Talk:Armenia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Headline text

Armenia is not the only predominantly Christian country in Asia. Philippines and East Timor are also overwhelmingly Christian.

Oh. Sorry. I thought they practiced Judaism. But it's still the only one on the mainland, correct?--TigranTheGreat 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalin and Soviets Killed Millions of Armenians??

I would like to see a citation for this statement: "As with various other ethnic minorities who lived in the Soviet Union during Stalin's Great Purge, millions of innocent Armenians were executed and deported.

The Purge itself may have been responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand people across the Soviet Union, but the idea that Stalin engaged in political murder on a scale of "millions" in the case of Armenians is absurd.

Soviet agricultural policy in the late 1920s and early 1930s certainly played a role in widespread famine throught the former USSR, but "executed" is quite a rhetorical stretch for what was essentially boneheaded policy and a Soviet bureaucracy that was slow to react to mass starvation. historymike 00:19, 1 Aug 2006 (UTC)

C. Walker uses "tens of thousands," so we can use that.--TigranTheGreat 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, millions or even hundreds of thousands is absurd. That can be said in regards to Ukrainians for example. Tens of thousands is a given though.--Eupator 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mount Ağrı?

SSherris 21:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following is a list of the province names, some of which need to be changed I think. The transliteration scheme is way too complicated and not what is used as a matter of course in Armenia. I have put the old and complicated name in (parenthesis) and believe they should only be shown in parenthesis where the technical transliteration, and not common is of interest. Aragatsotn Ararat Armavir Gegharkunik (Geghark'unik') Kotayk (Kotayk') Lori (Lorri) Shirak Syunik (Syunik') Tavush Vayots Dzor (Vayots' Dzor) Yerevan --83.217.229.148 00:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Armenia article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Armenia}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map

The map over where Armenia is in the world is really confusing - didn't help me pinpoint it, and that was one of the reasons why I looked up the article! Houshuang 05:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no problems for me, if you know a little how the european and middle east countries look like its easy enough to see where armenia lies. bart 12:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem for me. It is not clear. Armenia is pretty small and the box covers a lot of an area which most people are not familar with.

European country?

Just to state that there is an open poll in here regarding the fact of Armenia being or not being in Europe and if it should figure in the template.--Joao Campos 17:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Genocide claim tuned down, also lots of other fixes. Fadix declared my edit as hyjacking. Article is about Armenia not armenian history nor about genocide claims. those are on articles on their own. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

looks good--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenia Belongs to the Southern Caucus region not the middle east. It appears you have forgotten it also belonged to the former Soviet Union for some time. So one cannot say with certainty that Armenia is just "another middle eastern country." By the way this tone your taking contains a certain racists undertone.

please don't remove

I read on the top that the page was possably up for deletion. I just want to say that to delete it just isn't fair.

Template Europe

Countries and territories of Europe

Unrecognised countries: Abkhazia | Nagorno-Karabakh² | South Ossetia | Transnistria | Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus²

Geographical notes: (1) Partly in Asia; (2) Entirely in Asia but having sociopolitical connections with Europe.

I know there are disagreements between many people on whether or not Armenia is a European country. Until we resolve this solution, do we need this template. As everyone can see, Armenia is not listed in the template above. I think it would be best if we removed, because as I said, Armenia is not listed in that template.--Gramaic 06:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armenia is a Asian, Middle Eastern, and European nation.

Provinces

IMHO, the names of provinces should be in LAtin script (English) only at this page. However, the names in Armenina script should appear at articles about provinces.

Recent revert of my edit

I thought that my edits nature was clear enough to not need to justify it(the edit in itself was minor). But it seems that it wasn't since it was reverted. I changed the range of figure of those having perished, to hundreds of thousands, because it is a less precis figure and is agreed by both parties involved. The Turkish government figures of Armenians that died is well under a million, so it needed to be presented, unless the figure of victims was less precise as to include both position. I also made it hyperlink to present the entry regarding Armenian casulties. I also changed the term killed for perished, because again, this term is enough to not creat a possible later revert of changes by those that deny the Armenian genocide. Not all were directly killed, so perished is a more appopriate term. And finally, my last edit regarding the Turkish government, was because I sensed a POV, as to present that dispite the evidences presented the Turkish government deny the event... this part is a taking of position. And even thought I know the genocide happened, doesn't change the fact that the way that sentence was written was POV. I hope this explaination is enought so that I don't end up with another revert, as I am not really interested to revert back such a minor edit. Fadix 01:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You reduce the figures from 1.5-to-one million dead, into hunderds of thousands — that is not a minor edit (!). If you wish to cite Turkish figures for the Armenian Genocide, you can do so in parentheses. Second: the Turkish government claims that these events amounted to 'genocide', is not a minor edit, either (again). At any event, Embassy of the Republic of Turkey, Washington, DC claims that "the Armenian deaths do not constitute genocide." It seems factually incorrect to me, so I reverted back. El_C 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

First of, hundreds of thousands is not reducing the number of victims. I linked that part to another entry which present the range of casulties. The reason why I edited it that way was because those range presented 1-1.5 million, were presented as absolute fact. I rather changed that to something that would not have required both positions to be presented, and you'll understand that once Turks start editing that part and the whole thing become a revert war. Second of, true that was my mistake(that the Turkish government recognize the genocide), I forgot the "not" word there, which changed the meaning of the phrase, but you could have edited that part out by adding it instead of reverting the entire thing out. Fadix 06:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that the amount of information on the genocide on this page has been gradually growing over time, and obviously attracting more attention and disputes. I would hate to see an {{npov}} on this page, and so I believe that information on the genocide should be kept to a minimum here. The paragraph comparing it to other genocides especially seems out of place. I think that this edit better represents what the paragraph should look like. You may consider just using the text from there, maybe expanding it just a little, since it seems to be much less POV that the current one. --Aramգուտանգ 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Fadix 15:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, "Armenian refer" is misleading. I will rephrase and propose an edit here.

Here, what about this:

"During the final years of the Ottoman Empire (1915-1922), a large proportion of Armenians living in Anatolia, were killed as a result of what is generally termed, the Armenian Genocide, it is claimed that Armenians faced a state sponsered destruction. The Turkish side, however, maintains that the deaths were a result of a civil war coupled with disease and famine, with casualties incurred by both sides. Most estimated figures for the number of Armenians who perished in the event range from 600,000 to 1,500,000. Their death is commemorated by Armenians worldwide on April 24th."

And I propose we delete the other paragraph, it has no reall place in the entry of the republic of Armenia. Fadix 16:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, except the grammar of the first sentence is a bit iffy. Maybe this phrasing is better: ...living in Anatolia were killed as a result of what is generally termed as the Armenian Genocide, claimed by Armenians to be a state-sponsored eradication effort...

We could add mention of other countries or historians, but the opinions of Armenia and Turkey are probably the only ones important enough to mention. --Aramգուտանգ 00:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is required to say that Armenians say this, it is misleading. I don't even think that Armenians have a position that really differ from the "official" Academic position that would require to devide it. What is termed as the Armenian genocide, is claimed to be a state sponsered destruction. This is not agreed by everyone, but this was why the term "generally" is used there. On the other hand, the Turkish position, or the Turkish government position, is different enough from what might be termed as "official" position, to be separated and included. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 03:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the scholarly consensus in the rest of the World, in relation to the two versions, is noteworthy. El_C 02:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

90%

Ok I found a source which you wanted el_c. The website is down but, Yoni Freeman, a professor at Connecticut College says "90% of all Armenians know Russian". I don't know why the site is down, it was up a few months ago, but I found it on google, it has that caption which I just gave you. Here is the link to my google search, the site is the 2nd to last. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=90%25+of+armenians+can+speak+russian&btnG=Search --Moosh88 01:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but accuracy-wise, Yoni Freeman's "The Spirit of Armenia" is not referenced to any studies. How do we know it isn't 95% or 85%? I suggest a less specific approximation until this can be established concretely. El_C 02:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yoni Freeman is not a Professor at Connecticut College. He was a student in the Class of '06.

Read what I posted on your user talk--Moosh88 02:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I did. I'm comfortable with that. El_C 02:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange, this site states that the percentage is 40%, which I don't agree with, but the US department of state post reports, which are written for people going to a country on a diplomatic mission, are generally very accurate. Maybe the fact that people outside the capital city are much less likely to speak Russian is a factor, although the mandatory Russian education alone leads me to think that the percentage is closer to 90%. --Aramգուտանգ 03:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found a source which proved me wrong, the figure is closer to 75%, I wrote all about it on your talk page El_ C.--Moosh88 00:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The best source here is Soviet language statistical data from 1989, it is produced by asking the Soviet citicens. It says that of 4 623 232 Armenians, 352 136 had Russian as a first language, and 2 178 212 had Russian as a second language. That gives a percentage of monolingual Armenians in the Soviet Union at appr. 45 %, approximately 46 % bilingual Armenians with Armenian as a first language, and appr. 6 % Armenians speaking only Russian. The data, quoted from Soviet GOS publications, are available online at my website. I find it unlikely that the percentage of Russian knowledge is estimated too low in the quoted figures, if anything, the census situation should invite to overreporting Russian skills, not to the opposite. Trondtr 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

In fact there was a wave of Armenian nationalism in 1989. The census could be conducted by local nationalist-oriented polititians or people could hide the fact they know Russian.--Nixer 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit Tag

I have added a copyedit tag as I think there are quite a few grammar and style problems in the current article. I will go through it and change it, but as I am unable to do that right now, I have added the tag (I plan to fix it by the end of the day) alf 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Literacy rate

The anonymous editor may have had a point. According to this, this, this, and this, the adult literacy rate is 98-99%. Even the CIA concurs. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Armenia Gas and Petroleum

"Small amounts of coal, gas, and petroleum have not yet been developed."

Coal yes but petroleum and gas? I read of oil shale in Armenia, but gas and petroleum have not been found in Armenia http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caucasus.html

Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 21:59, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Armenia gets most its energy from Russia and its historic ally, Iran.

Questionable statement

"Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly Armenian-populated enclave that, as alleged by Armenians, Stalin had placed in Soviet Azerbaijan."

Is the "alleged by" really needed here? One would think that whether Stalin had put it in Azerbaijan is either true or not and in either case is a matter of historical record. Ken Arromdee 03:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of obvious (and fake) Turkish propaganda added by an anon. user (IP 70.30.155.151) on 9/25/05

I just noticed that an anonymous user with the IP address of 70.30.155.151 had made 10 edits between 2:20 and 2:35 on September 25, 2005, removing the entire section on Armenian Genocide and adding outrageous false and obviously pro-Turkish statements--such as "Armenians had lost their identity," or "Armenians were better off in Turkey than Muslims," or "Armenians brutally killed Turks." Most of these edits had gone unnoticed. Statements such as these undermine the value and neutrality of wikipedia as an online encyclopedia and are therefore unacceptable.

Here is a link containing a comparison between the changes made by 70.30.155.151 on 09/25/05 and the state of the article before the changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&diff=23960303&oldid=23942640. As the changes clearly indicate, the edit by 70.30.155.151 was filled with notorious false pro-Turkish statements and had the clear purpose of abusing Wikipedia as a forum to spread propaganda.

I think that it is important that we show both sides of the conflict. There are lots of countries, which did not mean that it happened a massacre of the Armenians. Most of the arabish and some other eastern countries means that something like did not happen. There are only some states of USA, Libanon, Russia and a few European countries which has explanied 1915-events as a "massacre". There are lots of well-known historians, both Western og Eastern, who also means that it did not happen a Genocide. Justin McCarthy is one of them. Why are someone trying to hide other points? Forgive my English, I am not so good :-) 23. des 2005

Edits on Demographics

The "increasing" adjective for "emigration" was apparently incorrectly assumed by Sdrawkcab in his edit on 21:36, October 19, 2005 (his edit available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&diff=25951753&oldid=25652403). I guess he meant "increased level of emigration," which is true compared to Soviet years. According to US Census Bureau data (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html), the huge rate of emigration in 1992-93 (right after the breakup) has drastically down and continues to decrease. In fact, starting with 2010, the population is expected to grow. Also, "serious" is not entirely NPOV, especialy considering the facts above. --TigranTheGreat 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The parts about "Azeris will pose threat" and "birth rate can't keep up with emigration" or "third of Armenia live in Russia" have been added by anonymous user 65.25.220.172 on 17:55, April 17, 2005 with no sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&diff=12438594&oldid=12438525). We don't know who "observed" that Azeris will pose threat, how authoritative they are, whether these are Azeri officials, whether the opinions are widely accepted or not. Individual dubious "observations" have no place in a general encyclopedia article on a country. As I stated above, US Census Bureau data (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html) indicate that the population decline has been decreasing, and starting with 2010, the population will actually grow. As for the birth rate, it's actually higher than neighboring Georgia, Russia, and almost all of European countries (including Germany and UK. France is almost the same). --TigranTheGreat 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is important that we show both sides of the conflict. There are lots of countries, which did not mean that it happened a massacre of the Armenians. Most of the arabish and some other eastern countries means that something like did not happen. There are only some states of USA, Libanon, Russia and a few European countries which has explanied 1915-events as a "massacre". There are lots of well-known historians, both Western og Eastern, who also means other things. Justin McCarthy is one of them. Why are someone trying to hide other points? Forgive my English, I am not so good :-) 23. des 2005

That's rubbish. There are Armenian Genocide monuments in Iran, Syria, as well as Lebanon. Most countries in that region are aware of what the Ottoman Turkish government did, but do not make it an issue for obvious reasons. As for the Far East Asian countries, I'm not quite sure about them. "Some" states in the USA? Try 30 plus. Either way, this dicussion would be more relevant on the Armenian Genocide page rather than on here.

83.108.45.186, the article *does* present both sides of the story. Majority of scholars admit the Genocide, and Turkey denies it. That is the accurate state of positions on the issue of the Genocide, and that's what Wikipedia should convey. Making it sound as if both sides are equal presents a skewed view and does disservice to wikipedia. There are no "lots" of historians who deny the Genocide, only a miniscule portion of the scholarly community does so (and they have questionable connections with the Turkish government). Actually I can probably count them (the ones "outside" Turkey) on one hand--McCarthy, Lewis, Shaw, and lately Lewy, who by the way doesn't deny it but says "the evidence is not as strong as for the Holocaust." On the other hand, there are 126 Genocide scholars alone who admit it, and hundreds of other historians doing the same. To present an accurate picture, if you include McCarthy's name, we would have to include the names of many of these scholars, or perhaps Pulitzer prize winner Samantha Power--there is simply no way to do it an article on Armenia--it's probably unpractical even on the "Armenian Genocide" article.

As for many countries not recognizing the Genocide, they don't say "it didn't happen," they just don't discuss the issue (for obvious political reasons). So far only Turkey (and maybe Azerbaijan) actually denies it, making it a tiny minority. And the other user was right, the vast majority of US states recognize the Genocide (I think it's 37 already).--TigranTheGreat 09:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mount Ararat

My comment is regarding the following statement :"Mount Ararat, regarded by the Armenians as a symbol of their land, is the highest mountain in the region and used to be part of Armenia until around 1915, when it fell to the Turks". I think that the last part of this sentence is erroneous. Mount Ararat was situated in lands of the Ottoman Empire, it was not part of Armenia, for example in 1750, 1850 or 1905. I realize that there was a short-lived independant Armenian republic for 2-3 years after the genocide, but I'm not sure that this is enough to claim that Mount Ararat was "part of Armenia until around 1915."

70.83.83.197, there is nothing erroneous about that statement. Mt. Ararat was in the Russian section of Armenia up until 1918 (as part of the province of Surmalu), and then under the independent Republic of Armenia until the treaty of Kars (1921) gave the area to Turkey. So, it was not part of Turkey before then. Now, "Armenia" has always been the name given to the Armenian Highland even after it fell under Ottoman and Persian rules. That's how Europeans called the area, and that's even how Ottomans called it up until early 20th century. Even now, I am holding a current World Book Atlas, and eastern part of Turkey is called "Armenia." So, Mt. Ararat definitely was in Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tigranthegrreat: I realize that that area has been referred to as Armenia in defferent maps. Just as certain areas (including areas containing Mount Ararat) have been referred to as Kurdistan in those same maps. My question is: Was there ever a political entity called Armenia prior to 1915? For example, in 1905, Was there an Armenian head of state in that area, was there an armenian currency, was there diplomatic relations with other countries at the time. The answer is no. I realize that Armenian folklore views that land as "Armenia" and that Europeans and Ottomans realized that this was an area historically associated with Armenians, but I would not say that Mount Ararat was part of Armenia until 1915. I would rather say that Mount Ararat was part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey did not exist at the time), in a land historically associated with Armenians. Get back to me.

70.83.83.197, before 1920 Ararat was never part of Turkey or Ottoman Empire. Along with the area around Igdir, it was part of Yerevan Khannate in the Persian Empire up until 1828. Then, along with the Khannate, it came under Russian control. The area then was incorporated into the "Armenian Region" which later was renamed to Yerevan Province. Armenian writer Khachatur Abovyan who was in fact eyewitnessed and wrote about the conquest of Eastern Armenia (including Yerevan Khannate) by Russia, got to the top of Ararat after the conquest, which was a famous event and probably would be impossible or very dangerous if the mountain was under Ottoman control at the time. Ararat remained part of Armenian Region/Yerevan Prince (within russian Empire) until 1917, then part of the Armenian Republic. It was given to Turks (along with Igdir) in the Kars treaty.

I never saw a map referring to Ararat as being part of Kurdistan. The maps depicting Sevres Treaty of 1920, for example, show Kurdistan to be below lake Van, and Armenia to be above lake Van. I have a 1993 World Book Encyclopedia Atlas, and it shows exactly the same (with Armenia referring to the eastern part of Turkey). The same has been true for centuries, with Europeans and Ottomans referring to the area as Armenia. So, it is accurate to say that it is part of Armenia, it is also accurate to say that it was part of Russian Empire, Caucasia, Middle East, planet Earth, Solar System. The article, however, is about Armenia, and the most appropriate choice is the one closest geographically and semantically to the main topic of the article, which is Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 11:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey people. Start a page about Azeri Genocide which the racist ARmenian Government and its abhorrent people have done! Otherwise, this page is nothing more than a garbage!

What Azeri Genocide? You mean the defeat the Azeri troops suffered at the hands of Armenians of Karabakh after the Azeris tried to ethnically cleanse the Armenian population? It's already covered in the history section. Making hate-filled posts only harms you.--TigranTheGreat 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous user who is trying to add McCarthy.

83.108.45.186, I explained on the talk page why adding McCarthy is inappropriate, and I will repost my explanation below. If you want to add McCarthy, we will have to add the hundreds or thousands of scholars (the vast majority of them in fact) who say that the Genocide happened. Maybe we can do that in the "Armenian Genocide" article, but not in an article about Armenia, where only a paragraph talks about the genocide. If you want to discuss the evidence of the Genocide, go to "Armenian Genocide" article. Neutral means presenting an accurate picture of the scholarship. If it's 99% vs. 1 %, then that's what an article has to convey. Here is my prior post.

83.108.45.186, the article *does* present both sides of the story. Majority of scholars admit the Genocide, and Turkey denies it. That is the accurate state of positions on the issue of the Genocide, and that's what Wikipedia should convey. Making it sound as if both sides are equal presents a skewed view and does disservice to wikipedia. There are no "lots" of historians who deny the Genocide, only a miniscule portion of the scholarly community does so (and they have questionable connections with the Turkish government). Actually I can probably count them (the ones "outside" Turkey) on one hand--McCarthy, Lewis, Shaw, and lately Lewy, who by the way doesn't deny it but says "the evidence is not as strong as for the Holocaust." On the other hand, there are 126 Genocide scholars alone who admit it, and hundreds of other historians doing the same. To present an accurate picture, if you include McCarthy's name, we would have to include the names of many of these scholars, or perhaps Pulitzer prize winner Samantha Power--there is simply no way to do it an article on Armenia--it's probably unpractical even on the "Armenian Genocide" article. --TigranTheGreat 11:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Province spelling

I don't know why the provinces have been spelled the way they have, since nobody in Armenia spells them that way. The pretty standard transliteration is used by all the major guidebooks as follows:

Aragatsotn (Արագածոտնի մարզ)
Ararat (Արարատի մարզ)
Armavir (Արմավիրի մարզ)
Gegharkunik (Գեղարքունիքի մարզ)
Kotayk (Կոտայքի մարզ)
Lori (Լոռու մարզ)
Shirak (Շիրակի մարզ)
Syunik (Սյունիքի մարզ)
Tavush (Տավուշի մարզ)
Vayots Dzor (Վայոց Ձորի մարզ)
Yerevan (Երևան)

So the only changes are removing the apostrophes and the double rr in Lori. If there is no explanation for that usage, and no complaints, I will change the pages to reflect this spelling, since for sure nobody is googling Geghark'unik' Marz --RaffiKojian 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Raffi. Good job on the Cilicia website:) I have no problem with your proposal. I personally get annoyed when the accurate local Armenian names get tortured (how did Mountainous Gharabagh become Nagorno-Karabakh, which is not accurate even compared to Russian (which is Nagorniy). --TigranTheGreat 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TigranTheGreat, since it's been 2 weeks and nobody seems to think it's a bad idea, and we both think it's a good one, I'm going ahead with it. This way people who search for "Lori" or "Vayots Dzor" will have a much better chance of finding the articles... --RaffiKojian 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2492 BC

The 2492 date was added by user 195.250.64.76 on 1/17, and I guess because there was no supporting source, Khoikhoi removed it (which is the right thing to do:) ). I re-added the info because it is a date well known among Armenians as the year and day when, according to an ancient Armenian tradition, Hayk defeated Bel, which served as the "founding date" of Armenia. The ancient Armenian calendar used the date as its starting point, August 11 was the Armenian New Year, it is mentioned in the earliest Armenian sources (Anania Shirakatsi etc). It is stated in the "Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia" as well: "... ancient Armenian Calendar (the starting date was 2492 BC, when Patriarch Hayk killed Bel)", v. 4, p. 220, 1978, Yerevan. Note that this was published way before the collapse of USSR and the "nationalist" revival of 1988, at a time when local scholarship was under strict Soviet control to oppress any expression of dangerous "nationalism." The point is not whether the date is accurate historically, the point is it is regarded as the date of the battle according to tradition, which is what the article states, so the info itself is accurate.--TigranTheGreat 00:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It starts with "According to legend...". That's it, it is a legend that virtually every Armenian knows of. I don't see a problem.--Eupator 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding other info originally added by anon. user.

I also re-added the "southern Armenia" phrase added by user 195.250.64.76 on 1/17, with some modifications necessary to avoid POV. The fact that eastern Turkey is historic Armenia is well established and has been well known for centuries among Westerners and even Turks. Here is one example, from the "Armenia" article in World Book Encyclopedia: "Present-day Armenia and much of what is now eastern Turkey make up historic Armenia, the original homeland of the Armenian people." v. 1, 1994. Therefore, it's hardly POV. It's also relevant, since an unacquainted reader might wonder "what does lake Van have to do with Armenia?" and the addition clarifies the link.--TigranTheGreat 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

re-added the "Armenia is in north-east of Armenian Highland" section originally added by user 195.250.64.76 for the same reasons mentioned above. It is accurate, well established, and puts the geography of modern Armenia in the proper geographic and historical context. Removed POV-prone words ("only 30,000" "more than 400,000"). --TigranTheGreat 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Links cleanup

The links section needs a good cleanup. There are many links which do not belong on this article, as they relate only to sub-topics which have their own articles. I am going to take a stab at it, but it may need some more work. --RaffiKojian 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A request for chronicler Zenob of Glak

Hi! Please excuse my cheek, but I thought this site the best starting point for searching for Armenians with historical knowledge. Armenian medieval chronicler Zenob of Glak is AFAIK not available on-line, or even in English! There is a passage in his chronicle about the wars of the Parthian empire; he mentions a Greek king Demetrius (most likely Seleucid king Demetrius II of Syria) who was kept in Media where he was given land. Now there is some dispute as for whether this king in fact was an Indian king Demetrius. Is there anybody who has got his work and is willing to translate it to me, or could else assist me as for the context? I would be very grateful for help indeed! Many thanks --Sponsianus 21:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Barev

Please support category Kurdistan against some biased users. Thank you very much. D iyako Talk + 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hastert and the Armenian Genocide

In the current article, the following passage appears: The United States House of Representative almost passed a similar law at the end of the Clinton years but Speaker Hastert withdrew the vote from the agenda at the very last minute. It was revealed in 2006 in prominent media outlets that Hastert had received compensations from Turkish authorities to stop discussion on the Armenian genocide.

Since the second sentence amounts to an accusation of bribery, shouldn't there be a citation, at the very least? Redneckgaijin 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not bribery, just political pressure but yeah this requires a source. If it's not sourced soon just remove it.--Eupator 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original source (and the sentence above has it wrong). --RaffiKojian 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a very misleading and possibly slanderous sentence on Hastert. Vanity Fair is the only primary source, not the plural "prominent media outlets", and is a controversial and politicized magazine that is generally hostile to Hastert's Republican Party. A secondary TV source [1] doing a story on the Vanity Fair article noted that President Clinton (a Democrat) and his Secretary of State M. Albright were also pressuring Hastert hard at the time to drop the vote. A search of the web doesn't turn up this story on news sites, just on Democrat (the political opposition party to Hastert's) and Pro-Armenian websites. Also the charge made in the source was an allegation, not a revelation, and the date of the accusation was 2005, not 2006. Thus I have edited the 2 sentences accordingly. My opinion is that the charge is simply false political propaganda and both sentences should be completely removed, but I will refrain and let others decide if they reach the same conclusion about removal.

As I said, the sentence above has got it wrong. It needs to be re-written to reflect the Vanity Fair article (which preceded a number of others). --RaffiKojian 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

first Christian state

The sentence Armenia became the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as its official state religion follows common misconception I believe. According to Edessa, Mesopotamia, the kingdom of Osroene was officially Christian somewhat earlier. Note the sentence

According to Gutschmid (1887), the Abgar who embraced the Christian faith was Abgar IX, and Christian writers have not challenged the substitution. Under him Christianity became the official religion of the kingdom

in the article on Edessa. Abgar IX died around 212AD.... Stotr 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no misconception. Abgar converted the royal family to Christianity, but not the entire state and the people. Tiridates III of Armenia converted the entire state and the nation to Christianity. Hence, Abgar maybe the first Christian monarch, but Armenia is the first Christian State. --TigranTheGreat 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Roman Empire from the 4th century onwards (i.e. the Byzantine Empire) was the first Christian state. Christianity became official in 391 AD, this was much later than Armenia. --Telex 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rome was actually quite late to make Christianity official. By 391 when it was declared official by Theodosius, it was already official in several states neighboring Rome in all directions, including 1) Armenia (305) 2) Aksum (c. 325-30) 3) the Goths (Arian Christianity from ca. 345) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Map of Urartu

Does anyone know where the Urartu map comes from? It completely omits the eastern areas that were part of Urartu (including Urtekhene/Artsakh, Utiene/Utik etc).--TigranTheGreat 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, the map is correct. At the time Urtikhene was not under Urartu's domain. Urtikhene was established some 30 years later.

See the following maps with Urtikhene: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu680-610.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu713-680.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu715-713.png --Eupator 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But where are the maps from?--TigranTheGreat 07:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Catalan Wikipedia.--Eupator 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know what was the source for Catalan Wikipedia. How do you know that the maps are correct?--TigranTheGreat 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, they look very legit. Urartian boundaries can only be reconstructed using Assyrian annals and Urartian inscriptions. I asked the creator how he made the maps though. Catalan Wiki has the best coverage of Armenian history anywhere in the internet, the sources are not cited unfortunately but almost every single topic is coevered. --Eupator 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, best on the internet doesn't mean best in the world. But my best regards to our Barselonian friends for thoroughly covering Armenian history.

Back to the map--from what I followed from our discussion--the caption is still inaccurate. Clearly, it's not the greatest extent of Urartu (it omits lands added later). We should change it to "Urartu in so and so period." --TigranTheGreat 08:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is. Compare the maps to one another and you'll see, in addition many sources confirm that Urartu's greatest extent was reached under Sarduri II. When lands were added in the East later, lands were lost in the South. Sarduri II's son Rusas I lost almost all the territories in the South to the Assyrians.--Eupator 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigran here is his response: Mainly they came from the text in "Histoire d'Armenie" by Grousset corrected by some later books. I elaborate some years ago thousands of maps based in accounts of history but they are near all hand-made and not availables for web (then were not computers). I elaborate the maps in Corel Draw and then exported to bitmap. They can be used as PD o GFDL. joc 14:32, 6 ag 2006 (UTC)'--Eupator 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fake Republic of Azerbaijan !!

Let's read the Republic of Azerbaijan Controversy! It is very interesting! Some people want to hide this fact and do not let them delete it!

What does this have to do with Armenia? -- Clevelander 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible versus history

I'd prefer that the references to Christian Bible stories be moved into a properly titled section. Mixing these myths in with other information makes them seem to be more like real history that folklore.

Link suggestion

Please add a link of my none comercial project to the "News website" section. Its a news aggregator engin which use new technologies (authomated scripts) to agregate news from armenian news sources in the one spot. You can read about the project here

URL: http://www.armtown.com TITLE: Armenian news aggregator

Thanks, Serge

The article nor the talk page is the place for self-promotion... —Khoikhoi 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then either delete all the links not related to the government or I will consider this act as discrimination against armtown.com project. Serge

I'll delete them when I have the time. Probably tomorrow. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The links need to be separated into Government and Other. All the links in other must be about ROA (such as CIA factbook) not Armenia in general. I will do so today.--Eupator 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think only useful links should stay. Pakistan is a featured article and look how many external links it has. —Khoikhoi 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I created two sub-sections, one for government sites and one for sites that deal with topics exclusively related to ROA not Armenia in general.--Eupator 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the description of the Armenian Apostolic Church as 'very ritualistic and conservative' On the contrary despite constant references to tradition, it has been capable of innovation and adaptation. Cases in point are the adoption of organ accompaniment, women members of church choirs, a relatively open policy to the admission of other Christians to eucharistic communion, and a high profile in the oecumenical movement. This list is not exhaustive. Non-chalcedonian should be replaced by pre-chalcedonian in accordance with predominant contemporary academic usage

Clive Sweeting