Talk:Origin of the Armenians/Archive 1

message: Here is an older study that has similar results
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf
you dont need an account to view it.
the National Geographic Project is the most recent and respected that;s why I did not mention the older UK study.--Craig Thomasian 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but I don't see anyhting like what you're claiming in either study.--Eupator 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't find any mention of Armenians in the NG link. I found something about that cave and that was it. If you don't provide a verifibale source i'm going to assume you're making this up.--Eupator 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not using the above PDF as your souce. You're using something that cannot be verified. Use the PDF as your source and I will tell you what's wrong with that! Back to your alleged NG source, where in that NG link is there a mention of Armenians?--Eupator 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is on you. I can't find it. Read: Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Eupator 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any free account there nor am I obligated to get one. You are obligated to provide evidence without any action on my behalf. You have just violated WP:3RR and I will report you.--Eupator 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You just completely fabricated that by rewriting it!
The actual paragraph reads-
A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in theCaucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armeniansand Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closelyrelated genetically to other Caucasus populations (whospeak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-Europeanor Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijan-ian therefore represent language replacements, possiblyvia elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, inwhich case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azer-baijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closelyreflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore ana-lyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 malesfrom eight populations, representing all major linguisticgroups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, basedon the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians aremore closely-related genetically to their geographicneighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neigh-bors elsewhere. However, whereas the mtDNA results showthat Caucasian groups are more closely related geneticallyto European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast theY-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship withthe Near East than with Europe.--Eupator 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's see how he gets out of this one...--Tekleni 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So you admit you're a troll? This will prove most useful in the future.--Tekleni 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Worst attempt at damage control since Congressman Foley.--Eupator 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't bet on it.--Tekleni 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: it's a very safe bet... :) anyway I am tired, have fun guys, we can play some more tomorrow maybe.--Caligvla 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not your personal playground. Nobody is amused here by your disruptions other than you!--Eupator 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: a) I still haven't seen the source. b)It's not encyclopedic. I have seen similar studies claiming Norwegians are genetically similar to Nigerians or that Greeks are genetically similar to Ethipians. Rubbish. c)What's the point of that to be included in this article anyway? d)I suggest you look for another source and before adding anything to the article present it in the talk page. I think that's a fair request for something that extremely controversial.--Eupator 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please elaborate so that I can respond :rolleyes. You have to understand that adding that each time without reaching a consensus is simply irrational. I mean what's the point? If you're honestly interested in that respond to my two paragraphs above. The more you blindly revert the more I will suspect that your motivation lies elsewhere.--Eupator 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw I wont revert it again since you're so obviously and intentionally starting an edit war, but understand that there is absolutely no way that section will remain here.--Eupator 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No I didn't! I wrote that after the 2nd revert and there is no third revert. Don't be so desperate...--Eupator 20:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh boy, so many oxymorons. I lost count.--Eupator 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's unsourced, then it'll be removed. Period.--Tekleni 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Caligvla, you'll get caught one of these days, and your well earned ban will be forthcoming.--Tekleni 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppetry. Interesting how he (Caligvla) is so devoted to promoting how un-European Armenia is and then you turn up with full knowledge of how Wikipedia works and make this Caligvlesque edit .--Tekleni 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That and virtually every other edit he ever made are Caligvlesque.--Eupator 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do, you know Eupator, that block evasion (Caligvla is currently blocked) can get your block reset. Do you feel in the mood for being a supergrass ;-) --Tekleni 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Hamparzoum and Caligvla are different people. -- Augustgrahl 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they are different people or not seems irrelevant since they are both committed to some obscure cause in proving that Armenians are not European. Two editors, so far, with Armenian-like names relentlessly championing for the same obscure cause. Even if they are different people, they all make similar edits and arguments. --MarshallBagramyan 02:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian DNA

message: ::Obviously this DNA issue is important to Craig, I suggest you either put up information from a completed study or wait until the results of the NG study are comlpeted. Sound fair to everyone? Eupator since you seem to be the one contesting it, why don't you help Craig find a good source instead of just deleting everything he does?--Hamparzoum 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sooooo not a creationist....lol--Eupator 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake, in an earlier comment you seemed to discredit DNA genographic research, so I assumed your motivations had to do with faith issues. I am willing to work with you on this to make it a great article. Thanks!--Craig Thomasian 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy these studies for a second. Like I said I have seen similar studies alleging a close genetic relationship between Greeks and Ethipioans (I mean wtf?) or Norwegians and Nigerians. The studies pop up every year and every year one discredits another study and so on. In addition all these studies have very strong political and social implications thus they need to be taken with a grain of salt. They have great potential but since we are in the very early stages of genetic studies we cannot use them as solid facts, especially controversial ones. Not to mention such sampling studies which can be considered unscientific, similar to your average online polls. Now, if something is not considered a solid fact doesn't mean that it cannot be mentioned in the article; however, I still don't see why it has anythign to do with this article when related origin articles (such as the Romanian one) only deal with historical and lingustic issues. 50,000 years ago there were no such people as Armenians! We only care about the linguistic and cultural origins of the Armenians. Everything else (like DNA studies) is outside the scope of this article.--Eupator 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that makes it much more clear now, how about a small section that there are studies on-going and a link to some of the DNA site like NG, so people can find more information on their own? I have seen this done in other articles.--Craig Thomasian 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't hear any opposition to my proposal, I am going to go ahead and add it.--Craig Thomasian 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast. I thought I was clear that i'm opposed to any inclusion of DNA research in this article.--Eupator 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I was very sensitive to your comments, you said you didn't like the findings of DNA testing, all I am doing here is informing readers that there is DNA Testing for ancestory and origins, these tests include Armenians, and where to find more information. I removed any an all conclusions from the test information per your orders.--Craig Thomasian 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I didn't like or liked any of the results of the so called findings. Convince me that these "studies" are within the scope of the article. --Eupator 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes there are, i'm disputing them and their relevance in this article!--Eupator 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe invalid is not the best word, but they are certainly not factual and are very controversial and they chnage more often than the weather in Texas. For example this study claims sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks: .--Eupator 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's very relevant. Your suggested move just does not make sense to me. The DNA article itself has no information at all about these sort of studies. There is this article Genealogical DNA test but even there, where would you put this and more importantly how would you word it?--Eupator 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also look what the above article says: These tests are controversial—their validity has not been independently confirmed — and the results are often disputed. I told you so?--Eupator 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say I agreed to removal of the tag.--Eupator 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: please help