Talk:Armenians/Archive 1

message: I've incorporated material on religion from History of Armenia (it's really part of the history of the ethnic group more than of the Armenian state; we may want to remove the material from that article.), a digest of Armenian Genocide and various newly researched material. -- Jmabel 23:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: history

message: Is it "Armenian People" or "Armenian people"? Danny 23:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the article where it was. On my own, I would probably choose "Armenian"; right now, "Armenian" is a disambiguation page. Good question whether "people" or "People" is more correct when used in this sense. I don't really care, but I suppose there should be a redirect from one to the other. -- Jmabel 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, then, I'd like to move the article to Armenian (people). Danny 00:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me. There was barely an article here before I got at it. -- Jmabel 01:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: Off the top of my head, and because I was working on them today, William Saroyan and Ross Bagdasarian. Others, Cher, race car driver Freddy Agajanian, California governor George Deukmajian.  Sure there are many more.  Ortolan88 17:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is: List of Armenians; just that there was no link to it on this page. Bogdan | Talk 19:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No list of famous Armenians?

message: An anon just added, without justification, the claim that the Greeks are a related ethnic group. I don't specifically know this to be false, but I have serious doubts. They just added the one word in the infobox, so I have no idea what relation is claimed. If no one justifies this with a reference within 72 hours, I will feel free to delete. -- Jmabel 20:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a tenuous link. The languages are remotely related and the peoples are both Christians living in Asia Minor, but that's about it. I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny. — Jor (Talk) 20:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: They do have the historical circumstance in common that they are both modern ethnic groups that had absorded and assimilated the now extinct peoples of Anatolia in the pre-Turkish and pre-Byzantine eras. The modern Turks have in turn absorbed large numbers of these Greek, Kurdish and Armenian-speaking populations into their modern mainstream society. But linguistically, I doubt that theres is any close relation. //Big Adamsky 18:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Armeno-Greeks

message: Aozan, I'm an administrator, and I am one of the people who has been reverting you. I think there is no question which side in this dispute is in line with Wikipedia policy, and it is not yours. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Jmabel, I do not see this article as 100% neutral. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These statements are hardly NPOV. Also Jmabel, please do not bite the newcomers. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hence I see the  tag aproporate. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aozan was invited to suggest alternative wordings, see above. Do you have a suggestion as to how to rephrase the passage you object to? I actually agree "Persecution in the Ottoman Empire" doesn't need its own subsection, but could be merged with the rest of the section.  the template is for cases where your suggestions for compromise were turned down. If you propose better wordings, I am sure people will find a compromise. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, last thing I want is conflict. I will reword the phrases as you suggested. Good/bad thats open to debate. I sincerely believe all external referances to the Armenian Genocide should neither establish the incident as a fact or as fiction. --Cool Cat My Talk  17:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I did remove one date referance as it is not covered in the linked article. I wrote this on-the-fly so typos may be present. --Cool Cat My Talk  17:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's fine, I suppose, although I don't know what to do with the "several accusations". There is really just a single accusation, namely, "these guys killed some 1.5E6 Armenians!"; How about "the persecutions during the final years of the Ottoman Empire are widely considered as being of  genocidal nature,..." dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with Dab, here. It is not reasonable to brush away the death of at least hundreds of thousands of people as accusations. Do not try to hide the fact that it is widely considered to be a genocide under the pretext of NPOV!--Wiglaf 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a suggestion based on Coolcat's. I agree that the genocide was shoved into the readers face, a little bit. how is it now? dab (ᛏ) 06:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is quite reasonable. Firstly from what I see we do not have any idea exactly how many died. Secondly it isn't necesarily a genocide from one perspective. Thirtiarily this article does neither discuss the history of armenians nor it discusses Armenian Genocide. This is like an article about electricity discussing newton as newton invented calculus making electricity and electonics a posibility. This or any article aside from Armenian Genocide present any views regarding the incident. Just a cloudy topic. If user cares to read about the mater as they should the remote article is sufficient. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  Several accusations because there isn't one case or document discussing the matter. There are many cases and many documents. I just tried to emphesise that there arent two solid sides but many sides conflicting/agreeing on various points that are of no concern to this spesific article. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  There is improvement but definately room for more. I suggest removing details regarding Armenian Genocide as with all due respect the entier topic is an international dispute. I am trying to NPOVise that peice so it supports neither view. Granted many people died. That is not something either side is denying. The numbers however are the reason of a significant disagreement. A range may work. Minimum suggested - Maximum suggested may work best or removing numbers completely to be discussed on remote article. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The topic should not be discussed anywhere else than Armenian Genocide article as it will be a double reference. The topic is significant enough to have its own article and it does. All details belong to that article not here or anywhere else. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree, we could be guided by Jew#Persecution which simply gives a link to the main article. But it is also customary to give short summaries. In the present case, we have a similar summary both here and on  Armenia, which is after all a tad redundant.  (History of Armenia has the laconic  World War I saw the depopulation of large parts of Historic Armenia ruled by the Ottoman Turks during the Armenian Genocide.'; we could also use that here.)dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: um, no. largely for stylistical reasons, this time. the Ottoman Empire is commonly referenced as the Armenian Genocide? What's wrong with the sentence as posted from History of Armenia? Also, you seem to be unaware that the case is less ambiguous than the Turkish government would like you to believe, so be careful not to adopt weasle terminology that is really just thinly veiled propaganda. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I ment was is below. I am suggesting it is a very serious, contraversial topic with lots of argument. We do not know for example how many people died accurately. Estimates are fine but they are estimates. So what I am trying to do is cover the topic as little as posible on external articles as it is a very important yet contraversial topic. I am not suggesting it insignificant, on the contrarary it is significant. I do not care who says what at this point as many parties, important historians, are conflicting each other. So for example if I say 300 people died inthe incident you willm say another historian says 600 etc. If I remember right arhives are conflicting each other. I am trying to make this a "No Point of View" rather than a "Neutral point of view" as there is high level of disagreement on almost any detail I can think of regarding the incident. Some parties are even dismissing its genocide status. Hence sticking to NO point of view is a lot better than a neutral point of view as the neutral point of view ends up being an article. Lenghtening this while sticking to NPoV is impossible IMHO. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Who the hell are you trying to fool this time? [Mr]. Coolcat? Been there, done that... and here goes again the Mr. "They treat me unfairly, I will leave" but never leave self admitted liar. BTW, when will you lunch another Arbitration? Fadix 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: In sum I suggest sticking to a general statement which no party will disagree to. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I seek perfection. I am trying to improve the statement you gave me. My statement does not hint/imply anything, the way it should be. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Since I do not see an opposition I am introducing that statement. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that the only reason you do not have opposition is because your change is so ridiculous that it doesn't even require any answer. The version already there seem to be NPOV already, which is BTW not "no opinion,"(or "no point of view") which is a concept that you have just introduced in Wikipedia, but rather NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW(Entirly DIFFERENT CONCEPTION, when will you understand what NPOV really means?). To think that you even oppose to the term "ethnic cleansing" here is even more problematic, and just further convince the reader the nature of your "worthlessness" here on this article. I will clarify so that you don't go cry telling I did not justify the revert. To think that it is the decrease of population that is called the Armenian genocide, is to completly ignore what a genocide is, as well as ignoring the subject at hand. There could have been a million, ten million, hundred of million Armenians in Turkey right now, it would have not changed a bit of the nature of the massacres in 1915. That there is no Armenian alive in Western Armenia picture the gravity of the crime, but in no way play a role in wherever or not there was a genocide there. Wikipedia will shine the day you respect your threat of leaving Wikipedia, I just, like many others, have enough of you. Truly yours, Coolcat. Fadix 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: hm, Coolcat, if you seek perfection, maybe you should start with concentrating on spelling. Or, for pity's sake, use a spellchecker. dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not care too much about spelling when npovising. One problem at a time. You have edit power. Why not spell check for me? I am not to great with spelling anyways. Since you are an expert you can assist me. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  Fadix the reason as discussed above. I do not want "ethnic cleansing" to apear here because the "revisionists" dispute it. What does the word Genocide mean? Why is it necesary to mention what it means here? There is a real disagrement on anything you said. Including how many people died. Since there is no scientific concensus in almost no part of the incident. Armenian genocide is not a "worthless" topic. That is why there is an article by that title. Oh and btw please do not spice the talk msg with referances to what migh have happened etc. I am not debating the armenian genocide here. I am debating how it should apear here. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There could have been a billion armenians. But original research is not wiki material. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's so unwiki of you. Again for the millinion[nt] time, Wikipedia present the major positions regarding a topic, and as well present some minority positions. It does NOT delete informations just because there are people that contest the nature of. There still are weirdos that contest that Earth is not flat, this doesn't mean the form of Earth should not be mentioned just because it is not agreed by everyone. What I agree is there should be an indication that Turkey reject the charges, and this was exactly what was done with Encarta, when the Turks protested to take the word genocide out. After continual debate, instead they added that Turkey reject the charges; because an Encyclopedia does present positions and do not supress them. When someone come here and read the entry, he/she should know that there is a clear position(the majority position), that a large scale massacre happened, and this massacre is called genocide by many, including the UN, and many other international bodies. And this, independently from if there was a decrease of Armenian population. It isen't the decrease that is called genocide, it is the nature of the massacre. As for ethnic cleansing, even Turkish historians like Mango that don't like applying the term genocide, use the term ethnic cleansing, the other side doesn't deny there was an ethnic cleansing, they just ignore or skip that word. Ethnic cleansing as well reffer to the result, that there was an ethnic cleansing can even not be debated, because not even the Turkish government would deny that term, knowing what it really means. Fadix 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: more to the point, there are weirdos who deny the Jewish holocaust. The holocaust article says it happened, and killed 5-6M Jews. Why is there no NPOV template on it? What do you think will happen if you try to put one there? We can state that the Turkish gov has its head stuck in the sand, but that doesn't make theirs a notable position. They are simply trying to deny things, just because they don't like it. NPOV doesn't mean that we should give spurious, or fringy, or hypocritical positions equal weight. WP would be a madhouse if we did. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator 

message: Like it or not, the Turkish view exists. I've done my best to write a sentence describing the Turkish government's stance on the genocide. I don't have any notable expertise, and I may not have it quite right, but I think this is the best way to resolve this. To report accurately what the Turkish government says (1) is NPOV (2) should satisfy the few partisans of this position, and (3) for the rest of us, displays their denial for what it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The "Turkish View" concerning denial of the Armenian Genocide should be dealt with the same way as the Neo-Nazi "view" denying the Holocaust. (and I should add that not all Turks support this view and in fact it has been seriously challenged by a new generation of Turkish scholars who understand a bit of what integrity and scholarship is all about). Obviously we acknowledge it (that the current Government of Turkey denies the use of the term "genocide" and disputes aspects of the historical record) - but in serious circles this “Turkish View” (as it is called)  deserves no credence - it is a political position and not a factual one. I would also argue that at best it might be presented within the Armenian Genocide discussion (again properly caveated) - though the nearly century long campaign of denial perhaps warrants its own Wikipedia entry itself. However I would no more expect to see denial of the Armenian Genocide in a section concerning Armenian history or culture then I would expect to see Holocaust denial in a section concerning Jewish history. To include such - to include unsupported heresy and non-credible and unsupported claims such as this (that the Genocide never happened or perhaps was not a genocide - when the entire historical record verifies that it was beyond any doubt - and then to give any credence to a position that attempts to place blame upon the victims...) well this is highly insulting to Armenians and to any who hold the truth in any regard and it is an entirely academically bankrupt position. 
All that being said - I am highly in favor of a detailed and accurate presentation of the complete history - warts and all - as it were - in the Armenian Genocide section (so not every Armenian was perhaps a saint - no matter - it was still a genocide [even if one were to believe the highly exaggerated and in the majority of cases false Turkish accusations against "Armenians" used to justify the severe, inhumane and brutal actions taken] and there is nothing that can ever justify the barbaric, comprehensive application of state power - using official apparatus and sanctioned and directed proxy forces – and bloodthirsty religious based fanaticism and use of other motivations such as greed and jealousy - - that the CUP party employed to coral and incite the Moslem population of the Empire against specific ethno-religious civilian minority elements within the Ottoman population that resulted in their destruction in toto...and where this clearly was the aim of the policy and its enactment was pursued with no regard to human decency or concern of life – in fact it was pursued in the most brutal and barbaric means imaginable). These specifics need to be presented and discussed in the Wikipedia section specifically concerned with the Armenian Genocide and it should be referenced from here.
In this section I would expected that the Armenian Genocide be briefly referenced (with no language that aims to taint it or suggest it as falsehood - because it most certainly was not – and is not – as the denial and attempts to further obviate the Armenian presence in Anatolia and the truth of what occurred is ongoing and thus the Genocide is in fact continuing to this day!) and likewise readers should be made aware of its impact on today’s Armenians (creation of the Diaspora and the significance of the Genocide to all Armenians [survivors and descendents of survivors] from that time on and continuing to today as a result of the huge impact on all Armenian families and due to the ongoing Turkish denial – these are the relevant facts for this section…) - etc) and this article should clearly present why an Armenian presence is entirely lacking in their historical homeland of Eastern Anatolia and how this remains a sore point for Armenians – particularly of the Diaspora – comprised largely of Armenians whose families were “cleansed” from these areas - but also the article should highlight how Armenians have rebuilt themselves and are prospering throughout the world in spite of these loses. 
This event – the Genocide – and all that it entails - is no less important and fundamental to the world view and psyche of modern Armenians as the Holocaust is to the Jews of today. To interject false revisionist propaganda into this section is most hurtful to Armenians and it has no basis in fact. Again - consider the Holocaust and how Jews feel (and how all of us should feel) when misguided individuals and such attempt to legitimize false revisionism in this regard and to use such to deny the Holocaust and disparage Jews - Armenians deserve no less consideration because this is exactly what is occurring and is being attempted by certain Turks and by the Turkish Government itself. The historical record is entirely clear concerning the causative factors, the buildup to genocide, the sequence of events, and the specific actions taken against the Ottoman Armenians and who bears responsibility. An overwhelming body of scholars, historians and academics have verified and legitimized this knowledge and nothing of the sort has ever occurred to legitimize the shameful "Turkish View". I am truly beginning to doubt the humanity of some folks around here in addition to wondering about their possession of intellect and the ability to understand things in a scholarly capacity. What more does one really need to say concerning this matter? --THOTH 10:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Turkish government realizes how much the denial damages their reputation and PR in the world. They have nothing to gain, since their policy is interpreted by most educated Westerners as dishonesty.--Wiglaf 10:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: the current approach would be the way to go on the main article. In this article, we only need to point to the main article, so details of the Turkish technical contortions are not needed. We can say the Turks deny anything happened, but we shouldn't allow the section to become too long. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was saying, both position should be presented, but as much space should be given to a position as it is supported in publications. If there is 100 vs 1 publications, it is expected that fold more place is left to the position that got 100 publication. Giving equal space is to mislead the reader into believing that two positions are supported equaly in the accademic world, when it isen't the cases. Fadix 15:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Turkish view 

message: The sentence "Until modern times, the history of the Armenians is the history of Armenia" doesn't make any sense at all. Am I missing something? --Hottentot
* I think you are. It makes sense to me. I suspect that it is the closeness of the words that confuses the matter. It is grammatically parallel to "Until modern times, the history of the Magyars is the history of Hungary." Maybe it should say "Until modern times, the history of the Armenian people is the same thing as the history of Armenia as a geographic entity". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
**makes sense, but is it true? it appears the area of modern Armenia was defined only in 1918 or so. Maybe some clarification is needed. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence doesn't make sense 

message: since an anon just changed some population numbers, somebody should look into them, and if possible attribute them to specific censuses. dab (ᛏ) 07:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: numbers

message: I deleted the "little support" and "lack of credible linguistic evidence" part because Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to assess or evaluate existing scientific theories--that is not neutral point of view. To ensure neutrality and accuracy, we need to only present the current state of scholarship on the subject--that most scholars think Armenians came from outside, and a miniority think that they are native. That's it. It's the reader's job to read Ivanov and Gamkrelidze  and others to decide whether it's credible or not. The "lack of credible evidence" part was added by 66.75.110.44 (on 07:27, October 13) without any explanation whatsoever--we don't know where he read that there is no "credible evidence". Actually, there is much evidence presented by Ivanov and others (it's not just these two)--mainly, the numerous direct loan words in the Proto-Indo-European from Semitic, Caucasian, and Sumerian languages, suggesting that PIE was spoken in an area enclosed by these languages (i.e. Armenian Highland). As much as we have our own knowledge of the subject and are tempted to make our own assessment, we need to resist that temptation for the sake of neutrality and accuracy.
Also, the "little support" part creates an appearance of non-neutrality as well. The article already says that most scholars agree with the Phrigian theory, while a minority suggests the nativity theory. First, it's redundant, and its additional mention seems to give extra "credence" to the majority theory (which is something that we as editors should not do), and second, "little support" give the reader the impression of "little evidence," which is not necessarily true when it comes to Ivanov's theory.
Third, Ivanov and Gamkrelidze do not limit the PIE homeland to lake Urmia. In fact, they place it in the area known as Armenian Highland.
Finally, it's not the "predessessors of the Armenian language" that were spoken in the area (there was only one predessessor--the PIE language), but, according to Ivanov and others, it was PIE and its derivative Armenian that were spoken there. 
TigranTheGreat 13:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: of course there were "predecessors of Armenian" that post-dated PIE. All stages of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium BC in fact, that's 3,000 years of post-PIE, pre-Armenian dialects (the first preserved samples of Armenian dating to the 4th century AD or so). As for the qualification of academic theories, they are demanded by NPOV. We are not to give our own assessments, of course, but a fair evaluation of academic communis opinio. Do you have any idea what Wikipedia would look like if all theories were given equal weight, regardless of their acceptance among specialists? dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indo-European theory

message: Here is why I removed the link for "http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/a/29974.htm" and added "The first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC" The deleted part was added by me on August 11th, right before I opened this account. It read as follows:
While the 2003 U.S. Department of State website states that the first Armenian state was founded in 190 BC (http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/a/29974.htm), the official view traditionally accepted in modern Armenia, based mainly on Herodotus, Xenophon, and 6th century BC Persian records, is that the first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC.
10:35, August 11, 2005 172.192.39.110 (→History)
The text before my edit read "The first Armenian state was founded in 190 BC," which I clearly knew was wrong. I discovered that it was taken directly from the "Background Notes on Countries" page on the Department of State website. However, since Dbachmann asked for evidence of the 6th century Armenian state, at the time I didn't have time to look for non-Armenian sources (which are well known, as I will explain below), so I decided to leave the erroneous information, linking it to its source. 
The problem is that the "Background Notes on Countries" page on Department of State website cannot be an authoritative source on ancient Armenian history. It can be on current statistics (population, etc), but their brief, uncited "historical" comments are not intended as a serious academic source, but mainly as a quick background info for someone who decides to travel to that particular country. So, as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't even use it as a source for ancient history.
Now, I have never seen any reputable academic source stating that the first Armenian state was established in 190 BC. What the clerk at the Department of State must have meant apparently (and got wrong), is that, after the defeat of Seleucids at the battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, Armenians restored their independence from seleucids. The state was restored, not first found The only other place I have seen the "first state was 190 BC" have been dubious Turkish websites filled with blatant misinformation including "Armenians committed the genocide of Turkish speaking Urartuans" etc. 
Now, numerous sources, including Xenophone and Strabo, indicate that the Armenian kingdom existed by the early 6th century BC. This is not the "Urartu was Armenian or not" debate, this is something that's well established. For example, Strabo, in his Geography states that:
"In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity" Strabo, Geography, 11.13.5
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&layout=&loc=11.13.1
So, clearly he means that Armenian state existed before Cyrus and Astyages (6th c. BC). 
Xenophon, in his CYROPAEDIA, says the same. Here is a conversation between Cyrus of Persia and the Armenian king (Cyropaedia, Book 3, verse 10):
[10] "Answer then," said Cyrus, "did you once make war upon Astyages, my mother's father, and his Medes?" "I did," he answered. "And were you conquered by him, and did you agree to pay tribute and furnish troops whenever he required, and promise not to fortify your dwellings?" "Even so," he said.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_xenophon_cyropedia_3.htm?terms=cyrus+business+furniture
Obviously, if the Armenian king was conquered by Astyages, he had an independent state before then. The same Book 3 of Cyropaedia is filled with references to the Armenian king being a king, and Xenophone was careful in distinguishing between kings and satrapes. Here are some segments:
[29] Say he may not sit upon the throne of Armenia, will he suffer from that as we shall suffer?
[4] And when the king learnt what had happened, scarcely knowing where to turn, he fled to the summit of a certain hill. 
[5] So the mass of the army was collected under Cyrus, and then he sent a herald to the king with this enquiry: "Son of Armenia, will you wait here ..."
[7] Meanwhile Tigranes, the elder son of the king
[9] Nay," answered the king, "ask me whatever you will"
[13] But the king sat silent and perplexed
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_xenophon_cyropedia_3.htm?terms=cyrus+business+furniture
There are dozens of references in all of Cyropaedia referring to Armenia as kingdom. 
Now, these two authors are two of many sources speaking of an Armenian state existing in early 6th century BC. Given the fact that this is a well established fact, the sentence should read "The first Armenian state was established by the early 6th century BC"--TigranTheGreat 02:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The first Armenian Kingdom and Commagene were ruled by the Orontid dynasty. The Artaxiads restored the Kingdom.--Eupator 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Eupator. Am I not supposed to marry your daughter or something? :) --TigranTheGreat 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the US State Department Website as a source for ancient Armenian history. 

message: Shouldn't hamshenis be mentioned in this ? 
They consider themselves armenian. As far as ive heard, most armenians do consider Hamshenis "armenian" -  a different kind of armenian, but armenian nonetheless—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renk210 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2005.
:That's not what the Hamshenis says. --Khoikhoi 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamshenis 

message: I don't think the previous one had a good selection of prominent Armenians. This one has a longer span from, Tigranes to Ambartsumian and includes a female.--Eupator 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the picture 

message: Wikipedia is not a properganda machine, according to "6" [] the referal; I clicked on it and said: 
"After Iraq's revolution of 1958, political instability resulted in Armenian emigration from Iraq. The Armenia community there now numbers about 10,000."
So how did you come up with 60,000? Chaldean 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  60,000 in Iraq

message: Why on earth was the picture removed?--Eupator 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the picture removed? 

message: I think this page needs to be updated a litte bit. --> --Karaman 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you do.--Eupator 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: The genetic testing done (in numerous studies in Armenia) indicate a close relationship with their neighbors (yes both Georgians and Azeris), while there is no discernable relationship with the Greeks. The people doing the tests include Armenians by the way. I'm at a loss as to how the Armenians are connected to the Greeks here. Since we're not naming the Azeris to avoid messy edit wars, I thought I'd just add Peoples of the Caucasus instead to make it general. I think we need to remove the Greeks as a related people as that relationship is highly questionable, while the relationship to their neighbors appears more likely. Or we could just leave that they are related to the Hamshemis, but it seems absurd to believe that the Armenians are somehow unrelated to their neighbors after millenia of co-existence. Tombseye 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have confused the Armenian nation with the Armenian ethnic group. Not all Armenians originate from the Caucasus, therefore you are incorrect in asserting that. Of course genetic testing done in Armenia will indicate a close relationship with its neighbors, but how about the 5 million Armenians of the diaspora? Hakob 06:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Well, the Armenians are an Indo-European people linguistically and obviously invaded the Caucasus and evolved into the current Armenians and then they moved out to other places. The related section would still be accurate in that, at least 3 mil. are related to peoples of the Caucasus. If you have evidence supporting other relationships, then by all means add it. I wasn't trying to exclude other Armenians, I was simply trying to make the article as factual as possible based upon some sort of evidence (in this case genetic tests). Tombseye 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just wanted some input on the issue of who the Armenians are related to 

message: The number, supposedly derived from census figures, is ridiculous. It is a drastic undercount and against common sense. Clearly the census questions do not cover those Americans who still regard themsleves Armenian but do not speak Armenian at home. Even those who can speak may often answer that the primary language at home is English, which is quite realistic for families that have been in the US for more than a decade or two. Whatever he reason, the figure needs to be estimated indirectly from other data.
71.107.251.90 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, US Census numbers on "white" ethnicities are undercounts. We really need a good discussion of that somewhere, but to the best of my knowledge we don't have one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenians in the US 

message: Trying to fix a wrong ISBN, I made this edit. It's possible I did not match the edition given in the text, but I figured it was better than a broken ISBN. Someone may want to follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: Does anyone mind if I move the page? It's just to conform to other ethnic group articles (i.e. Azerbaijani people, Persian people, Kurdish people, etc.) —Khoikhoi 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the current title as well.--Eupator 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move this page to [[Armenian people]] 

message: FWIW I agree with Eupator on this one. The removed sections seem to be racial personal attacks, and don't have any place in the article anyway because of WP:OR.--Tekleni 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the personal attacks? —Khoikhoi 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: lol --Eupator 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was that image of the "typical Armenian" suposed to be?--Tekleni 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you show me this because I'm Jewish? —Khoikhoi 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think for the following reasons: there was an edit war here where Eupator was deleting insulting comments from the talkpage (including images which even Khoikhoi admitted were insulting ), and Khoikhoi was restoring them . Those images are deleted now, but presumably, Eupator is drawing a parallel between an anti-Semitic image, and the images which Khoikhoi restored on the talkpage (which were obviously anti-Armenian). I don't think this is something to make a big deal over.--Tekleni 07:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* My point is, to get Calgvla to stop adding the images, I told him to come here and explain why he thinks they should be added. Instead, Eupator just straight up deleted all his comments, which FYI, weren't even personal attacks. Yes, it is something to make a big deal over. When other people make incivil comments, I certainly don't go around deleting them... —Khoikhoi 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yawn...--Tekleni 07:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *yawn again* —Khoikhoi 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YAWN--Tekleni 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? No one can Most people can't delete edit summaries, but you can delete comments. —Khoikhoi 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, what we are both doing is both pointless and childish. —Khoikhoi 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm childish by definition, but I do get your point :-) --Tekleni 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh. —Khoikhoi 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring 

message: It is an offensive Point of View to include Armenia on the European continent, Armenia is located in Asia. Armenains are a non-European people. How would you feel if some stranger stuck their picture in your family photo book? This is the case of a small group here trying to force Armenians into the European family.
I propose the following change to remove the subjective point of view that Armenians are European. The following changes will create a more truthful and accurate article that will cease to offend Europeans.
I would like to include the following in the Classification section.
The Classification section is there to describe the Armenian race, but comparing them to Slavs or Germanics will mislead readers into thinking they are a European people.
It is best that they see photos from an academic anthropological study of the West Asian people.
To not include this will be a loss for Wikipedia readers.
:Calgvla, thank you for asking on the Talk page before adding this again.  The word "European" undoubtedly means different things to different people - just compare the words "Asian" and "Oriental" as used by Americans vs British.  Certain countries have fuzzy classification as European and/or Asian countries (for example Turkey).  In this article, there is consensus to keep the European category.  If you can find a reliable source for why Armenia is not in Europe, you could add a sentence explaining the controversy of European membership.  As to the pictures, whatever your intent is, they are seen by others to be an insult.  Compare if someone added a picture of a Neanderthal to the "Europe" article and labeled it "typical European".  —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-11 18:56Z
::the word Europe can, indeed, have various meanings. In no case however does it include Armenia, which has been entirely within Asia (Asia Minor, Assyria, Mesopotamia) throughout its history, even in the time of Greater Armenia. I also note that on Europe, we have
::*"Armenia, although not considered as part of Europe geographically, has a language that constitutes a separate branch of Indo-European family of languages. "
::now this is patently ridiculous. So does Nepal, for crying out loud, just being home to an Indo-European language doesn't make a country or a nation European any more than Indian. dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, but language isn't the point. What do you think of Cyprus or Georgia?--Eupator 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyprus is an island, and as such not part of any continent. I mean, in what continent is the Easter Island, or Tonga? Cyprus is between Anatolia and the Levant and thus part of the Near East. Georgia is squat on the border of Asia Minor and ... Scythia. Western Scythia is now (at least sometimes) considered Eastern Europe, so arguably Georgia is partly in Europe. It makes more sense to describe Georgia as a nation of the Caucasus however. I am not familiar with the Caucasus being included in Europe and it is only on Wikipedia that I learn this is done by some people. Armenia is south of the Caucasus, and as such wouldn't qualify as European even then. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are the British Isles and Iceland, are they not part of a continent according to your logic? Clearly these borders are subjective when one can only clearly define Eurasia.--Eupator 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you'd say that. Alright, Cyprus is part of SW Asia. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW Hitler also claimed his views were based on anthropological work etc. Armenia is a full member of the Council of Europe, ergo it's not unreasonable to include them in Europe. Let's not forget that according to some sources, parts of Greece are geographically in Asia (e.g. Rhodes). Additionally, there is no such thing as a European race; those images of yours could easily be of a Spaniard or an Italian. An isolated image can't be used to prove anything. Why not add the thousands of possible images of Armenians looking identical to central Europeans?--Tekleni 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is, indeed, no "European race". That should be painfully obvious seeing how difficult it is just to delineate Europe from Asia. Parts of France are in South America. Historical photos or Armenians are certainly of interest here. dab (ᛏ)
*Making comparasons to Hitler is not constructive or appreciated. Hiter also drank water and was a non-smoker, should we all just stop drinking water and start smoking because Hitler wouldn't like it? Again please refrain from logical fallacy
*I agree Rhodes is not in Europe, but that is not the topic if discussion is it?
*There is no criteria that you have to be in Europe to be a memeber of the Council of Europe, the Council is not a geographic organization. Japan could qualify if it wanted to, it meets the trade requirements.
*The point is to be accurate, if you have images from another academic anthropological study on Armenians I would love to see them maybe they can be used instead. In the mean time I can add an additional image to the proposed images to broaden the Armenian image. 
*Again I have to ask, what is the motive behind wanting to force Armenians/Armenia unto Europe? --Calgvla 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: concerning the images, I am all for including historical pictures, but Calgvla's "scientific anthropological study" seems to date to the 1910s or something. First of all, these images need to be precisely sourced. It then seems that the "anthropologist" was subject to some selection bias, it appears he was collecting noses :) It is in any case nonsense to talk of an "Armenian race", of course, and if there ever were "Caucasians", the Armenians are of course part of those. I would prefer images from historical travel accounts or similar over these strangely deluded early 20th c. racial studies. dab (ᛏ) 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: further, it will not do, as Calgvla seems to attempt, to portray Armenians as somehow racially prone to crime (judging from his userboxes, Calgvla seems to suffer from severe reality distortion). But if there are notable reports of organized crime in the Armenian diaspora, this may of course be summarized in an "Armenian diaspora" section. It is our job to neither smear nor whitewash but to give a balanced report. We don't portray Italians as criminals all and sundry because they have the Mafia, and still it wouldn't be out of question to place a brief reference to Mafia on the Italians article. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What you are saying is original research. Yes, Armenia is geographically in the Caucasus and Asia. What does this have to do with the Armenians and whether they are a "European people"? What is a "European people" (do you mean Indo-European people?) by the way, and where are the sources to support such a definition. If you want to say Armenians are not a "European people", you have to find a source saying Armenians are not a "European people" in some way. Saying Armenia is in Asia therefore Armenians are not a "European people" (whatever that may be...) - look at these photos from a source we know nothing about (the noses on which look suspiciously like the "Jewish nose" attributed to the Jews in Nazi propaganda) is original research, my Turkish friend ;-) --Tekleni 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop feeding the god damn troll. His motivation behind this is his racism and anti-Armenianism. Just check his edit history: "swarthy Armenians", "typical Armenian", "80 percent of crime in Glendale caused by Armenians", "outbreak of savage Armenian murders" etc... Some Armenian must have banged someone I guess...--Eupator 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really. There is no question regarding Armenian ethnicity/culture/history. It is considered European by both the majority of Armenians and non-Armenians. As far as geography goes, there are more than enough footnotes and refs for both Cyprus and Armenia explaining all points beyond any ambiguity.--Eupator 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was considered European because it was formerly a part of Russia and later of the USSR.--Nixer 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but so were the -stans; I don't know if that's a good qualifier.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Thank you for your interest.--Eupator 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenians are not Europeans, Proposed Changes

message: How can a claim that there are 500,080 Armenians in Iran be cited to a source that states that 400,000 Armenians live in Iran? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we have an estimated worldwide population of 9-10 million, which is considerably more than the sum of the various cited numbers, one of which is for "rest of world." - Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population statistics again 

message: "Armenian is a sub-branch of the Indo-European family, and with some 7 million speakers one of the smallest surviving branches, comparable to Albanian or Greek, with which it may be connected (see Graeco-Armenian)." 
Except that Greek has at least twice as many speakers, so it isn't comparable. I believe someone was just trying to wedge the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis in here. I don't think this sentence, as written, is a good way to do it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, "twice as many" is itself a comparison, and the number is of the same order of magnitude. Graeco-Armenian has nothing to do with the number of speakers, of course, and should be mentioned in its own sentence. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: yes yes, I don't want to belabour the point. It is "comparable" by virtue of being, like Greek, one of the smaller and less diversified branches, but I grant you that 15 million is a significantly larger number than 7 million. dab (𒁳) 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at too many ideas in one sentence