Urartu case 

First of all, I would like to complain about spying and stalking on all my activities from users like Nareklm. The latter recently interfered in page "Request of Assistance" and removed a reference to personal attack which I reported to PAIN. I realize that my link is not valid anymore since it was archived. But case was reported - I have been insulted by Eupator.

Now - about Urartu.

First - I made my references. Those users  have been removed references. Wikipedia has a quite strong guidance about that. Further - about relevancy of my text, actually not only mine - there is other users who supported me)

I argue that section of "Ethnic Composition" in page Urartu and page "Antiquity" in page Armenia in its current version imply ethnic continuity and strong bonds between people who lived in Urartu (Academicians for example use term 'people of Urartu') and Armenians, who (sources I quoted say) moved in Urartu in 7-6 BC. My argument is not only about language diferrences. It is about ethnic and cultural ones. My arguments are on 'Request of Assistance' page. 

I'd like to quote professional historian about Urartu-Armenia nexus:

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."  

Finally, the problem is not only in the content of dispute itself. It is also about behavior of users - their insults, reluctuance to accomodate various views.