Talk:Name of Armenia

message: this apparently belongs merged into Armenians#Origins. It seems to be a disparate collections of sound-alikes of "Armani", sprinkled with mystical nonsense about "AR = Aryan = GOD" and whatnot. Uniting these various inscriptions into a tangible ethnicity, "blond-haired, and blue-eyed in appearance" no less, seems to be utterly confused fringecruft. Attribute to credible sources and discuss on Armenians in context. dab (𒁳) 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are discussing various unrelated names that sound roughly the same. No case is made that there is in fact a specific people being discussed. This belongs (the parts that are at all substantiated, that is), on Armenia#Name. dab (𒁳) 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: look, you have to provide a reference for your claim that Armenian Armin'e and Avestan Armin are at all connected. Just their sounding  alike proves nothing. There is a German name Armin which is completely unrelated, it just happens to be spelled the same. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: sheesh, I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking you to cite your sources. Read my lips: WP:CITE. If there is an inscription by Naram-Sin, cite it, don't pretend it is identical to the one discussed by Albright. dab (𒁳) 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge, de-crankify

message: distinguish the following claims:
#Assyrian Armani and Egyptian Ermenen have the same referent
#this Bronze Age toponym is related to Old Persian Armina
#there was a people of the Armani (Armens etc., as opposed to simply a region known as the "Minna mountains") in (a) the 23rd century, (b) the 15th century BC
#Urmani is also somehow related
#these names have an Indo-European etymology
all of this is wild-eyed speculation, mostly found in Armenian popular "histories" disconnected from anything resembling academia. The best reference we have so far is Easton’s Bible Dictionary saying that "some" identify Armenia as Assyrian Har Minna "Minna mountains" (without endorsing the connection). The ar- etymology is utter nonsense. What we can gather is that the Armenia exonym may have a predecessor in a Bronze Age toponym. That Armin is a name for Armenia "to this day" is utterly irrelevant, since we already know it was a name for Armenia in 520 BC: it doesn't help us with the Assyrian or Egyptian toponym. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what "Karda inscription"? Can you not just please cite your sources and refer to expert opinions? My opinion isn't any more interesting than yours, just cite scholarly literature, thank you. It is anyone's guess whether the Kura-Araxes culture was "Indo-European", some scholars have identified it with Proto-Anatolian, yes. Let's just drop the "Aryan swastika" nonsense from the beginning, shall we? And what, oh what does the Kura-Araxes culture have to do with the topic of this article, the toponym "Armenia"? The Old Persian name may or may not continue a middle Bronze Age toponym, which may or may not be related to Biblical Minni. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Indo-Europeans. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: you apparently fail to understand that the Kuro-Araxes hypothesis is incompatible with the Armenian hypothesis. Please do some background reading before adding random pie-in-the-sky ideas to articles. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: claims

message: Alex, you want to claim that the Armanum toponym in the 2200 BC text is "also read Armani". Your reference for this is "Artak Movsisyan, 'Aratta: The ancient Kindgom of Armenia,' Yerevan, 1992". What sort of reference is this? That's at best a popular summary, which should in turn give its own reference. At the very least tell us what exactly Movsisyan says, on which page. Since I have identified the inscription for you (URI 275), which would have been your job if you want to discuss it, you should now get an edition (Schroeder 1920) of this inscription and tell us precisely which are the variants, and who says that you can "also read" Armanum as Armani. Don't expect other people to do your work for you. My suspicion is that behind this is just more wild speculation that Armanum and Armani refer to the same place. Hell, they sound alike, and they sound like "Armenia". That's fine, but you have to say whose speculation this is, not serve us some hand waving claim that one is "also read" as the other. Now please give me a break and start editing responsibly, researching your claims (as opposed to doing idle google searches and repeating fuzzy statements you found on the internet). dab (𒁳) 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "also read Armani"

message: Alex mond claims it is "Armani", but he is unable to produce the Aramaic spelling. 
This is a matter of plausibility: if I google სომხები, I get 559 hits. If I google ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ , I get 395 hits, so it stands to reason that these terms exist even if we don't have a watertight reference for them. But what is the spelling of this postulated Armani? Is it Armānī or Armanī or Armāni or Armani? None of ܐܪܡܢ     
ܐܪܡܐܢܝ  ,ܐܪܡܢܝ get any hits, at all, and I cannot imagine how else you could spell "Armani", so the burden of showing that this is a real Aramaic word is clearly on whoever is making the claim. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is Armani. I spelled it the way I saw it once in a Assyrian newspaper. All the hits your getting for  ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ (Armenia) are all Wikipedia (Aramaic). The reason your not getting anything from Armani is because the users in Wikipedia Aramaic haven't created that page yet. You won't find that much (non-Christian topics) Aramaic writing on the net. Hope that helps. Chaldean 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I readily believe this, but it would be ever so much easier if you would cite some notable dictionary up front when discussing terms in langauges so obscure that they give not a single google hit. I get 85 hits independent of Wikipedia for ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ btw. Can you tell me whether Armani is the singular (as in Arabic), and if it is, what is the plural? dab (𒁳) 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the Aramaic for "Armenians"?

message: The majority of the references provided are from the first half of the twentieth century, much of that has since been debunked in the Western academia.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If you want to defend these additions, (a) read WP:BRD, (b) log in and (c) present your rationale on talk. 
What this addition was doing, in extremely poor format and broken English, was to provide a reference for the item
:Armenian tradition makes Armenak or Aram the great-grandson of Haik.
which is already in the article. I'll attach the Moses reference to the existing statement. 
--dab (𒁳) 10:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous games

message: I have removed this statement for this reason:
It's all right to say that one historian rejects this, but it's not relevant to the article until his rejections are explained. Everything in this article is speculation, and the article makes it clear that nothing has been proven. Naturally (and rightfully), there are many people who reject claims in this article, many historians and nationalists alike, so why mention this one specifically? Unless his rejection is explained and has a lot of weight, it's useless. This article is not about the opinion of Adontz on the etymology of Armenia, however, it can include the information that he has to make his opinion so that readers can make an opinion themselves, and to have some neutralizing elements in the article. Wikipedia is a neutral source, therefore, it shouldn't have a statement which has the goal to force the reader to accept something without explaining it (like this statement is doing). One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to provide readers with information which they use to come to conclusions themselves, rather than being told something that encourages them to agree with the conclusion of a person without actually explaining how the person came to that conclusion.
 "Though this opinion was criticized and rejected by armenologist Nicholas Adontz in his 1946 book." 
</br>This means nothing, doesn't add informative content to the article in any way. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information, not the opinion of somebody (no matter how credible that person is). This is like saying adding a statement in the article for the Armenian Genocide saying, "however, [some Turkish historian] rejects this in his 2005 book" without really saying anything about the content of the book itself, and when the article itself mentions that "many claims in this article are rejected by many Turks" (much like this article infers that everything is unproven, subject to criticism and rejected by some historians).
The correct way would be:
</br>[...]. Alternatively, due to [...], [...] and [...], Armani might not be related to Armenia at all (Adontz 1946).
</br>or
</br>This opinion was criticized and rejected by armenologist Nicholas Adontz because [...]. < reference the book instead of saying "in his 1946 book" >
</br>or something along those lines.
</br>Since I don't own the book it references to, and have no idea what arguments Adontz uses to reject the links this article makes to Armenia, I'll let someone who has the book edit this.
(I have begun a discussion about a certain statement that comes into conflict with what I believe Wikipedia should be, and as a Wikipedia user who is trying to be objective, I ask you to not undo the edit until everyone comes to an understanding. A claim cannot be made until it has been discussed and explained, and therefore, re-inserting this statement which has a debatable place in this article before everyone comes to an understanding is just going to spark a childish edit war.)
Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" is his conclusion and is 100% equivalent to "This opinion is criticized and rejected by Adontz." It doesn't give the reader the opportunity to actually understand what reasons, arguments he uses to come to that conclusion so that the reader can decide for himself if Armani has a relation to Armenia or not. We all know that many historians reject claims in this article, the article makes it clear, therefore, this line is already inferred and doesn't add informative content to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with Adontz. However, this statement has nothing to do with the article. "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" should be in the reader's MIND, not in this article. And it should be based on the reasoning of Adontz, IF the reader agrees with Adontz. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, and doesn't agree with Adontz. Wikipedia is supposed to provide the information Adontz uses to come to his conclusion so that the reader can come to HIS/HER conclusion, and not tell the reader "this very influential person disagrees with this opinion." That would force the reader to come to a conclusion blindly. Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in your interpretation of what Wikipedia is here for, either we back up the Armani hogwash with a reliable source like Adontz or we remove it altogether.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have reverted multiple times already, another one will result in a block. I'm adding a disputed tag to the section given how it contains conjecture from antiquated and unreliable sources that nobody in their right mind would take seriously today and because you have removed the only modern balancing reference.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you're interested or not is pointless, Wikipedia is about providing information to readers, not the opinions of somebody. Explain why Adontz disagrees with these claims and reference this book, or leave Adontz out. This article is not about Adontz's opinion, it's about the etymology of Armenia. If you want to talk about Adontz's opinion on this subject, make an article called "Adontz' opinion on Armenian Etymology" and say "Adontz believes Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" there. Also, I agree with the "disputed" tag, because everything in this article is disputed. However, that "modern balancing reference" doesn't EXPLAIN anything, it just says, "there is a modern balancing element to this subject." The right way to "balance" this article would be to provide the argument and sources that Adontz uses. As I repeat, this article is about information, not an individual's opinion (no matter how influential that person is, the READER should have opinion, not blindly accept someone else's opinion, without seeing the reasoning).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas Adontz's rejection 

message: It would be helpful for context to give a year (decade?) for Xenophon's writing of Anabasis, which is c. 400 BC.
24.205.197.228 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpful to give a year (decade?) for Xenophon's writing of Anabasis. 

message: Etymology section has no etymology...73.220.34.167 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Name of Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216031248/http://un.cti.depaul.edu/Countries/Armenia/1133483520.pdf to http://un.cti.depaul.edu/Countries/Armenia/1133483520.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I removed the following: "About one century after the fall of the Kingdom of Urartu, the 5th century BC Greek historian Xenophon claims that Armenian villagers spoke a language that sounded similar to Persian" which was from a self-published source (http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/index3.pdf). This claim is not actually in Anabasis (the entire text of Anabasis is easy to find online). In fact, what is in Anabasis is the following:
Nowhere did he say that Armenian sounded like Persian, but rather that the Greeks (Xenophon and Cheirisophus) relied on a Persian-speaking interpreter to converse with the Armenian villagers. All that this implies is that Persian was understood widely enough in Armenia that villagers could speak it. Xenophon does not comment on the Armenian language.
Clearly the information I removed misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, what Xenophon actually wrote.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenophon's Anabasis 

message: : Both of these make use of subtemplates (I believe), so I'm not going to mess with them, I'm still learning template syntax. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 14:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022