Talk:Diauehi

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diauehi. 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/20070927202158/http://www.nwalliance.ru/PDF/Daiane-Diauekhi.pdf to http://www.nwalliance.ru/PDF/Daiane-Diauekhi.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) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They could not have been Hurrian. There were no Hurrians after 1300 BCE. Also, the Hurrians were not this far north. There is no evidence of the HUrrians beyond the southern shores of Lake Van. Additionally, the Hurrians were not Indo-European.
I posted legitimate scholarly articles linking theories about the Diauehi possibly being Armenian. Three well-cited links. This was removed and replaced with "Hurrian"...uncited. Research published by the Association For Near Eastern And Caucasian Studies and the Archaeological Institute of America. Hardly unacademic. And what's wrong with posting an alternate, cited theory to begin with?
It seems to me that this is politically motivated reversion, which isn't healthy for an unbiased source of information.Preservedmoose (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurrian 

message: While it's unknown what language(s) the Diauehi tribal confederation spoke--Kartvelian, Indo-European (Armenian, Anatolian, Thracian, Indo-Iranian), and Hattian have all been proposed--IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THEY WERE HURRIAN. A) Hurrians disappeared around 1300 BCE. Diauehi appeared at earliest more than a century afterwards. B) There is no evidence that the Hurrians were ever north of THE SOUTH SHORES OF LAKE VAN. Diauehi was located in what is now NE Turkey, well north of Lake Van. Additionally, there is a lack of Hurrian geographic or topographical names in this region C) Diauehi means, in Urartian, "tribe/land of king Daias". Daias is not a Hurrian name, but is rather likely Indo-European (compare with Diogenes, Tiwaz, Deus, etc). 
There were likely multiple language groups living in the region (Diauhi was a tribal confederation, after all)...but there is NO REASON to believe that there were any Hurrian speaking tribes in this region at the time (or any time, for that matter). Chronologically and linguistically, it's not sound.Preservedmoose (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right, but you need to provide sources for these claims. That the Hurrians were present in Diauehi was argued by the luminaries such as Melikishvili and Diakonoff. The Hurrians did not just disappear in 1300 BC. Their remnants lingered on in the area for several centuries. --KoberTalk 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Melikishvili, but I'm pretty sure that Diakonoff did not suggest that the Hurrians were that far north. He suggested that the Alarodians, who WERE in that area, MAY have been remnant Urartians (who were not Hurrians but related to Hurrians linguistically, FYI). This is mainly due to comparisons between the names Alarodian and Urartian and Khalt and Khaldi. However, these theories have been rejected by Urartologists like Paul Zimansky. Anyway, the Alarodians were not mentioned until around the 5th century BCE, so well after Diuehi. It's generally accepted that the Hurrians made it as far west as Hattusa and established a ruling dynasty over the Hittites, but there does not seem to have been a Hurrian presence in NE Turkey, and even a Hittite presence in this region is controversial.Preservedmoose (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, "I don't know"/"I'm pretty sure" proves nothing. Again, you need to provide sources to back up what you just said. In fact, your own words suggest that the issue is controversial. Hence, giving preference to one scholar over another violates WP:NPOV. That said, I'm encouraging you to add a citation from Zimansky's scholarship into the article.--KoberTalk 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Adding Hurrian 

message: :: Luwians were not Proto-Armenians. Luwians were an Anatolian people. They were closely related to the Hittites. There's also no reason to believe that they lived as far east as Diauehi. Proto-Armenians were an entirely different people who spoke an entirely different language from the Luwians or Hurrians. As for the Diauehi, we don't know what they spoke. We know the names of four of their kings and some of their cities. Some of the king names seem to be Indo-European (Diaus), but some might not have been (Utupurshi). We don't know what language these tribes spoke (or even if they all natively spoke the same language). As for the Mushki (who may have been a Proto-Armenian speaking people), they had already moved (at least partially) but the time of Diauehi (they were moved south by the Assyrians in the 12th century BCE). Hayasa-Azzi existed before Diauehi. It is possible that new people moved in. We simply do not know enough about either Hayasa-Azzi or Diauehi to make any statements with certainty.Preservedmoose (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We don't know what Diauehi spoke  

message: Please leave the History of Armenia. The Diauehi were originally a Nairian people (which has been connected to Proto-Armenians and led to Urartu) from Elazig or Mush (both long parts of Armenia) who moved to Kars (also long part a region of Armenia) and then moved to Tao/Tayk (which alternated between Armenian and Georgian control for centuries). All of this is in this article. They are as much a part of the History of Armenia as the History of Georgia. It's also unknown what they spoke. Some of their names seem to have been Indo-European (Diaus). They may have been Kartvelian. They may have been a mixed confederation. This article itself has two sources saying that they may have been Proto-Armenian.Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave "History of Armenia" template 

message: IP keeps removing History of Armenian template from article, stating that Diauehi was not located in Armenia, and was Georgian. However, article states that 1) Diauehi was in Turkey and 2) may have been Proto-Armenian speaking (i.e. linguistically Armenian). IP refuses discuss issue on Talk page, even though I started a new section to discuss this topic. 
Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 17:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: EN-Jungwon (talk) Thank you for the response. I reverted the article to how it had been (i.e. with the History of Armenian template in tact). I just would like the article to be semi-protected so that the History of Armenia template, which has been in this article for some time, cannot be removed by an IP. The same IP has attempted to remove this template multiple times this week. So semi-protected status to prevent IPs/non-autoconfirmed users from removing History of Armenian template from the article.Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

text: EN-Jungwon (talk) The same IP that is causing issues in this article caused similar issues in Mushki recently, which caused that page to get semi-protected status last week (March 31). Please see the Revision History page on Mushki here for reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mushki&action=historySkeptical1800 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  Terasail[✉] 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection Request 

message: "However, they are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus as Xaoi, which Hewsen etymologizes as a Greek form of the Armenian endonym, Hayk'."
What does this information have to do with Diaokhi?  Either I ask for an explanation of this or delete it.
Also why did you delete David Marshall's source regarding Diaokhi? 5.152.72.140 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diaokhi, Hayk and Origins 

message: 1. “However, they are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus as Xaoi, which Hewsen etymologizes as a Greek form of the Armenian endonym, Hayk'.[41]”
Hewsen does not write this.  He writes that the copyist made a mistake and the correct name was Taokhoi, which was the name of a region in Iberia.  
Exact quote from the author:
“Taokhoi for the population, erroneously written Khaoi in Diod.unless this is his or a copyist’s false correction on the notion that Xenophon’s Taokhoi should be read Khaoi from Arm.: Hayk’;”
2. “While it is unknown what language(s) they spoke,[14]: 205”; “According to Robert H. Hewsen, they may have been speakers of a language unrelated to any other in the Caucasus region.[40]”
In reality, R.Hewsen is talking about the origin of the name Dayans, not about the language.
Quote from the author:
“While it is possible that the Dayans were proto-Caucasians and thus one of the vanguards of the proto-Georgians, their name conforms to no known linguistic root in Caucasia and they may represent a distinct and virtually autochthonous population.”
3. “they may have been speakers of a Armenian,[23][24][25]”
In reality, nowhere in the sources is it mentioned that Armenian was spoken in Diauehi. 185.115.7.107 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems about R. Hewsen and Armenian sources 

message: I wonder why Armenians trying to Show themselves as local people of Caucasus, deleting sources, first time I checked this article there was mentioned mostly Georgian part who are locals of caucasus, now it shows Armenian. 37.170.48.218 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenisation of Georgian history