Talk:Armenia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Archive. &Image in corner. Prime minister.

There are many things wrong about this article.

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

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

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

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

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

Minor changes needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister

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

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

First nation to adopt Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign rule - harmony with other people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How long...

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

Edits to chronically protected page

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

[Proposed edit 1]

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

[Proposed edit 2]

The christian stuff in the first paragraph is not cited.

Armenian civilization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junk link in references

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

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

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

User Corticopia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

Badachian

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

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

Europe or Not Europe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Badechian

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

46 Troops

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

Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armenia. And arbitrary boundaries do not matter.

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

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

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

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

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

I would suggest to remove the transcontinental country. Tamokk

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

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

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

Հայք

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

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

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

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

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

dab (𒁳) 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian hypothesis

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

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

you are contradicted by the very links you provide:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herodotus record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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