Talk:Origin of the Armenians

Possible mention by Luwians
This is the first I’ve ever heard of this. The sentence you wrote provides very little context and explanation about its validity, accuracy, and acceptance in academic circles. It would be nice to provide the direct quote (like I’ve done in other attestations) or at least provide more information. From the little I managed to look up the source, it seems this “Hai” you mention is associated to Paeonians, and the assumption is that Paio- or Paeo-, through the P -> H sound change in Proto-Armenian, yielded the stem “Hayo-.” That is speculation at best, and is presented as such by academics – it’s not a real attestation of Armenians or Armenia. In contrast, Diakonoff thought “Hay” may have derived from unattested “Hatiyos” (from “Hatti” or “Hatte” — Hittites) for similar reasons, and which is completely unrelated to Paeonia. I think this fits better under “Historiography” (the methods of developing history/study of writing history) than in “Earliest Attestations,” don’t you think? Remember that this section is not “speculations about attestation” but actual attestations. Or better yet, I think this fits better on another article — Name of Armenia. — [ kentron hayastan ]  16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Genetic Origins section contains one or more questionable references and a number of questionable statements
section: Genetic Origins

First of all, I must point out that nowhere in the Genetic Origins section is there reference to the topic being of scholarly debate. Based on my preliminary research there is currently an abundance of scholarly debate as to the genetic origins of the Armenian people.

Secondly, a number of statements have possibly misleading narratives or suspect references, such as:
 * 1) "Recent studies have shown that Armenians are indigenous to the Armenian Highlands and form a distinct genetic isolate in the region"
 * 2) "Armenians are also one of the genetic isolates of the Near East who share affinity with the Neolithic farmers who expanded into Europe beginning around 8,000 years ago"
 * 3) "As was concluded in earlier studies, the 2020 study reaffirms the pattern of genetic affinity between modern Armenians and the ancient inhabitants of the Armenian Highlands since the Chalcolithic. It reveals a "strikingly high" level of regional genetic continuity for over 6,000 years"

Of particular concern is #3. The reference for this statement is a research study published on bioRxiv which can be found at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.24.168781v1. There are several reasons that this research study should be met with skepticism:
 * 1) it's a preprint and has not yet been certified by peer review
 * 2) the authors declare that they have competing interests
 * 3) funding for this research comes from:
 * 4) * the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of Armenia
 * 5) * the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
 * 6) * the Foundation for Armenian Science and Technology

While it may eventually turn out that statements 1, 2 and 3 are accurate, they are far from proven at this time. The bioRxiv comment section for the study is clear proof for this: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.24.168781v1#disqus_thread.

I'm unsure of how to address this problem because it appears that this section needs substantial attention and my knowledge of the subject is preliminary. At minimum, it seems necessary to add a sentence at the beginning of the section stating something akin to:


 * "The genetic origins of the Armenian people are of intense scholarly debate and the contents of this section may change substantially over time. All statements and references in this section should be critically evaluated before being accepted as accurate."

Thoughts on how to proceed?


 * The three points you mention are paraphrased from the articles mentioned. Also, notice the use of the phrases “research has concluded” or “show” or “reaffirms,” and never “proven.” We can consider rewording some passages (for example, we can add, “in a preprint of a research yet to be certified by peer review”). I don’t have time at this very moment, but we can discuss it further. Also, please sign your comment (add ~ and Wikipedia will automatically add your name). — [ kentron hayastan ]  17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I disagree that the topic is of intense scholarly debate. The notion that Armenians form a genetic isolate in the Near East and are related to neolithic farmers has been confirmed or concluded on multiple occasions, by non-Armenian studies (most noteworthy one being Hellenthal et al, Science (2014)). — [ kentron hayastan ]  17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Xerxes I and the inscription at Van
Hi. The source in this section states: "The name Urashtu (a variant for Urartu) is encountered for the last time in the inscriptions of Xerxes (486–465). In the trilingual texts of Darius (522–486) the Old Persian word which corresponds to the Akkadian Urashtu is Armina" The quote doesn't indicate that the text of the Van inscription has anything to do with the topic. The full translation of the Van inscription can be read at the Xerxes I inscription at Van article, as well as other venues online. It doesn't mention the words "Armenia", "Urartu", "Urasthu" or anything along these lines as far as I can see. Perhaps a different inscription by Xerxes is meant? Xerxes authorized many other inscriptions as well. Linking the Van inscription to nomenclatures related to Armenia seems WP:OR at the moment. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)