it was written and modified up until the 9th century under a heavy Biblical tone. Read Thomson's analysis.

I understand that you don't want to deviate even a nanometer from the orthodoxy. Fine. When I want to read about incestuous scholarship about antiquity, I will keep Wikipedia in mind as a good source for it. Better yet, I'll just read some more of the "scholarly" books, whose authors pat each other's backs and cite one another as "known facts". I am no stranger to academia, and have enough respect for "expertise", but also enough exposure to the hilarities that "experts" even in hard sciences pontificate, and how incestuous research or scholarship can be. When it comes to a thinly populated area such as ancient Armenian history, "expertise" is next to meaningless. Just thought I would let people hear that. Good bye and good luck.--71.107.251.90 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up so soon. Wikipedia encourages to be bold.

Some food for thought below of which I'm not the author of.

The earliest attestation of peoples in what would historically be known as Armenia (i.e. the land about Lake Van and north) didn't include Indo-European speaking peoples. If the Urarteans are indicative, the languages of the land before the ethnogenesis of the Armenians were Hurrian and Caucasian speaking. Since there are affinities between Hurrian and Caucasian languages, we can say that the whole of Trans-Caucasia was Hurro-Caucasian in speech.

We have the names of places, tribes and persons from Hittite, Assyrian and Urartean sources which just about exclude an Armenian presence, spanning the period from about 1400 to 650 BC. From Hittite sources (c. 1400-1200 BC), we have the names of rulers and kingdoms which existed to the east of the Hittite Empire, including the kingdoms of Azzi (or Hayasa), Ishuwa, and Alshe. Further east we have the Hurri-land. The names of the rulers of these kingdoms are more or less decisively Hurrian. When we turn to the Assyrian sources (c. 1360-650 BC) we have the same pattern of Hurrian names. The same is true of the Urartean sources (c. 850-750 BC).

Evidence for an Armenian origin in the west include the fact that among modern languages, Armenian displays enough of an affinity with Greek to postulate a time before the formation of Greek and Armenian of a "Southern Group" of Eurasian proto-languages which included Greek, Thracian, Armenian, and Aryan (Adrados, 1982) or a "Aryo-Graeco-Armenian" nucleus (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov, 1985). The Balkans could have been the origin of the Armenian language considering that further north, we have evidence of Iranian languages spoken on the Ukrainian steppe, and of course, further south of Greek. Add to this, the evidence of a Luwian influence on the Armenian language shows at one time that the proto-Armenians had an association with the Luwians, which inhabited western Anatolia. The tradition recorded by Herodotus that the Armenians were "Phrygian colonists" may not be far from the truth, considering that what is known of the Phrygian language also points to an affinity with Greek.

Both the names "Armenian" and "Hayk" may have been acquired names as the proto-Armenians made their way from the Balkans to their ultimate destination to the land about Lake Van, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Hittite Empire by the Sea Peoples. The Assyrians record of an invasion of their empire about 1165 of a people called the Mushki. After about 50 years they invaded the province of Kadmukhi, a Hurrian-speaking Assyrian province immediately to the northwest of Assyria itself, but were destroyed by the Assyrian king Tiglathpileser I. The remnants settled in a small region in the mountains northwest of Mesopotamia. It was these remnants that more than 300 years later were encountered by the Assyrian king Assurnasirpal who subjugated them. Later we know of a place called Urme within the region called Shubria, near where these Mushki had settled. If this place was the origin of the Armenians, then we have an historic link which brought Mushkians into an area which perhaps was the ethnogenesis of the Armenians.

We later encounter Mushki in the reign of Sargon II of Assyria, beginning about 715 BC. These Mushki were not the same as those encountered by his predecessors, but rather a group at this time forming a formidable kingdom in Anatolia, under their king Mita. This name coupled with the chronology shows that the king in question was none other than Midas, king of Phrygia. Hence, we now have a connection between the Armenians and the Phrygians, both perhaps having their origins with the Mushkians. The Phrygians were either the western component of the Mushkians, or, if Herodotus is to be believed, were originally the Brigians of Macedonia where a Midas ruled near the later first capital of the Macedonians, and subsequently migrated into Anatolia, where they gave their name to the Troad (Hellespontine Phrygia) and to the large mass of land to the west of the Halys (Phrygia), and took the name of the people who predominated in that area.

The first time we know directly about Armenia and the Armenians, is in the Behistun inscription of Darius, c. 521 BC, where the "land" of Armina is first mentioned with the name of a loyal satrap with an Iranian name.

There is no debate that the Urarteans became a part of the Armenian population. When this occurred is problematic considering that for a time, during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, we hear of both Armenians and Urarteans (Alarodians, in Greek) as co-existing. The Persians seemed to have created separate provinces if we are to believe Herodotus. "Armenians" was included in the Thirteenth province and "Alarodians" was part of the Eighteenth, (Herod. Book III, 93 & 94). In the march of the 10,000, Armenia seemed to have continued to be governed by two separate Persian governors. True unification didn't seem to have occured until the reign of Tigranes II (c. 94-56 BC). It was probably at this time that the Alarodians were ultimately absorbed.

Now, since we can identify Armenians and Urarteans as separate peoples in an earlier time, we can at least isolate which group had primacy. This obviously goes to the Urartians, whose records show that they did invade and conquer as far north as Colchis and as far west as Cappadocia. Between Urartu (south of Lake Van), Colchis and Cappadocia were kingdoms and tribes which bore names of Hurro-Caucasian origin. Therefore the region of the Armenian (or proto-Armenian) language must be sought either southwest or further west. Armenian does show borrowings from Urartean but it also shows borrowings from Luwian as well. Therefore there was a time of association with peoples originally from western Anatolia, which again shows the probable origin of the Armenian language. From the west or southwest, the proto-Armenian language penetrated the region of Hurro-Caucasian languages and eventually absorbed the speakers of these now extinct languages.

And you are correct, in the Behistun inscription, what is called Armina in Persian was called Urastu in the Babylonian translation. However, what is meant by the two terms bares on the history of the Persians and Babylonians regarding this northern region. The Babylonian term is obviously the more ancient term, being a derivation of the Assyrian term Urartu (more anciently, Uruatri, meaning "mountainland" and thus originally described a region, not a people. It was only later that one of the Nairi tribes to the south of Lake Van named the Biainili gained political possession of the whole of Urartu and hence the name of the region became the name of both kingdom and people.

The region to the north of Lake Van was a smorgasbord of other kingdoms and tribes. The Urartian kingdom expanded into this region and after several generations of wars, incorported this region into their empire. From the standpoint of the Assyrians and Babylonians, this expanded northern region (on all sides of Lake Van) was simply "Urartu", named after the southern kingdom.

The Persian term Armina did not have a direct version in either Urartean, Assyrian, and Babylonian, and therefore was newer. The Armenians inhabited the region north of Lake Van sometime after the Urarteans were driven back into their original abodes south of Lake Van probably by the Cimmerians, c. 700 BC, after much ethnic turmoil. When the Medes gained possession of these northern regions by about 585 BC, the inhabitants were probably Armenians, although the land-name does not occur in written record until the Behistun inscription, c. 513 BC.

It is thus to be understood that both the Persian and Babylonian land-names on the Behistun inscription were the same, but named after two different peoples, one in the south and the other in the north. Each people at different times was considered the representative of the land encountered by expanding outsiders.

Hayasa was also called Azzi. Hittite narrative has them border their Upper Land which they invaded when Suppiluliumas was crown prince. It is thus understood that Azzi/Hayasa was directly northeast of Khatti east of a line extending southwards towards the terminus of the northern part of the Euphrates. This would comprehend the northeasternmost part of classical Armenia and perhaps the southwesternmost part of classical Colchis. However, we need to give pause to examine the linguistic position of this region. The whole of the region of Armenia (sometimes also referred to as Transcaucasia) was probably Hurrian, Hurrian-related, Caucasian, or even related to Hattian (some consider Hattian as the westernmost Caucasian language). The very region of the later Urartu was, according to some scholars, the location of the "Hurri-Land". Hayasa may have been a name later adopted by the proto-Armenians when they had settled the region, much in the same way that the Thracian Slavs adopted the name of the Turkic Bulgars.

The Saspires for instance are mentioned six times by Herodotus. They lived between Colchis and Media apparently in northeastern Armenia (Herod. Book I.104.1; I.110.2; IV.37.1; IV.40.1). The Matienians are mentioned 8 times. They were the southeastern neighbors of the Armenians with the northernmost limit of the Tigris as boundary. Their land is described as mountainous with the Tigris, Gyndes, and the Araxes rivers flowing through it (Herod. I.189.1; I.202.3; . This comprehends the southeastern part of Armenia and westernmost Media. The Armenians, by contrast are only mentioned three times. They were said to be next to the Cilicians (Herod. Book V.49.6) with the Euphrates as boundary (Book V.52.3) and next to the Matieni with the upper Tigris as a boundary between the two. This indicates that the Armenians inhabited the whole of western Armenia to Lake Van. The Alarodians were only mentioned twice in association with others in this group but without geographical context. They must by mere implication be placed in central Armenia in the region of Lake Van. Since they were the original Urarteans, their status as a major group is assured.

Using the Persian inscriptions to disprove their existence misses the whole point. Darius is concerned with "lands", not peoples. His "lands" comprised many peoples. Its just like saying that Aeolians, Dorians, Lycians, and Carians did not exist just because they were not mentioned in the inscriptions. They were all part of the "land" of Yauna which is mentioned in the inscriptions. Nothing, therefore can be proved or concluded by using the Persian inscriptions.

Using Anabasis proves nothing either. I need to point out that the route of the 10,000 took them through the province of Western Armenia (Xen. Anab. IV.1) and thus not in the area of the peoples mentioned by Herodotus. What is curious is that Western Armenia was not purely Armenian either. Armenia originally stretched northward to the Black Sea (Herod. III.93.1). By the time of Xenophon, Armenia's northern limit was a branch of the Araxes called the Phasis (not to be confused with the Colchian river by that name). To the north of this Phasis, were peoples formerly included in Armenia known as the Chalybes, Taochi, and the Phasians, which blocked the way of the 10,000 (Xen. Anab. VI.3). It's also curious to note that the region known as Carduchia can be seen to have also been included in Armenia, since it also was a part of the ancient Urartian kingdom.

--Eupator 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Eupator said: "Don't give up so soon. Wikipedia encourages to be bold."

That is evidently quite wrong. The offhand dismissal of anything that doesn't agree with the "official narrative" as speculation and "highly unlikely" and the like and then dumping the same old irrelevant literature (assuming I don't know about them?) as some sort of a pixie dust against heresy for good measure, how shall I say it, does not motivate me to stick around. That's quite within the rights of the "editors" that do this as a labor of love. I respect that part. I just think that you are simply wrong in your cavalier dismissal of my thesis, and more seriously wrongheaded to view the orthodoxy as anything other than pure speculation.

You mention Herodotus' account of what the pharaoh thought. Yes, I remember that, and that's basically what I was referring to. How accurate was that account of Phrygian ancientness? How about "completely wrong"? Pharaoh or no pharaoh. Herodotus didn't know anything more ancient than Phrygians in Anatolia. Place names in Anatolia can be sensibly deciphered consistent with local geographical features using Luwian. Greeks had no idea of the Luwian and Hittite predecessors and their language and confidently concocted stories to explain the names of the places they occupied after Phrygians. What makes you think they had any more clue about Armenian origins than about the soil on which they were standing.

You mention that Khorenatsi was critiqued and found unreliable and tainted by Biblical references. With all due respect, alllow me to exclaim "duh!". Of course his history was full of added fluff. So what? We don't care what he wrote to please his masters, they are easy to spot and to throw away. What we should care about are the mythical king names he gives, and their order. You can even surmise how Scythians contributed to the Armenian ancestry: the "king" Skayorti, almost literally meaning "child of Scythian", most probably meaning the children born after the rape and plunder done by the Scythian invaders in the land of Urartu. None of the others are "orti" of anyting. You also find Aram, which is corroborated by Assyrian sources as an early Urartian king. But all those come after the "patriarch", the first, which (not really "who") is Hayk. Not Armenak, not Skayorti. Hayk. Just interpret those mythical king names as the names of the peoples that mixed into the Hayk, and you got as much as you can out of Khorenatsi as far as I am concerned. Very brief, but very valuable information. And with Hayk, you have your "beginning". Not Armenak. Not Aramais. Hayk. Khorenatsi probably wrote down what was passed down in oral tradition before it was obliterated and forgotten. As such it is extremely valuable. Dismiss that information to your own intellectual peril.

You mention "Mushki", I don't know exactly to what end. I know that some try to equate them with Armens. All I care is that they didn't call themselves Hay, or even "Armen" for that matter as far we can tell (and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, they didn't call themselves Hay as far as we know). Mushki is Mushki. They probably melted into the Hay nation in time, after they gave their name to Mush. So what? You can speculate about who the Mushki were until the cows come home, and it won't have any relevance to the Armenian origin. If we keep chasing after peoples that didn't call themselves Hay, we lose the right to criticize those who extend Armenian origins to 10,000 BC on the basis of anthropology, even if those populations wouldn't know Hay from wheat. Or we would have to use unjustifiable double-standards, and we wouldn't want to be caught doing that, would we?

Again, I apologize for mistaking Wikipedia for a place where nonsensical orthodoxies could be put in their proper place, since presumably no one's grant money is hinging on the approval by their "mafia", err, "colleagues", and a grand total of three people with similar axes to grind does not constitute "broad agreement by repsectable experts", who are bound to be not the brightest bulbs around for sheer lack of incentives to go into the field. That was the only demonstrably erroneous assumption on my part. But I do understand why you want to stick with them. Thanks for devoting the time to discuss anyway.

I will respectfully withdraw now.--71.107.251.90 21:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Amateur

You are misusing the discussion page of the article by arguing your pov, original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. You need to cite verifiable sources. Your interpretation of Khorenati is interesting to me but other than that it is of no value to this article. As it stands now you presented 90% pointless rhetoric on which we can argue for days (in a private forum or my user discussion but not here). In addition if you want others to take you seriously you need to get off that horse wih high heels.--Eupator 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that my discussion in the discussion page was against the rules. I hoped discussing one's POV was a legitimate use of the page. After all, if all that is allowed is passages lifted from sources, with no interpretation or a filtering process based on reason, there would be no need for "discussion" at all. One would simply edit the main page and let the "editors" edit to their liking. As for "original research", my POV might qualify as "original thought" in a few places, but probably not "original research", since I am not working with primary sources. I am simply using the filter of rationality mercilessly without regard to whether the writer is a part of the establishment or not. If the result contradicts what people have come to regard as conventional, so be it. As for "verifiable", most of the conventional conclusions in the usual books are not verifiable; they are speculations that a few pioneers deemed appropriate, and they stuck. But I digress. I can give a prior source for the interpretation of Khorenatsi, though: Kegham Kerovpian, "Hayots Avantagan Badmutyun", published in Istanbul, 1968.

As for the "horse with high heels", now there is interesting imagery. Hmm. I will only say that we have opposite views about who is acting like being mounted on a high horse. Thanks for your labor of love anyway.

Edit: I want to clarify that I do understand the "original research" definition of Wikipedia, and that it is quite broad, including a re-constitution of what's out there in secondary, or tertiary sources. I understand that it applies to the main article itself, and not the discussion page. In any case, in the unlikely event that I will gather the time and energy to publish "in the appropriate venues" what I discussed, and I am still alive by then, perhaps the main page would be updated accordingly. Sorry for the bother. Sincere thanks to the volunteer editors once again. --71.107.251.90 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Amateur

I just wanted to re-enter a portion of what I had written before, which was (presumably by accident) partly deleted and partly misformatted when Eupator responded to my arguments within the body of what I had written. The snippet below is better left in than out:

"The proposal is not about the exact nature of the language spoken in Hayasa. It's about how they designated themselves, and the linguistic evidence I give is entirely independent of what Hayasa spoke. You can reasonably interpret Hayasa in Hittite as "Hay-land", and Azzi as the origin of the word for "nation" in Armenian. What happened to the rest of the Hay language later on is secondary. Irish speak English now, but they hardly regard themselves as English, and we would be fools to declare that the Irish nation started when we have written records from them in their modern language, English, or when someone decided to call them "Irish" in English. So please understand that there is nothing contradictory about what I have said."

Regards to all,--71.107.251.90 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Amateur

Armenians in the US

The number, supposedly derived from census figures, is ridiculous. It is a drastic undercount and against common sense. Clearly the census questions do not cover those Americans who still regard themsleves Armenian but do not speak Armenian at home. Even those who can speak may often answer that the primary language at home is English, which is quite realistic for families that have been in the US for more than a decade or two. Whatever he reason, the figure needs to be estimated indirectly from other data. 71.107.251.90 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, US Census numbers on "white" ethnicities are undercounts. We really need a good discussion of that somewhere, but to the best of my knowledge we don't have one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • US Census data should stand. There is no better source and to extrapolate data from other sources would erode the credibility of this section--Calgvla 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Trying to fix a wrong ISBN, I made this edit. It's possible I did not match the edition given in the text, but I figured it was better than a broken ISBN. Someone may want to follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page to Armenian people

Does anyone mind if I move the page? It's just to conform to other ethnic group articles (i.e. Azerbaijani people, Persian people, Kurdish people, etc.) —Khoikhoi 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objections here. The current title matches, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Russians etc, and for some reason, I prefer this form. Always, if possible, the article title should be one word for easy access. The X people generally seem to be for ethnic groups whose language name coincides with that of the ethnic group even in the plural, e.g. English people vs English language, French people vs French language, Spanish people vs Spanish language. --Telex 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current title as well.--Eupator 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring

FWIW I agree with Eupator on this one. The removed sections seem to be racial personal attacks, and don't have any place in the article anyway because of WP:OR.--Tekleni 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the personal attacks? —Khoikhoi 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

lol [26]--Eupator 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What was that image of the "typical Armenian" suposed to be?--Tekleni 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you show me this because I'm Jewish? —Khoikhoi 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, would you mind explaining why you pointed Khoikhoi to an anti-Semitic image? - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think for the following reasons: there was an edit war here where Eupator was deleting insulting comments from the talkpage (including images which even Khoikhoi admitted were insulting [27]), and Khoikhoi was restoring them [28]. Those images are deleted now, but presumably, Eupator is drawing a parallel between an anti-Semitic image, and the images which Khoikhoi restored on the talkpage (which were obviously anti-Armenian). I don't think this is something to make a big deal over.--Tekleni 07:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* My point is, to get Calgvla to stop adding the images, I told him to come here and explain why he thinks they should be added. Instead, Eupator just straight up deleted all his comments, which FYI, weren't even personal attacks. Yes, it is something to make a big deal over. When other people make incivil comments, I certainly don't go around deleting them... —Khoikhoi 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

yawn...--Tekleni 07:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*yawn again* —Khoikhoi 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

YAWN--Tekleni 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (it looks like I'm not the only one who calls blanking vandalism; "rvv" does mean "reverting vandalism", doesn't it?)

What's your point? No one can Most people can't delete edit summaries, but you can delete comments. —Khoikhoi 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, what we are both doing is both pointless and childish. —Khoikhoi 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm childish by definition, but I do get your point :-) --Tekleni 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

heh. —Khoikhoi 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how these images could be seen as racist, they were obtained from a serious antrhopological text, the book makes no racist comments but is a purely scientific work. The Images are of real Armenians. In the Classification section you are describing the Armenian race and there is no better way to for people to understand what armenians are than for them to see academic anthropological photographs. Just because the men in the photographs don't look like George Clooney doesn't mean the men are ugly. I feel the racist motivation is in the removal the photos. It is more important to have an academic representitive photo than highly westernized image that is not academic in nature. Please stop removing the PHOTOS!--Calgvla 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenians are not Europeans, Proposed Changes

It is an offensive Point of View to include Armenia on the European continent, Armenia is located in Asia. Armenains are a non-European people. How would you feel if some stranger stuck their picture in your family photo book? This is the case of a small group here trying to force Armenians into the European family.

I propose the following change to remove the subjective point of view that Armenians are European. The following changes will create a more truthful and accurate article that will cease to offend Europeans.

I would like to include the following in the Classification section. The Classification section is there to describe the Armenian race, but comparing them to Slavs or Germanics will mislead readers into thinking they are a European people. It is best that they see photos from an academic anthropological study of the West Asian people. To not include this will be a loss for Wikipedia readers.

Calgvla, thank you for asking on the Talk page before adding this again. The word "European" undoubtedly means different things to different people - just compare the words "Asian" and "Oriental" as used by Americans vs British. Certain countries have fuzzy classification as European and/or Asian countries (for example Turkey). In this article, there is consensus to keep the European category. If you can find a reliable source for why Armenia is not in Europe, you could add a sentence explaining the controversy of European membership. As to the pictures, whatever your intent is, they are seen by others to be an insult. Compare if someone added a picture of a Neanderthal to the "Europe" article and labeled it "typical European". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-11 18:56Z

the word Europe can, indeed, have various meanings. In no case however does it include Armenia, which has been entirely within Asia (Asia Minor, Assyria, Mesopotamia) throughout its history, even in the time of Greater Armenia. I also note that on Europe, we have

• "Armenia, although not considered as part of Europe geographically, has a language that constitutes a separate branch of Indo-European family of languages. "

now this is patently ridiculous. So does Nepal, for crying out loud, just being home to an Indo-European language doesn't make a country or a nation European any more than Indian. dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but language isn't the point. What do you think of Cyprus or Georgia?--Eupator 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus is an island, and as such not part of any continent. I mean, in what continent is the Easter Island, or Tonga? Cyprus is between Anatolia and the Levant and thus part of the Near East. Georgia is squat on the border of Asia Minor and ... Scythia. Western Scythia is now (at least sometimes) considered Eastern Europe, so arguably Georgia is partly in Europe. It makes more sense to describe Georgia as a nation of the Caucasus however. I am not familiar with the Caucasus being included in Europe and it is only on Wikipedia that I learn this is done by some people. Armenia is south of the Caucasus, and as such wouldn't qualify as European even then. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So are the British Isles and Iceland, are they not part of a continent according to your logic? Clearly these borders are subjective when one can only clearly define Eurasia.--Eupator 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd say that. Alright, Cyprus is part of SW Asia. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The images are from a well respected academic anthropological work, these are actual photos of real Armenians, and should be added, there is nothing offensive about these images. Because the clothing is out of date, I clearly labeled the years in which they were taken. I don't understand what the problem is, these are Armenian Photos, just because a couple of people here don't seem to like the physical apperance of Armenians, it doesn't change the fact that they are indeed real Armenians. Can we please add them now?--Calgvla 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eupator, please don't muddle the issue Cypress and Georgia are not the topic at hand, please don't use logical fallacy in your arguments. The borders are anything but subjective, they have been clearly defined for generations. It might help if we understood your motive for wanting to include Armenia in Europe.--Calgvla 21:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW Hitler also claimed his views were based on anthropological work etc. Armenia is a full member of the Council of Europe, ergo it's not unreasonable to include them in Europe. Let's not forget that according to some sources, parts of Greece are geographically in Asia (e.g. Rhodes). Additionally, there is no such thing as a European race; those images of yours could easily be of a Spaniard or an Italian. An isolated image can't be used to prove anything. Why not add the thousands of possible images of Armenians looking identical to central Europeans?--Tekleni 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

there is, indeed, no "European race". That should be painfully obvious seeing how difficult it is just to delineate Europe from Asia. Parts of France are in South America. Historical photos or Armenians are certainly of interest here. dab (ᛏ)

• Making comparasons to Hitler is not constructive or appreciated. Hiter also drank water and was a non-smoker, should we all just stop drinking water and start smoking because Hitler wouldn't like it? Again please refrain from logical fallacy
• I agree Rhodes is not in Europe, but that is not the topic if discussion is it?
• There is no criteria that you have to be in Europe to be a memeber of the Council of Europe, the Council is not a geographic organization. Japan could qualify if it wanted to, it meets the trade requirements.
• The point is to be accurate, if you have images from another academic anthropological study on Armenians I would love to see them maybe they can be used instead. In the mean time I can add an additional image to the proposed images to broaden the Armenian image.
• Again I have to ask, what is the motive behind wanting to force Armenians/Armenia unto Europe? --Calgvla 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See it this way. Armenia is in Europe under the same circumstances that Cyprus is. The parliaments of the CoE's pre-existing member states considered Armenia "European" enough to ratify their accession (notice how Armenia is a full member, yet significantly wealthier Japan is not...), and the Armenians obviously feel European enough to apply.--Tekleni 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again almost anyone can join who would WANT to, Japan can quality but does NOT want to. CoE has no geographic authority, and membership does not make one European, let's stick to the facts not wishful thinking.--Calgvla 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can speculate all you want, with no sources at all, no problem...--Tekleni 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to explain your motive, when my motives are clear, to serve the truth. Why is it so important that you force your POV that Armenians are Europeans--Calgvla 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Southwest Asia

I fail to see the point of this discussion. Armenia is geographically in Asia. Armenians in earliest records settle in the Armenian Highlands, which are part of Eastern Anatolia / Northern Syria, viz. SW Asia. Armenians are a people of SW Asia. Now they may have cultural ties to Europe, already because they are traditionally Christian, and Armenia may be a member of the European coucil, but that doesn't change anything about this conclusion, they are still not a "European people", they are a people of SW Asia with cultural ties to Europe. Even Turkey applies for EU membership, and yes, parts of Thracia, Europe, are in Turkey, but that doesn't make the Turks an European people, it would just mean that the EU expands beyond Europe. Turkey (Anatolia) is the classical opposite of Europe, and Armenia is even East of Turkey, so I really don't see how there can be any debate about this. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

concerning the images, I am all for including historical pictures, but Calgvla's "scientific anthropological study" seems to date to the 1910s or something. First of all, these images need to be precisely sourced. It then seems that the "anthropologist" was subject to some selection bias, it appears he was collecting noses :) It is in any case nonsense to talk of an "Armenian race", of course, and if there ever were "Caucasians", the Armenians are of course part of those. I would prefer images from historical travel accounts or similar over these strangely deluded early 20th c. racial studies. dab (ᛏ) 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

further, it will not do, as Calgvla seems to attempt, to portray Armenians as somehow racially prone to crime (judging from his userboxes, Calgvla seems to suffer from severe reality distortion). But if there are notable reports of organized crime in the Armenian diaspora, this may of course be summarized in an "Armenian diaspora" section. It is our job to neither smear nor whitewash but to give a balanced report. We don't portray Italians as criminals all and sundry because they have the Mafia, and still it wouldn't be out of question to place a brief reference to Mafia on the Italians article. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please refrain from the personal attacks, if someone has more recent images from an academic antropological study of Armenians I would be fine to post those as well. At anyrate the pictures should stand on their own, they are of actual Armenians and do not contain any inflamtory subtext. It's best just to put them up and let readers see. Other images I found were either not from an academic work or they were highly religious in nature and I don't want to paint Armenians with a broad brush. The proposed images do not lead the reader to any unfair conclusions about Armenians.--Calgvla 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, anthropological photos of Armenian women should be added too, if anyone has such images please submit them.--Calgvla 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

When will you understand that no ethnic group is homogenous? For all you know, there could be black Armenians in Ethiopia and blond-haired blue-eyed Armenians in Switzerland. Language, culture, and most importantly self-perception are the criteria for establishing ethnicity (not race, skin color etc). Most Armenians live outside of Armenia - the Armenians in Greece (all 30,000 of them) are indistinguishable from Greeks. Pictures for this purpose are pointless: we have a painting of St Gregory the Illuminator in the article, this satisfies the "descriptive" requirement. We've established that the overwhelming majority of Armenians have two arms, two legs, a head etc.--Tekleni 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow this discussion got way off track, it seems that when one can't defend ones position they bring up racism or Hitler to value charge the conversation and get sides heated. This is not about race or racism.

Let's get this back on track, this is about geography, Armenia is is Asia, Asia Minor, Middle East, take your pick. Hence Armenains are NOT a European people or have a European culture. No matter how many Euro centric organizations they join, no matter how much they have been influced by and admire Europeans it's not a European people or culture. The photos are free of any bais or POV, they are just photos of Armenians from an academic work, if you have an alternate academic work about the anthropology of the Armenian people then put them up. Please let's try to be more constructive and stop all the deletions and personal attacks.--Calgvla 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is original research. Yes, Armenia is geographically in the Caucasus and Asia. What does this have to do with the Armenians and whether they are a "European people"? What is a "European people" (do you mean Indo-European people?) by the way, and where are the sources to support such a definition. If you want to say Armenians are not a "European people", you have to find a source saying Armenians are not a "European people" in some way. Saying Armenia is in Asia therefore Armenians are not a "European people" (whatever that may be...) - look at these photos from a source we know nothing about (the noses on which look suspiciously like the "Jewish nose" attributed to the Jews in Nazi propaganda) is original research, my Turkish friend ;-) --Tekleni 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I support the proposed changes, they are fair and accurate.
• I have a solution to this problem. I think I'll create a new article: the Armenian Subcontinent. We can place Armenia there. Calgvla: You may be telling the truth when you state that you only want to "spread truth," but your fixation on Armenians is creepy. Why not talk about the [south] Caucasus in general? Is it only the Armenians that are not European then? I really couldn't care less but I noticed you explicitly target Armenians. C'est bizarre. Hakob 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Armenians as a whole are culturally European, because by being the first ones to officially adopt Christianity as state religion, they adopted (and defended) Western values. Today, Armenia is an member of the Council of Europe, is part of the larger "European neighbourhood" (with talks of joining the European Union) , and plays in the European football league. --Davo88 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop feeding the god damn troll. His motivation behind this is his racism and anti-Armenianism. Just check his edit history: "swarthy Armenians", "typical Armenian", "80 percent of crime in Glendale caused by Armenians", "outbreak of savage Armenian murders" etc... Some Armenian must have banged someone I guess...--Eupator 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely said Eupator. I find those pictures ridiculous. Armenians, nor any ethnic group for that matter are homogenous. Purely anti-Armenianism Fedayee 03:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Eupator, please stop the personal attacks and off topic rants, it's very disruptive.

   The photos are not offensive, keep in mind that the only people who find them offensive are from   
   North America, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure the Armenian people in the 
   photographs would not appreciate you value judgment. 

   In the sprit of co-operation and compromise, I am willing to drop the request to add the photos
   and edit the classification section as follows

   Classification
   Armenians are a sub branch of the Indo-European family, and the Armenian language has developed  
   from Proto-Indo-European. Armenians are their own sub-group in the Indo-European family and one  
   of the smallest by population of the family. Whereas other Indo-European ethnic groups such as 
   the Iranians and the Tocharians have their own sub-groups, the Armenians are in a group of their 
   own.
  
   So can we agree to the change and move on?
   Peace to all --Caligvla 17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the current paragraph is not incorrect;therefore, a change is not necessary. Try again.--Eupator 17:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed it is not factuallyh incorrect, yet it is misleading, it is better to compare Armenians to PIE's who origniated outside of Europe, I think it is a fair request.--Calgvla 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Because: A) we do not know where PIE originated and there are no "PIE's". B) We do not know where Armenian originated. Classical sources such as Herodotus and most Western historians point to Europe, most Armenians point to Armenia.--Eupator 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It seems most logical to me that these two qualifiers are pretty much set:

• Geographically, Armenia is a part of the Caucasus. This may be classified as being part of Europe or Asia; there is no consensus(?).
• Linguistically, Armenian is an Indo-European language. This is a very, very broad family.

I guess the main bone of contention is the classification of Armenian ethnicity/culture/history? --Merovingian ※ Talk 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There is no question regarding Armenian ethnicity/culture/history. It is considered European by both the majority of Armenians and non-Armenians. As far as geography goes, there are more than enough footnotes and refs for both Cyprus and Armenia explaining all points beyond any ambiguity.--Eupator 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was considered European because it was formerly a part of Russia and later of the USSR.--Nixer 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but so were the -stans; I don't know if that's a good qualifier. --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Merovignian, would you then agree to my proposed corrections? --Caligvla 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. The claims of both you and Eupator need to be backed up. I'm not totally knowledgable in the subject, but I do have a minor interest in the area. --Merovingian ※ Talk 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the pictures in question? I take it this issue has been resolved?--137.159.169.24 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--137.159.169.24 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your interest.--Eupator 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Photo

I would still like to add a photo to this page. I think this is a nice photo that shows a proud Armenian with an Armenian Flag, it is recent and he doesn't have a big nose. It would make a good addition!

File:Armenian Boy.jpg

I sincerely hope this does not create any controversy... thanks--Caligvla 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?--Tekleni 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

nope I created it in photoshop from PD stock images, so how about adding it?--Caligvla 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundant - what will it illustrate? If you want to add a picture of an Armenian, then add a picture of a well-known Armenian. How about this image?--Tekleni 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He is on the main Armenia page... putting his photo on both pages would be redundant. My photo is a prefect shot for culture section. you just don't like it because I suggested it. I am trying to work with you guys, so come on...--Caligvla 00:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it and see how people like it, he is a nice looking boy, who could object?--Caligvla 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OKay Eupator, why didn't you like the photo this time???--Caligvla 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it because we don't know who it is; we are invading his privacy. Imaging of one day you found your photo on Wikipedia (and all its forks). I wouldn't like that... That lad doesn't seem to be a public figure like Kocharian.--Tekleni 07:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I still have doubts about the copyright status of that image.--Tekleni

Population statistics again

How can a claim that there are 500,080 Armenians in Iran be cited to a source that states that 400,000 Armenians live in Iran? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we have an estimated worldwide population of 9-10 million, which is considerably more than the sum of the various cited numbers, one of which is for "rest of world." - Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at too many ideas in one sentence

"Armenian is a sub-branch of the Indo-European family, and with some 7 million speakers one of the smallest surviving branches, comparable to Albanian or Greek, with which it may be connected (see Graeco-Armenian)."

Except that Greek has at least twice as many speakers, so it isn't comparable. I believe someone was just trying to wedge the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis in here. I don't think this sentence, as written, is a good way to do it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

well, "twice as many" is itself a comparison, and the number is of the same order of magnitude. Graeco-Armenian has nothing to do with the number of speakers, of course, and should be mentioned in its own sentence. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly "comparable" here doesn't mean merely "able to be compared" or it would also be "comparable to Mandarin Chinese". - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

yes yes, I don't want to belabour the point. It is "comparable" by virtue of being, like Greek, one of the smaller and less diversified branches, but I grant you that 15 million is a significantly larger number than 7 million. dab (𒁳) 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit that I think accommodates this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)