Talk:Armenia/Archive 4

Patron Saints
Ararat arev 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)How do we do this? Ok Im requesting unprotect of Armenia so we can add our reference to citation needed of the Antiquity part "Bartholomew, along with Saint Jude Thaddeus is reputed to have brought the new religion of Christianity to Armenia in the 1st century. Thus the Armenian Church is called the Armenian "Apostolic" Church, as both saints are considered to be the patron saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church." - Bartholomew_the_Apostle article

"Saint Gregory the Illuminator or Saint Gregory the Enlightener, the founder and patron saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church, was born about 257." - Gregory_the_Illuminator article

It sounds to me that there are three patron saints...Serouj 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeap, many countries have more than one. Russia has six.--Eupator 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also -
 * "Though Saint Gregory the Illuminator is credited as the "Apostle to the Armenians", when he baptised King Tiridates III of Armenia in 301, converting the Armenians, Saints Jude and Bartholomew first brought Christianity to Armenia in the first century. Thus the Armenian Apostolic Church is called the Armenian "Apostolic" Church, as both saints are considered to be the patron saints of the Church and so are under the protection and patronage of both apostolic saints." - from the Saint Thaddeus article.

It sounds to me like the Gregory the Illuminator article may need some rewording, because both the Thaddeus article and the Bartholomew article say that they are the patron saints, with the Thaddeus article pointing out that Gregory is the "Apostle to the Armenians," not the patron saint. I know I'm no authority on this, but going by what these 3 articles say, it sounds like the error is in the Gregory article...Serouj 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote underneath Near East Relief image
The United States contributed a significant amount of aid to the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide. Shown here is a poster for the American Committee for Relief in the Near East vowing that they (the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and Persians) "shall not perish.

I don't think we need to add what's in bold, because this article is about Armenia, and the caption doesn't exclude those groups, it simply doesn't mention them. And that is fine, because this article is about Armenia; someone looking at the image will clearly see (at the bottom) that the relief is for much of the Near East, not only Armenia. Serouj 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, "someone looking at the image will clearly see (at the bottom) that the relief is for much of the Near East, not only Armenia". Even if the article is about Armenia the caption should have some clarifying for the reader. The current version confuses a bit: "the American Committee for Relief in the Near East vowing that they (the Armenians) "shall not perish." Also seems a bit POVish. I propose "the Armenians among others" or "the Armenians and others" again because not only Armenians are mentioned in the poster. I would like to read a source which affirms that the poster refers directly and/or specifically to Armenians. --Brand спойт 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like a good compromise. I fixed it now.  Best, Clevelander 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect?
The vandalism of this article is showing no signs of stopping. Does anybody else agree with me that the page should be semi-protected from anonymous users? -- Augustgrahl 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, this is the best idea. everyone has to login and you can set it in a way that only let users edit after their account is a few days old, this discourages the people who create throw-a-way accounts to vandalize, Pernambuco 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Edit War"
While I can't fault roaming Admins for calling this an "editing dispute," the problem here is that Ararat Arev keeps blanking material cited with reputable sources, not that there are two. Blanking is Vandalism, plain and simple. While it is possible to remove content in good faith, Ararat Arev has shown himself to believe fully that his position and only his position is the scholarly accepted position, and has called any attempt to add the "dissent" (though technically the identification of Armenians as Hurrians should be the dissent since noone actually argues that in scholarly literature) "Vandalism" on more than one occasion, both in editing summaries and on other people's talk pages. As Dab had said, this behavior was getting in the way of people trying to make a legitimate effort to improve this page, and now it has formally made that impossible until this "dispute" has been resolved.

Every time Ararat Arev has been asked to defend a challenge to his "evidence," he responds by repeating the same stuff he gave as "evidence" and has accused us of not reading it well enough, as if anyone with half a brain should be able to see why it's right. Now, that's inappropriate and disrespectful, especially to those of us like myself who have spent years in school and have spent hours upon hours upon days researching this very topic of the origins of the Hurrians, and have put forward the majority opinion with the citations of where it comes from. This issue needs to be solved, either by Ararat Arev coming here and playing nicely, or by a RfC or some other appropriate action being taken. Thanatosimii 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, at this moment, another avenue might be Accuracy dispute. Thanatosimii 05:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...


 * There's that "lie" accusation you keep throwing around. That's unacceptable behavior. Ararat Arev, I have read those references which you have given me, and the only way someone can read them and think they say what you think they say is if his mind is coloured by overexposure to that crankery from Armenianhighland, which you have admitted reading. And yet you have not once actually responded with a real defense to this challenge, "Your sources do not say what you say they say." Hmm... I wonder why? Thanatosimii 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion guys. Remember the "don't bite newcomers" rule on Wiki? Maybe if we respond to Arev calmly and non-adverserially, he will be more amenable suggestions. We can be firm (delete suspicious edits) and still civil. Just a suggestion.--TigranTheGreat 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We've all tried that to begin with. You have to realize that sometimes the problem is the newcomer. He refuses to cooperate, and thus cannot be helpful. "If we respond to Arev calmly and non-adverserially," I can assure you that he will not behave any differently, since he never behaved appropriatly to begin with. Thanatosimii 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So, just be concise with him. Eliminate the "you are doing this/you can't understand this" part, answer "yes" or "no," if the responses are too wordy or incomprehensible, delete them from the talk page. When he asks "why," just give the bare minimum: "It's original research. read NOR"/"limit your response to 2 sentences." If he sees that his posts are getting deleted, he will get the idea. Practice is much powerful teacher than preaching.--TigranTheGreat 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's worth a shot here, but he's been typing reams of paper's worth of stuff on my talk page for a week now, and every time I am concice, he gets angry and accusatory. Thanatosimii 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then delete. It's your talk page.--TigranTheGreat 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall being told explicitly in documentation that my talk page was not "mine" and that I shoudn't wipe. But perhaps I'm confused. Thanatosimii 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that would seem to be unconstitutional interference with out property rights. I will check it out though. At any rate, I am quite sure this particular case warrants that action.--TigranTheGreat 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add something unrelated to the current dispute:
I just finished writing a new article on the Yerazi, defined as the Azeris who lived in Armenia and left before the N-K War. It looks like there's a good place to integrate the link in the final paragraph of the demographics section. Any of the editors looking after this article want to find a way to add it? Thanks ahead. --Bobak 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitanni: The Mystery kingdom of Armenia Part I
Urartu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu

"..and it seems that both Armenians and the Urartians had a major link with the Hurrians."

"..relatively high quantity of Armenian words and even entire Armenian phrases and sentences in the inscriptions (over 70 word-roots).."

Another point is that those who wrote the inscriptions were the elite. The common people didnt even understand all of it at that time. There are even Armenian words I dont understand today, cause of writers using difficult words. Those who wrote these inscriptions were the elite. Ararat arev 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hurrian cuneiform inscription translates to "I dug this watercourse" in Armenian.
 * Rafael Ishkhanyan, "Illustrated History of Armenia," Yerevan, 1989

Rafael Ishkhanyan points out the Sumerian words in Armenian, and its link with Hurrian as well


 * Martiros Kavoukjian, "The Genesis of Armenian People", Montreal, 1982

Points out that the royal families of Mitanni and Urartu spoke Hurrian, but not the common people


 * This is both irrelevant and not what talk pages are for. Thanatosimii 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ararat_arev, cease spamming. Be useful and contribute to other articles that are not related to history or linguistics or anything that happened earlier than the 20th century. --Eupator 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief note to settle this quote once and for all. It's a quote known pretty much by every student in Armenia above grade 8. The significance of it is that it's written in Hurrian syntax but completely in Armenian words, which leads Armenian historians to conclude that it was written by someone who thought Armenian.--TigranTheGreat 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Come again? I'm not sure I caught that... Thanatosimii 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the sentence is written in Hurrian syntax but completely in Armenian words, the suggestion is that the author was trying to write Hurrian while his native tongue was Armenian. Just like a Anglo speaker knowing little Spanish would pretend to speak Spanish: "Yo liko Latino girlos very mucho." --TigranTheGreat 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. Thanatosimii 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the quote is from the Urartian period, not Mitanni, so the author lived in Urartu. The quote is repeated like 100 times in connection with various irrigation projects (mainly during the time of king Menuas).--TigranTheGreat 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references regarding Proto-Armenian language:

Hovick Nersessian, "Highlands of Armenia," Los Angeles 1998

Hovick points out that in the cuneiform inscriptions of Mitanni and Urartu, are found Armenian words and even some sentences which are used today in Armenian.

Artak Movsisyan, "Sacred Highland: Armenia in the spiritual conception of the Near East," Yerevan, 2000.

Artak reveals the Mitanni kings IE names are in Armenian Ararat arev 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Map showing Nairi and Lake Van inside the Mitanni kingdom http://satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/oriente/IIIperiodo/mitanni.jpg Ararat arev 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Our Nairi tribe was located in our Mitanni territory, which Egyptians referred to us by Nairi(Nahri). The other two tribes Hay and Armen were located north and east. Ararat arev 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. A map does not mean anything

2. Artak movsisyan is out numbered with all the other historians rejecting his theory

3. This really can mean anything (Blood, language, food ,tribes, commanders etc "..and it seems that both Armenians and the Urartians had a major link with the Hurrians."

4. How do you know Mitanni didn't conquer them? "Our Nairi tribe was located in our Mitanni territory. The other two tribes Hay and Armen were located north and east."

5. Basing on this picture its very hard to match the picture i can match lines to. Nareklm 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not just the map, the Nairi page is revealing the truth of the map it says Lake Van was right there near Nairi. Our Mitanni kingdom was located there and Sasun is there now as the new name for the area of Nairi. Ararat arev 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitanni revile Nairi??? Why do you think there is a Hurrian "See also" in Nairi?? I didnt put it there check the edit history you guys put it. You tell me that? Hmm, maybe its because of Mitanni let me think. Also Mitanni kings were reviles with each other, Tusratta and Artatama were against each other. Ararat arev 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You still dont get it do you. You guys dont get this whole thing. You dont realize how important it is to know about our Mitanni kingdom. This was the main time we went to Egypt. If I have to study this over and over to finally realize and reveal so clearly to you guys, thast probably what I'll do. Its very important to know that we went to Egypt specially at this time, and our influence on Egypt. Ararat arev 06:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go from Nairi page:

 The tribal groups living near Lake Van and, in fact, in and around the capital Touchpa (Tushpa) were called "Nairi" Ararat arev 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rafael Ishkhanyan, "Illustrated History of Armenia," Yerevan, 1989

Rafael Ishkhanyan points out the Sumerian words in Armenian, and its link with Hurrian as well

Ararat arev 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Martiros Kavoukjian, "Armenia, Subartu and Sumer", Montreal, 1989

The two charts of Sumerian words in Armenian are from Martiros

Ararat arev 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Another RfC without a proper section. Sigh!

My comment is: Armenia is geographically in Asia, obviously and there's little doubt about that (I mean: it's 100% south of the Caucasus range, conventional border of both continents.

Said that it's also true that Armenia, as country of Christian tradition, is nowadays more linked to Europe (as this tradition has mostly vanished in West Asia under the pressure of Islam) and politically it belongs to it, together with all other Caucasian states and Turkey (Council of Europe and OSCE). Central Asian republics also belong to the OSCE.

I understand that the disputed paragraph is: Culturally, historically, and politically, Armenia is considered to be part of Europe. However, its location in the southern Caucasus means that it can also be considered to be at the arbitrary border between Europe and Asia: in other words, a transcontinental nation. However, both these classifications are entirely arbitrary, as there is no easily definable geographic difference between Asia and Europe.

While I do agree that the border between Europe and Asia is fundamentally arbitrary, specially in Russia, Siberia and Khazakstan, that Europe can well be considered a subcontinent of Asia (as much as South Asia is) and that the most correct cultural-historical-ethnological region is West Eurasia, including West Asia and North Africa with Europe in a sigle unity, standard coventions obligue me to rule that Armenia is not a transcontinental state (not more than, say, Argentina or New Zealand). Only culturally can be considered so but not from the viewpoint of physical geography, as its usually agreed.

The paragraph is in brief fundamentally incorrect (and therefore POV). I'd suggest something like the following:

''While according to usual conventions Armenia is placed in Western Asia, there are many historical, political and cultural reasons for Armenians to feel Europeans rather than Asians. Armenia is part of several pan-European organizations, etc.''

In brief, I'd put the emphasis in the feeling European and the cultural, political and historical links to Europe. But saying that Armenia or Vladivostok are not in Asia is just plainly POV. It's easier to argue that Paris is in Asia (per Eurasia) than that Yerevan is in Europe, except in an spiritual sense, of course. --Sugaar 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What RFC? That was closed eons ago. Also nowhere in the paragraph does it state that "Armenia is geographically in Europe".--Eupator 23:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it was closed, you should delete it from the list of RfCs. --Sugaar 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

the big fallacy in all this is the assumption that "Christianity is historically associated with Europe". Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion for crying out loud, that spread to Europe. Christianity was historically very much Anatolian, Caucasian, Aramaean(!), Egyptian and what have you, it was only with the Islamic conquest that the appearance arose that "Christanity is European". Armenia is a remnant of SW Asian Christianity, not some outgrowth of European Christianity (such as the USA, which isn't counted as "European" because of this either). Saying that Armenia or Vladivostok or New York are in Europe is not "pov", but simply incorrect. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Culturally, historically, and politically, Armenia is considered to be part of Europe." is pure nonsense, and should be removed on unprotection. "Politically", yes, since 2001 (Council of Europe). "Historically", how, when and according to whom. Culturally? Armenian music for example? "kanun (dulcimer), davul (double-headed hand drum), oud (lute), tar (short-necked lute) and zurna (shawm)" -- classical Near Eastern instrumentation. Armenian dance? Clearly classified as Oriental (Near Eastern) dance. What, how and according to whom is Armenia "culturally part of Europe"? This is at best some idiosyncratic opinion, certainly not a fact. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Caulm down. No need to keep beating a dead horse. See the archives if you're interested.--Eupator 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Mr. Bachmann, please stop your European nationalism/patriotism. It does nothing to improve the quality of the article. Hakob 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... Mr. Bachmann appears to have just rebuffed "European nationalism"... Thanatosimii 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * what nationalism? You may as well call it 'Caucasian nationalism'. The horse isn't dead, since the mistaken statement is still in the article. I don't see what a plain factual statement has got to do with "pov", let alone "patriotism". dab (𒁳) 10:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At Talk:Armenia/Archive_2, Eupator cites som "European Armenian Convention Declaration". Hey, that's much better. Instead of stating "Culturally, historically, and politically, Armenia is considered to be part of Europe", which as it stands is pure nonsense, we can state that there is some group called "European Armenian Convention" and that they have issued some declaration somewhere at some point. The question may have some weight in Armenian politics, if so we shall by all means treat it under "Armenian politics" no problem. That still doesn't change anything about historical or geographical facts. I also find it interesting that 'recently, with the rise of the EU, Armenia seems to have shown interest in moving politically closer to Europe. That has nothing to do with "culturally, historically", but amounts to a simple statement that "in recent times, Armenia has focussed on establishing political ties with Europe", that's it. If Armenia and/or Turkey were to join the EU, this would simply mean that the EU extends beyond Europe, not that Armenia or Turkey were suddenly "part of Europe". People seem to forget that there are also quite a number of European countries that are not in the EU. Being a member of the EU has nothing to do with being located in Europe. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with dab.. What culturally? Armenian culture is definitely Eurasian, if not Near Asian. Just because there have been debates in the past, that doesn't mean it cannot be looked over again, right? Armenian Christianity is a remnant of SW Asian Christianity, as dab correctly states. That sentence needs to be looked at. I mean, is there some sort of shame at being labelled Eurasian? Baristarim 10:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of shame in being located in SW Asia, Anatolia or the Caucasus? Historical Greater Armenia (which Armenian patriotism likes to harp upon so much) is mostly in Asia Minor, and not even the Caucasus. You would expect Armenians to be proud of the fact that they represent the heritage of ancient Christianity of Asia Minor. At the time of the Christianization of Armenia, the Germans were still sitting in trees :) dab (𒁳) 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab, more and more you're starting to sound like a rabid anti-Armenian. Harp upon Greater Armenia? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why don't you go and spout your agenda and harp upon Georgia and Cyprus articles as well where the exact same line is also written? Oud and zurna are Armenian now? The same instruments and their variations are also used in the Balkans, how is that now? Armenian dance is "Oriental" now? So is Greek and Bulgarian dances right? Give me a break. You didn't even read the archives! There is no organization called "European Armenian Convention"! It was a convention organized by the Armenian government and diaspora organizations in Brussel and that quote was made by Ruben Sugarian, representative of the Armenian Foreign Ministry now ambassador to Italy.--Eupator 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly fail to see how I can be construed as an anti-Armenian, never mind "rabid". The information on dance and music was taken from Armenian dance and Armenian music, I didn't verify it, you are welcome to fix things if they are mistaken. I cannot follow how my statement to the effect that Armenians can be proud of their heritage of early Christianity is "anti-Armenian". If anything, such statements make me an Armenophile. I am neither pro-Europe nor anti-Orient, in fact, I happen to be more into Oriental than European topics on Wikipedia (which is why I am commenting here in the first place), and I can only conclude that you somehow think "European" has a ring of "superior", which is, like, an opinion, which I do not happen to share. If we can attribute the "close ties" etc. stuff to some official source, hey, that's even better. I do learn that Armenia appears to seek to enhance its "Europeanness" recently (which is understandable for a country that has less than harmonious relationships with its immediate neighbours). That's perfectly fine with me. Armenia is welcome to join the EU for all I care, no problem. That will still make the "Europeanness" trend a recent phenomenon, and that will still not change the fact that Armenia is a country in SW Asia, this is really my entire point. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Armenia does not want to join the EU for strategic reasons it's the EU that wants Armenia to join eventually, can you please understand that? EU is not the reason why Armenia is a European country nor is it Christianity. Ethiopia is also Christian. Anything that happened between 1375 and 1828 is irrelevant. Was the Cilician Kingdom not European lol That's when Armenia was under nomadic savages. As Mr. Sugarian said: "To conclude, we would like to emphasize that the Armenian people – both in Armenia and in the European Diaspora – regards itself as a European people. This people was separated from the main European stream by unfortunate historical circumstances and is now resolutely committing to an in-depth reunification with the European family.". For as long as there has been an Armenia and a concept of Europe, Armenia has been part of it! Hell even under the foreign occupation when so many oriental influences affected Armenia (they are being cleaned out to this day) travellers to both Persia and the Ottoman Empire could tell that Armenians are different along with the Greeks! Alphonse de Lamartine called Armenians "the Swiss of the East.” LOL! Henry Finnis Bloss Lynch said that: "In the Armenians we have a people who are peculiarly adapted to be the intermediaries of the new dispensation. They profess our religion, are familiar with some of our best ideals, and assimilate each new product of European culture with an avidity and thoroughness which no other race between India and the Mediterranean has given any evidence of being able to rival. These capacities they have made manifest under the greatest disadvantages.Their intellectual capacities are supported by a solid foundation of character, and, unlike the Greeks, but like the Germans, their nature is averse to superficial methods; they become absorbed in their tasks and plumb them deep. … These tendencies are naturally accompanied by forethought and balance; and they have given the Armenian his pre-eminence in commercial affairs. He is not less clever than the Greek; but he sees farther.” Dr. James L. Barton, secretary of the American Board of Foreign Missions, and former president of Euphrates College in Turkey, says: “I know the Armenians to be, by inheritance, religious, industrious and faithful. They are the Anglo-Saxons of Eastern Turkey" LOL--Eupator 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if and why Armenia joins the EU, that's the entire point. I respectfully but firmly disagree with your "Anything that happened between 1375 and 1828 is irrelevant." And Armenia wasn't in Europe in 1374, or 200 BC, that's simply nonsense. I can appreciate your "the Swiss of the East", "the Anglo-Saxons of Eastern Turkey" quotes, but that's not "the Swiss of Eastern Europe", that's, if anything "the Swiss of the East", "the Anglo-Saxons of Eastern Turkey", isn't it. Your quotes, it goes without saying, are fron colonialist Eurocentric sources all and sundry, precisely the mindset that tends to perceive all virtue as essentially "European". Not an attitude that is very common these days outside maybe white supremacist circles. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell, even changing the passage to "The Armenian people – both in Armenia and in the European Diaspora – regards itself as a European people." will be better than the outright falsity that we give in Wikipedia's voice right now. If the Armenian people indeed "regards itself" as European, so be it, that's at least phrasing it as a subjective statement. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong Db, it's outright falcity according to you and your pre-conceived notions! It's not black and white, thus you have to nitpick stuff like Ottoman musical instruments, heh. The quote stays Db! Like it or not. File a THIRD RFC or go through another channel for Georgia, Armenia and Cyprus. That's right all three, otherwise you're targetting Armenia for reasons one can only wonder. You have no chance in hell for doing that because there is no geographical boundary of Europe set in stone, it just doesn't exist! On the cultural, political and hsitorical fronts you have no chance in hell either. Two people already spent months and failed. Go ahead and try if you want to waste time, it's an uphill battle.--Eupator 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sigh, I am not objecting to any quote, I am objecting to the statement in Wikipedia's voice, precisely because, as you agree, the matter is subjective. And I thought you were a reasonable editor, but that was probably just compared to Ararat arev :) We don't need an rfc to remove a subjective statement in Wikipedia's voice, that's simple Wikipedia policy. You are most welcome to keep any number of quotes, as long as you attribute them. Even if you could show that 99% of Armenians believe Armenia is in Europe, we'd still only say "99% of Armenians believe that Armenia is in Europe", and not "Armenia is in Europe". dab (𒁳) 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny I was thinking the same about you, in comparison to caligvla that is;) That statement is about as neutral as any stamement can get. There is even a footnote with more details and links. You can't justify your allegation of that phrase not being neutral.--Eupator 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can, because it is in Wikipedia's voice. Do you understand that, "Wikipedia's voice"? Rephrase it as a statement by somebody, and we'll have peace. dab (𒁳) 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not required. Which somebody? The Armenian government, the Canadian government, all European governments, organizations, authors, kings, hsitorians etc. where does it end? The footnote states who says what.--Eupator 18:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bachmann, I would appreciate if you wouldn't make insinuations that Armenians are somehow "ashamed" of being called Asian. *That* does sound anti-Armenian, as if we have some kind of complex. We are proud of our ancestry and everything that is Armenian, regardless of its origins. Now, you two may continue your fight about whether they are Asian or European.--TigranTheGreat 02:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sheesh. Eupator accused me of being "anti-Armenian" because I said Armenia was in SW Asia. I have no idea why that should be "anti-Armenian", because like you, I find the proposition of being ashamed of being Asian ridiculous: You are welcome to take up the issue with Eupator, who does seem to insist on the position you just described as a 'complex', but I am in complete agreement with you. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, you did make other remarks like "Armenians harp at Greater Armenia" which I and other Armenians may feel uncomfortable with:) And by the way, Greater Armenia did include Caucasus (the southern Caucasus that is).--TigranTheGreat 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh...We have already spent several months debating, over several different talk pages and with mediation, whether or not Armenia was European. It was a long, intense, and bloody battle. But eventually the xenophobic Calgivla (or however it was spelt) gave up and retreated. And no changes were made. Unlikely any will be made this time, either. Personally I think the article speaks for itself. The Myotis 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Caligvla was a blatant Armenophobe. That has, however, nothing to do with the question "is Armenia in Europe". To allege that the statement that it is not is "anti-Armenian" because it happened to be stated by an admitted Armenophobe is a simple association fallacy. As you can read above, I have no problem with having all sorts of statements of why and how Armenia is particularly close to Europe, politically, culturally and what not, in spite of not being located in Europe, as long as they are qualified (sourced). What is the problem? All claims on Wikipedia should be sourced, this one is no exception. Yes, we can state some sources count Armenia as European while others don't. Saying "is considered part of Europe" in the article body while leaving "some online atlas places it in Europe, oh, but the UN places it in SW Asia" to the footnotes is hardly 'due weight'. If there is any neutral authority for defining such regions, it's the UN, so the UN definition should be placed first. After that, there can still be lots of qualifications and links to blogs that say otherwise. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to replace the atlas with better sources balancing with the UN, however the paragraph will not be changed. Also I will not do this unless you demand the same for Georgia and Cyprus. --Eupator 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the paragraph will be changed, slightly, to have "is considered" expand to "is considered by $SOMEBODY", per WP:CITE. Simple policy, Eupator, I'm not asking anything outrageous here. Obviously, the same holds for Cyprus. It appears that the case of Georgia is slightly different by virtue of being considered part of Ciscaucasia as "partially in Europe" by the UN. dab (𒁳) 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Db, the UN doesn't classify Georgia any differently than it does Armenia. Georgia has already officialy demanded that the UN changes its classification btw! As for the paragraph, a reader can see who considers what in the footnote, i'm sure you will be satisfied by my additions and I admit that the current one blows.--Eupator 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * alright, I am sure we can come to a satisfactory solution. I assure you I have no hidden agenda of any sorts, and my only concern is accuracy and due weight. My source for the UN classification of Georgia is the map posted to the right, I didn't verify this, but it states that Georgia as being Ciscaucasian (from the European pov) is classified differently. Which makes perfect sense if the Caucasus is considered the boundary of Europe: that clearly places [much of] Georgia within  and Armenia without. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with Dbachmann on one point, which I'm quite familiar with: the "historically" part. To say that Armenia has been historically part of Europe and leave out that other half of Armenian history (that of Eastern influence) would be a partial account of Armenian history.  For much of its history, Armenia has been divided among two powerful civilizations, one from the West (Greece, Rome, Byzanitine Empire, then Russian Empire), the other from the East, (Persian Empire, then Ottoman Empire).  (This of course isn't to say that Armenia hasn't been an independent state at times; it has, but often within the political influence of a neighboring civilization, at least after the Ardashesian dynasty.)  I might rephrase the "historically" part of this dispute with something like: Historically Armenia has been at the crossroads of civilizations, where East meets West.  (Now "culturally" and "politically" are another issue; the former is certainly subjective, and the latter is objective, with Armenia having a Western political orientation, although it maintains very close ties with Iran as well, which remains its "friendliest" neighbor, despite religious differences.)  Serouj 07:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on Armenian culture: it has some native Armenian elements (e.g. Armenian architecture, language, alphabet, music), influences from the West (e.g. operas, lingual influences, Greek/Roman gods in early history), and influences from the East (e.g. food, Zoroastrian gods, lingual influences). Keep in mind that certain regions of Armenia at times were more "Western" or "Eastern" in culture, depending on their proximity to an influencing civilization (i.e. what side of the "border" they were on...).  This, of course, isn't to say that the two sides didn't have anything in common; just two flavors of the same juice.  Nevertheless, given the roots of today's Republic of Armenia as part of the USSR, I think the influence of European culture (specifically, Russian culture) has been greater than ever, at least in geographically Eastern Armenia (which historically - that is, before Russian expansion into the region - had been under the influence of an "eastern" civilization).  Serouj 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may just say a few words here, Dbachmann has a point which would made which would make this entire issue shrink drastically. We must change "is considered" to "is considered by $SOMEBODY". Obviously someone considere Armenia european, or there wouldn't be a dispute. Say who does so and most of this problem goes away. If the UN, say "is considered by the UN" If by some other association, say "By the EU, by such-and-such, by whoever" and cite the report that classifies it as European. Historically European? Perhaps there are historians who believe it's European. say "By historans x,y,z". If Armenians consider themselves European, say "by x% of Armenians" and cite the survey. However, "is considered" standing alone is in violation of the citation and weasel-word rules. There are a thousand different ways you could do this, so take your pick, however the specific one you've got right now is much too vague considering the controversial nature of the issue. When a topic is controversial, ambiguity is the enemy. Thanatosimii 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Respect the talk page guidelines, remember, the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page, and when writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counterproductive, but others facilitate good editing, keep the 3 c's in mind, they are communication, courtesy and consideration. - Pernambuco 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenian and Sumerian
deleted by Tigran as offtopic and OR. Discussion backed up by academic sources would go to Talk:Armenian language or Talk:Proto-Armenian language. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Antiquity - Uratu-Armenia links Return to discussed version
I have restored a part of Section Antiquity about Urartu, as it was discussed previously and protected by administrator (see version of 12 December). The version edited after 12 December only reflects the version of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov - that is it, which is not supported widely in academic community. We have reference which was removed.--Dacy69 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, there is a term "Urartian people". Look at website about Armenian culture: http://www.aua.am/aua/research/ecrc/SoEnew/english/countrv/culture.htm

I quote: "Urartian people had various myths and legends, unfortunately those were lost within the time." This term is used in many academic books.

But we can say also that people or population which lived in Urartu was different from Armenians. It is not about language alone - I stress again. Britannica points that Armenians came later to that area. So do many renown scholars.--Dacy69 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Nairi(1200 BC) which formed Urartu(Ararat) is used as the most common girls name in Armenian, and it also represents Armenia. Nairi also called Nahrin is also what the Egyptians referred to our Mitanni kingdom which was before Urartu(Ararat) again. So, you're sources only speak of certain people's opinions, whether it be the highest known sources. Facts(truth) speaks louder than words.

Another point is, the Assyrians to this day refer to Armenians by their inscriptions "Armeni". Assyrians are direct descendants of the Akkadians which wrote the inscriptions 2300 BC. Ararat arev 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't start that nonsense OR again. We've been through this before. Thanatosimii 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You dont clarify what you're referring to. What "OR" ? Nairi or Nahrin? These are both used as most common Armenian girls names. This is what you mean OR? Ararat arev 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know why Nairi is a popular name? Because Nairi Zarian popularized it! Do you know who Nairi Zairian is? --   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Heres that dude Vahan Terian. But by generations it was known as a ancient name of Armenia such as Armenia,Nairi,Urartu etc. (Its known for I'm not saying this from my point of view and from families) Nareklm 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OR is Original Research- somthing unquestionably banned in all wikipedia articals. The fact that nairi is a popular name cannot be used as an argument that the nairi people are Armenians unless an actual Ancient Near East historian says so. Thanatosimii 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No historian can possibly make such a ridiculous claim. It's absurd. It doesn't take a PhD to see this. Can someone call the Gauls French? No. Can someone call the Minoans Greek? No. Can you call the Etruscans Italian? No, no and no...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's another. Were the Elamites Iranian? NO!--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite right, which is why references to the Armenian kingdom of (insert ANE civilization here) have been reverted regularly across the board. However, there is still an offending sentance on this page, "...each participating in the ethnogenesis of the Armenian people." No serious scholar argues that Armenians have any close ethnic relationship to any hurrians or even the hittites. If it can't be cited by a real source, it needs to be removed. Thanatosimii 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that's where you're wrong. A number of Western scholars starting from Hubschman, Hrozny etc. have connected Armenians to Hitties, Luwians and Hurrians. Hell Diakonov himself lumps all non-IE words in Armenian as Hurrian.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignore the $##$ from ararat_arev for minute and read some objective sources, the Armenians are linked to Hittites, Hurrians, Phrygians, Luwians, Hayasa-Azzi etc.:,, etc.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not the kind of connection I mean. I mean to say that the hittites didn't go and become the Armenians... do real scholars actually say that? Thanatosimii 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes there are some that do but that's incorrect. It wasn't just the Hittites but many others.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanatosimii let me give you the example of different peoples language and writing system used:

"This letter is written in "Akkadian", the diplomatic language of Mesopotamia at the time. It is addressed to Amenhotep III from Tushratta, king of "Mitanni"

You understand now? Ararat arev 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So Hurrian or Hurro-Urartian was used at Urartu's time. The "ethnogenesis" of our people is the same though. Ararat arev 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitanni is also IE with Hurrian. Proto-IE which afterwards Persians and Indians (Aryans) seperated from us.

You cant argue with that, I mean were not 500 BC IE people in Armenia. We are the IE roots from the Armenian Highlands. Ararat arev 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no hard evidence to prove that. Nareklm 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is very questionable how people who lived in Urartu and other ancient state participated in ethnogenesis of the Armenian people. Sources say that Armenians came later. However, I can accept that the mixture of newcomers and old inhabitants can occur. Then, if we say so - I mean about continuity of Urartu and Armenia links, we should say also about opponent views for reaching NPOV. Now about sources Eupator mentioned above. There is no open statement there that Armenians and Urartians has bonds, except Chahin book where he compares Armenians relations to Urartu like French to Gauls. But this is an assumption, even not strongly supported. Again - if even we accept that or other like-minded dubious assumption, then surely we can state the opinion of other renown scholars. Historical documents first time mentioned Armenians in 6 BC. And for sources itself - we should refer to more neutral ones (I accept Redgrave), then Diakonov and Britannica should be also accepted. Now it is a bunch of books published by Armenians about their history - they are quite questionable, in terms of stating about bonds between Urartu and Armenians. I quoted on other page the following book, and I do it again here: Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). Page 157: "''No less problematic are heavily slanted interpretations of the Urartian kingdom, the first historically attested state in Transcaucasia (ninth to seventh centuries BC). Armenian chauvinists must explain why this state, a worthy adversary of the neo-Assyrian Empire of northern Mesopotamia and one that expanded over much of "historic Armenia," composed its royal cuneiform inscriptions in Urartian, a non Indo-European ( i.e., non-Armenian) language, related to Hurrian and ancestral to the Northeastern Caucasian family of languages spoken today by different peoples in Daghestan, Chechenia, and Ingushetia (see Jankowska 1991:231). Reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom, and there is a real sense in which the Armenians are the cultural heirs of Urartu, but an essentialist view of Armenian culture which equates it precisely with the Urartian kingdom cannot be sustained. One must distinguish between popular and professional Armenian interpretations of Urartu, the latter being subtler and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. More discriminating professional archaeologists, who may accept the reasonable theory that the ethnogenesis or formation of Armenian culture occurred during post-Urartian Achaemenid times, extol the might of the Urartians and see them exercising political control over most of eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and Transcaucasia; in this respect they remain the direct precursors of the Armenian kingdom under Tigran II''."--Dacy69 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Anthem
I just read at a Armenian news site that for now there is no official Armenian anthem as there are plans to change it. I think its worth bringing it up as Azerbaijan is not allowed to publish its unofficial national motto (Land of Fire), then why is Armenia allowed to publish its unofficial national anthem? The news site is posted below: http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg173190.html

Could somebody get a good look at this, I think we need to remove the national anthem of Armenia for now.
 * That's true, but only for a limited time. The song “Mer Hayrenik” ceased to be the national anthem on December 6 as the Armenian parliament failed to meet a constitutional deadline for reaffirming it or introducing a new state symbol. According to this link, they're going to keep the anthem. Hope that cleared it up.-- Davo88 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

a lesson in intellectual honesty
compare Aa's edit summaries at 17:37 and 19:23. priceless. dab (𒁳) 19:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Government links
Ministry of Health of Armenia - As i know, they change their domain. Unfortunately, i don't know their right url, but for a long time, this one is closed.

And the last: Dzer nor tarin shnorhavor, Hayer ! Dr.Gangino 17:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New map
Hello all. Given my own concerns and other suggestions on Talk pages, I've created new maps for the three Caucasus nations. I've already added them to the articles for Azerbaijan and Georgia, and since this page is currently protected, I thought it might be helpful to post it here. The current map isn't centered well on Armenia, and the cropping seemed sensible.



Adlerschloß 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Phrygian issues
Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushku To find more about Phrygians and Mushku or Mushki(Mushkitsi) These are Georgian tribes, they have nothing to do with our history. We are never remembered by the name Phrygians, but yet we are rememberd by Nairi etc etc. Greeks say there is no link with Assyrians referring to Phyrgians as Mushki, yet Moshchoi which Greeks use is Georgian tribes. We have always called ourselves with the name Armen. The most common Armenian name. A nationality just doesnt forget its name, or change names sometime in their history, it doesnt work that way. Ararat arev 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but it can have main components, like the English have the Britons, Angles, Saxons, etc. -- Davo88 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians referred to our Mitanni kingdom as Nairi or Nahrin. Nahrin or Nahrineh is also an Armenian common girls name. Along with Nairi too of course. My cousin's name is "Nahrin", which Egyptians used for Mitanni :) Ararat arev 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have told you many hundred times that that's wrong; desist repeating patent fallaciousness. Thanatosimii 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ararat ariv is correct, the Phyrgians were assimlated by Armenians, who have been in Asia Minor since atleast 2,000 BC.--Moosh88 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am speaking about his pretelection for not distinguishing between nhr, nhrn, and nairi. however, as to the armenian presence in Armenia earlier, I still have yet to hear a real ANE scholar quoted. Thanatosimii 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

External links from the World Bank Group
These links:
 * Doing Business in Armenia
 * Enterprise Surveys: Armenia
 * Privatization Database: Armenia
 * Infrastructure Projects: Armenia

Were added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group project). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the links here for other editors to consider. I personally think that four data links from one organization may be overkill without competing points of view. Also, Wikipedia has articles on the Ease of Doing Business Index and the World Bank Group which may be more appropriate than an external link. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenia as a part of Europe?
"Culturally, historically, and politically, Armenia is considered to be part of Europe." I would like to see by who. The two sources this sentence has don't come close to such a statement and even if they did you can't say it as generally accepted truth when it is said by Armenian think tank/lobby group - whatever it is they don't go into detail on their website. Please provide some credible source. Thank you. Is Turkey generally considered part of Europe? Is Russia? I'm sorry but this is just wishful thinking.--Pethr 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for introducing us to your pov. There are at least 6-7 sources referenced for that paragraph and none of them are Armenian. Please be more careful next time. Examine citations 2, 3, 4 (contains multiple sources) and 5.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like replies worded like this, they are always wrong. Please don't preach me unless you actually have visited the two sources. Examine the first sentence and its two sources - one links to Armenian think tank Inside Europe and not to an article but page with some text. The only think that comes close to what it should say (that "Armenia is culturally, historically and politically part of Europe") is "Today, the country enjoys a privileged relationship with the European Union and sees its future inside Europe." Not really the same, right? Show me please what sentence on this page supports sentence presented in the article.


 * The second source is written for some investment purposes and explicitly says that it may not represent view of European Comission and explicitly says that thoughts in that paper are just personal thoughts of that author. Do I have to say more? Oh yeah, the document doesn't say anything about Armenia being part of Europe - it examines possibilities of Armenia's negotiations with EU.


 * Please I don't have any personal interest in Armenia, I was just adding template of Council of Europe members to the article, but this statement is POV and is indeed unsourced. Please show me the real and credible sources for the mentioned sentence or I will remove it. There is nothing bad about it but historically and culturally Armenia isn't part of Europe. They are making great progress and these days may be seriously considered as approaching the status of European community nation (f.e. Council of Europe membership is great achievement) but this has nothing to do with the history. You can't really change it. Thank you.--Pethr 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL and don't call other editors contributions wrong when they are a result of several RFC's and Wiki consensus. If you wish to continue this discussion, read all the archives. Any attempts to remove sourced information will be reverted and your actions reported. Your personal interprations of the two sources out of many sources constitutes as original research. All those refs put together perfectly support the existing paragraph. Also this is not a discussion forum and frankly i'm not interested in your opinion which you shared with us in the last paragraph. Those comments only lead people to believe that you have an agenda and not good faith.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I showed you in detail that the first sentence has two sources and those sources doen't include the information. I'm not at all disputing paragraph or anything. Again: This single sentence has two sources and neither contains such text or anything that comes close. it's totally fake. Please show me the information on any of those two linked sites and I will leave it as it is. It is not there. I'm sorry.--Pethr 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And accusing me of "agenda" isn't civil either. Feel free review my edit history, I haven't edited anything on Armenia, Azerbaijan and nothing like that. I have no agenda, just want to see proper sources for such statements. Please show me source, that's all.--Pethr 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I will assume good faith here. From : In 2.1 European State on page 4. Among others you find: "clear orientation of its poppulation to Europe", "large consensus with Western European values", "Western European civ. elements prevail". Continuing on page 5: "Armenia is also in the evalutations of most geographers a European state". The quote from Torben Holtze is quite relevant as well. The second source is also clearly relevant for the comments made by Professor Jean-Pierre Mahé. Everythimg in citation 4 and 5 can also be included. Now if anything, there are far too many references supporting that paragraph.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting to my point. I'm not disputing paragraph. Those refs need to explicitly state something that would support that Armenia is historically, politically and culturally considered part of Europe. Again, I'm not at all disputing orientation of todays Armenia (even less so geography!). I have absolutely no reason to do so. If there was written that "today is Armenia oriented to Europe and its values and organizations" I'd be first to defend such statement. But it reads very differently, please read the sentence in the article and read what you find in the sources - it's two different things. I hope you understand me better now, I should have been more clear. Thank you.--Pethr 01:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all the citations need not say the exact same thing, they just need to support it since there is nothing empyrical in that sentence. Second, you're making analogies that are out of context. Everything put together completely supports that sentence. Anyhow, if you want to see change you have to build consensus, as the archives will tell you there is overwhelming consensus to keep that whole paragraph as it is. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This consensus isn't supported by source (may be a little more by nationalism), it's all I'm saying from the beginning of this discussion. You saw those sources yourself, you know that they don't support claims about Armenia being historical and cultural part of Europe. Unfortunately it's also not true or at least not generally accepted view. I would agree to political part of Europe since things are changing rapidly (and it is somewhat (not very well) sourced), may be cultural, but historical? That would need strong source and in fact other sections of article contradicts this. But you know this, you know history of Armenia much much better than I do. Governed and opressed by Ottoman Empire and Russia makes Armenia hardly historical part of Europe. It really shouldn't matter where you draw the line between Europe and Asia but historical involvement of Armenia in European matters can be disputed. I now see that the whole point is exactly the geographical line but people that are not involved with Armenia and its problems read this sentence differently. It implies that Armenia is somehow hisorically bound to Europe. Combination of historically, politically and culturally also suggests that it always has been. The sentence doesn't read like it was about line in the map but rather like political statement. But lets leave it here, I'm not pushing this any more unless some other oppinion emerges. If nobody else comments on this I'm leavig it this way. I will only repeat that I'm not suggesting that Armenia is in Asia or that it matters where the line between Europe and Asia is or has been or anything like that.--Pethr 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged discussed sentence "not in citation given" since I think I mostly proved this here or at least nobody has proved otherwise. You can have consensus on thi sentense but you need to suply source for it. This way it warns reader that the implied may not be true.--Pethr 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to do a lot better than that. Right now it's just your pov and prejudice against consensus and perfectly fine references. Btw the exact same sentence is in Georgia (country), which I know you have seen. A similar and sligthly different one is in Cyprus. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no POV or prejudice. Come on. I explained to you how those sources support only recent development and not some historical and cultural involvement of Armenia in Europe and what conotations this sentence has to people who do not have connection to Armenia. You didn't show anything so far showing how Armenia is historical and cultural part of Europe and neither has those sources which is my point. So are we going to tag this NPOV disputed or are we going to talk about source for this sentence? And I'm not the onknly one see below, you're the only one reverting me and accusing me of POV, prejudice, agenda and so on although I honestly tried to explain to you I don't have any such reason for this. (BTW I see many articles it doesn't mean I read them.)--Pethr 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I directly quoted examples from the sources which support the sentence. End of story.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry but it doesn't. It may support geographic location and present political orientation but no historical and cultural belonging to Europe. The sentence doesn't imply that it's only about geography it basically says that Armenia has always been part of Europe not that it always has been on European continent. There is important semantical difference which you are refusing to acknowledge.--Pethr 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you're trying to say, you already had one freudian slip earlier. I say you're wrong and I'm positive that most reasonable people also think you're wrong. According to your insane reasoning, the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) were not part of Europe (not geographically but otherwise as Pete here suggests) from 711 to 1492.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sentence is intended to convey the sense that Armenia is now connected and integrated into Europe; it is a part of Europe. The way it reads, though, is that Armenia has always been a part of Europe, and its culture and history is entirely European, to the exclusion of any other influence. This is peculiar, because I get the sense from the previous paragraph that Armenia predates Europe. More importantly, the Culture section of the article contradicts that sentence when it speaks of Armenia as having its own culture - a culture that is neither Asian nor European nor African nor from anywhere else. I'm only looking at reference #2, (it's one of the references suggested by User:Eupator, above) and on pp 4, 5 it does place Armenia in Europe. I think that User:Pethr accepts this and isn't questioning it. The issue, I believe, is the historical and cultural status of Armenia, and same reference states, near the top of page three, that "Armenia's President, Robert Kocharian, has declared only recently that the European direction is a priority in Armenia's foreign policy. Only very recently, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Andranik Margaryan, when meeting the World Bank Executive Director had said that Armenia 'will continue its course toward European integration and EU membership.'"  If these are only recent developments, then what was the status of Armenia before this time? I expect that the writers of this page know much more about Armenia that I do, but it seems to sell Armenia short to say that it's "culturally, historically, and politically" a part of Europe, when really, isn't Armenia's culture richer and older than that sentence suggests? --Badger151 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything and everything in Armenian politics is recent, a little more than a decade ago Armenia was part of the USSR. I don't understand how Armenia can predate Europe? Does Greece also predate Europe? The culture section requires cleanup.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - I had understood that even within the Soviet Union, places such as Ukraine, Georgia, &c continued to exist, just not as independent nations - certainly I remember seeing them depicted in contemporary maps - and I was under the impression that Armenia had a similar history. As for whether Greece predates Europe, that's an interesting question.  I suppose it would depend on how we define Europe and Greece.  A good argument can be made that Europe has existed since before our ancestors diverged from those of the chimpanzees: certainly, the land itself was there.  From a cultural standpoint, (though it has been many years since I studied this) I think that Greecian culture predates the concept of Europe as an entity, but I may be wrong.  I don't know that Athens and Sparta considered themselves to be part of the same nation or region.
 * But I think your question may point to the heart of the matter: how are we defining Armenia? If we don't consider Armenia to have existed prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, then I expect you are absolutely correct.  Some of the writers of this article seem to have taken a different definition - not neccessarily any better or worse - that Armenia traces its history back through the time of the Soviet Union, before the World Wars, before even the birth of Christ.  I expect that is the source of the confusion. --Badger151 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Armenia's historical orientation has always been western (in a broad sense), i.e. towards the Roman Empire, then towrds Christianity, then towards Russia/USSR which are all associated with Europe. It has fewer associations with Asian polities (like the Caliphate), or traditions (like Islam). The sentence is fine since its sourced. Eluchil404 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of weather armenia is in europes is simple t o meAnything west of the URALS is Europe. That is why the old question of what countries are in both ASIA and EUROPE is a great one as the answer is Turkey and Russia which everyone gets but the final one is khzakstan as people usually forget that one however a portion of it is west of the urals. ARMENIA is part of europe just like the part of russia that touches it is the european part of russia. Just my 2 cents.MoneyOx 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armenia dance image
Can we put a Armenia dance photo that was there already. What is the problem with our dance in Culture section? 66.81.158.107 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Schmidheiny
The photos by this guy were obviously taken in Soviet times and are painfully out of date. They need to remain in the "Soviet" section of this article, or be removed.... they are painful to look at as representations of todays Armenia. --RaffiKojian 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we use pictures from yerevan.ru/35mm site? We have to ask permission I guess. Vartanm 09:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I uploaded those pictures and I agree they are painfully out of date (they were taken in 1975), but they're the best free use images I could find to represent life in Armenia. I have seen much more recent pictures, but we just need to ask permission, etc.  I say we give yerevan.ru/35mm a shot. -- Aivazovsky 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need an alternative.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any wikipedians in Armenia who could help us out with this? -- Augustgrahl 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CPI
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2006

The corruption in Armenia is rapid getting worse, this is not a POV, it's a fact. By omitting the current years data and not by showing the previous years rank, the rapid trend cannot be seen.

Of course there are Armeninans on this site who want to paint a very pretty picture, and keep facts out of the article. However, this behavior is very Anti-Armenian, by hiding/ignoring the problem it cannot be corrected.--Craig Thomasian 10:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF -- Augustgrahl 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My changes to that paragraph are based on sources. Armenia is no longer considered Mostly free nor more free than Norway in 2007 report. Also saying that corruption is increasing rapidly is WP:OR because source doesn´t state that. The source says that Armenia´s corruption perception changed from rating 3->2,9 so only very little. Also the number of ranked countries increased so Armenia´s lost only a few positions. Anyway it´s not allowed to speculate based on primary source - feel free to find source saying opposite but until then it has to stay like this. Thank you.--Pethr 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW it´s so funny how I was accused of anti-Armenian agenda, POV and whatever few posts ago and now I´m actually someone who is trying to hide facts to make Armenia look better:) Please see the sources and find other source for increasing corruption, it would be OR to base it on CPI. Thank you.--Pethr 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t deny that Armenia has increased in corruption in recent years, but you comment on it being 'fastest growing in region' and 'very corrupt' are not stated in the referenced text and therefore (unless you can find a more direct source) is Original research and likely POV.

Branching from the topic some, Craig, do you realize your edit log suggests very much a close connection an established anti-Armenian? Not to say that you certainly are a puppet, but you must understand our suspicions. Supporting his position on all points, disappearing from wikipedia about the same time Caligva left and not reappearing until yesterday, It raises some interesting questions. We will assume good faith, of course, but you must understand why some of us have reason to believe you have an ulterior motive.The Myotis 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aznavour
His image is included because he is mentioned in the culture section. -- Aivazovsky 11:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use image can be used only as critical commentary which this is not. It's basicaly illegal to have that image here. See WP:FU C8 (The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.) and counterexample 8 (An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like.). This is not article on Aznavour, fair use can't be claimed. Sorry about that. (Not to mention that you have added that single sentence about Aznavour only after I removed the image. The sentence also has its flaws: "Famous Armenian composers, signers, and musicians from Aram Khachaturian to Charles Aznavour are also widely popular in Armenia." Famous Armenian singers are widely popular in Armenia? Oh really?)--Pethr 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pethr, that section is the worst in the article. I would welcome a third party editor to neutralize it. As it stands now certain parts are just too funny for an encyclopedic article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the worst few days ago, I don´t have much knowledge on Armenia to make big changes there. I can correct economical rankings based on sources like I did recently but the point here was that Aivazovsky added this funny sentence about Aznavour only to justify fair use of his photo. I wanted to stress that this doesn´t justify the fair use anyway and I´m removing it again. I really don´t want to edit war over this (or anything else) but there is no fair use rationale for this image in this article and I highly doubt that such case can be made. Anyway I welcome input of others on this but until this is resolved please don´t put the photo back since it´s copyright infringement/invalid fair use. Thank you.--Pethr 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He wont re-add the image again since fair-use rationale cannot be possibly used. However, I don't mind another image of Aznavour since he has very strong connections (ie: his presence and help after the earthquake, continuous support via his foundation etc.) with the country, I don't think it's necessary but I wont object to a pd image.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn´t object at all. I searched a bit and didn´t really find anything useful. But he is really well known hopefully someone will have his photo. May be try asking on WikiProject Armenia. Will you take care of this?--Pethr 18:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't readd the photo again and I apologize for adding the cheesy line in order to justify keeping the image on the article. I'm sure we can find alternatives (though a PD image of Aznavour might be difficult to come by).  Until then, I think we should use the "Armenian musicians" image on there.  I agree, though, the culture section needs work. -- Aivazovsky 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple possible changes?
I think that the "World War I" heading should maybe be changed to say "World War I and the Armenian Genocide"... it seems that the Genocide is an event that's too important to not at least be included in a heading. I know there's another article on the topic and that the Genocide is referred to in the paragraph right underneath that heading, but shouldn't the Genocide figure a little bit more prominently by at least being included in the heading?

Also, I seem to recall Armenia being ranked #1 in some sort of economic measurement last summer - perhaps it was some sort of ranking by The Economist magazine? Does someone know something about that? Perhaps it could be added to the "Economy" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalteseKnight (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Peacekeepers?
Can somebody verify in Armenian press what is the status of soldiers in Iraq? Armenian diaspora really claims them to be "peacekeepers" but I find it hard to believe that some country would call Iraq peacekeeping operation. They are part of Coalition Forces under Polish command so peacekeeping is AFAIK out of question. Thank you.--Pethr 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I know for a fact that the Armenian troops in Kosovo (under Greek command) are classified as peacekeeprs for sure.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, KFOR is peacekeeping mission authorized by the UN. It's very different in nature and status to the Iraq War.--Pethr 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be "non-combatant" unit. I read somewhere their mostly doctors. --Vartanm 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First nation to adopt christianity?
This is wrong, every Assyrian will tell you that the Assyrian vassal state / tiny independent kingdom in mesopatamia adopted christianity first.Tourskin 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should talk about how Assyrian queen Semiramis killed our king Ara the Beautiful -- Vartanm 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Intermarriage
This article says intermarriage between Jews and Christians is "rampant." Perhaps "commonplace" or "routine" would be a better choice of words? Elorincz 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)