Talk:History of Armenia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecsari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

goddess haya[edit]

What does this goddess have to do with anything? I mean even the unreable source it comes from does not state any relation to Armenia. So why is it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.98.210 (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

it seems the subsection under the main Armenia article is better than this page --Freshraisin 04:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kur-Araxes Culture[edit]

Original unsigned poster didn't use English - translated >> Two Armenians standing on the head of a pregnant woman, whose hands were tied behind a tree, were tossing a coin. This bloody gamble was played by his ancestors in Kars, Ağrı, Van and Erzurum in Anatolian soil about 100 years ago. They had heard of them. The birth of a poor Azerbaijani woman on her nose seemed pretty imminent. The desperate woman was trembling like a cannabis leaf. Their clothes were torn, their feet were bare ... While the tall one of the Armenians took out the mobile bayonet mounted on the barrel of the AK-47 model Russian automatic rifle in his hand, the other threw the coin in the air: -Any, manch? .. (Girl or boy?) -Again ... (Girl) Upon this answer, the Armenian, who made a bet by saying "boy", cut the pregnant woman's belly with a blunt in his hand and took the child out. Inger ... (You won, comrade) -Yes masterpiece apayts moon-and-a-half inch five bidigish ... (I won, but how will this baby be fed?) -Payrigi bedge gişdatsine. (Mother will feed, of course) Upon this, the smaller Armenian, in one move, stuck the baby, which she had passed to the bayonet, on her mother's breast: -Mayrig is ziz. (Give a meme to the kid) At the same time, there was only one goal football match preparation in another district of Khojaly. The two severed zerî women made their heads a goal post and started looking for a ball. If we go out ... (This is both balding and small, well rounded. Pull it off ...) At the same time, the body of the child fell to one side and his head to the middle. with his bloody boots, he was trying to score a goal in a bloody goal by hitting the cut boy on his head. These two events took place in Khojaly only 14 years ago, not more than that. Both events are the accounts of the eyewitnesses who personally witnessed the massacres of the Armenian gangsters. Unfortunately, on February 26, 1992, thousands of people were brutally murdered by various methods. While the news of the massacre was passing rapidly to the whole world, the rest of the people of Khojaly, who experienced a heavy brutality that shook the Arsh, were writhing in despair. Turkey is in a great dread-inspiring images for the first massacre was announced by means of the TRT. Western journalists, especially the New York Times, documented everything. On February 26, the armed forces of Armenia, equipped with powerful weapons, and the 366 'under the command of Colonel Zarvigarov stationed in Khankendi. The Third Russian Motorized Regiment attacked Khojaly and committed one of the most brutal massacres in history. On the night of February 26, with the cannon and rocket attacks from the tanks of the Russian motorized regiment, Khojaly Airport was rendered unusable and the city's relationship with the outside world was completely cut off. Russian-backed Armenian soldiers, who entered the vulnerable city, brutally murdered many of our people, regardless of children, the elderly, women and babies. Terrible events took place in Khojaly, which was occupied by the Armenians. They skinned the scalps of living living people. Those they captured alive were subjected to systematic torture and medical experiments, and subjected them to inhuman treatment. They cut the limbs of alive people with sawmills and saws. They skinned the young girls' hair first and then their scalp. His son in front of his father's eyes, They shot the father in front of the boy's eyes. They stuffed the cut heads into baskets. So what was this hostility? hung on the maps in their school walls in Armenia Turkey's 12 provinces position among, Armenia's when the official in Turkey's borders in Mount Ararat flag, Armenia National Anthem "occupied our lands, the dead to liberate these lands, kill!" I guess there is no need to look for another reason anyway. It was officially announced that 613 Azerbaijani Turks lost their lives as a result of the attacks carried out by the Armenian Armed Forces with the support of the 366th Regiment of the former Soviet Alliance Armed Forces in Khojaly in the Nagorno-Karabakh Region. However, it is known that the number of casualties is much higher than these figures. 56 pregnant women were found with a split belly. While 487 people were seriously injured in this despicable attack, 1275 people were taken hostage, the remaining population saved their lives with a thousand and one difficulty, but their souls and memories could never be saved from the destruction of this incident. Those who listened to what the Witnesses told first could not believe their ears!

But when they entered Khojaly after the massacre, they soon realized that the eyewitnesses did not exaggerate. French journalist Jean-Yves Junet, who visited the massacre site in Khojaly, told what he said in the face of what he saw: 'I have heard many war stories. I have heard of the persecution of fascists, but I hope no one will witness such a savagery like in Khojaly. “Well, who gave the order for this massacre that took place on February 26, 1992;

He was none other than the dirty murderer named Robert Kocharyan, who holds the title of President of Armenia. Robert Koçaryan, one of the leaders of the Tashnaksutyun organization, who was promoted in proportion to the rate of his terrorist activities, became the Prime Minister of Armenia on March 20, 1996. When Levon Ter Petrosyan, who could not resist the reaction of extreme nationalists because he wanted peace in Karabakh, resigned from him on March 30, 1998, the notorious terrorist Robert Kocharyan, who was in charge of the "Khojaly Massacre", took his seat. Armenians raped Turkish pregnant women and killed their belly while pregnant, and raped and killed little Turkish girls.<< end translation

English. 69.12.204.103 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)montyofarabia[reply]
Done. Completely unreferenced inappropriate spam. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Carenitida"[edit]

Carenitis, not *Carenitida: the latter is a barbarism by someone who didn't read Greek: Carenitida is the accusative case. . . . Bill 17:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Ararat and Noah[edit]

I decided to reply to Str1977 about Mt. Ararat here, to make it more accessible to other editors. Here is Str1977's original message on my talk page:

Hallo Tigranes Magnus, I have made the change to plural because AFAIK to equate the Mount Ararat where the Ark "stranded" with the highest peak we nowadays call "the" Mount Ararat is a fairly recent and western phenomenon. AFAIK there are other mountains further south that are traditionally considered the landing place by Kurds and Armenians. Str1977 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Str1977. I understand what you mean about the debate that's going on about the location of the ark, and I appreciate your knowledge on the subject (I see you are a historian). The sentence currently in the article (that Mt. Ararat is the traditional landing place) is still accurate because traditionally, that's the mountain that's been associated with the ark. The overwhelming majority of expeditions have been conducted on Mt. Ararat. That's tradition. In fact I am not aware a single expedition before 20th century that went to southern Armenia. If there is, it must be the exception rather than the rule, which means traditionally, it's been the Mt. Ararat linked to the ark. There is a 19th c. painting by Ayvazovski showing Noah descending from Ararat. Most of the Christian videos I have seen still talk about it as the place of the ark. Britannica tells us the same:

Mount Ararat
Ararat, traditionally known as the landing place for Noah's Ark at the end of the flood, is a sacred place to the Armenian people. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9272931

Here is a similar passage from ebibleteacher:

Snow covered Mt. Ararat and Little Ararat are inactive volcanoes located in eastern Turkey. Mt. Ararat rises over 3 miles above sea level. This mountain is the traditional resting place of the Ark. http://www.ebibleteacher.com/batlasweb/sld009.htm

In fact, it seems that the idea of the ark being in the southern mountains of Armenia (modernly referred to as Kurdistan) was seriously considered only recently, after some believed that the expeditions to Mt. Ararat didn't produce any tangible result (although this is debatable too. There seem to be some credible accounts about evidence of the ark found there). However, that debate properly belongs to the article about the Great Flood. This article is about Armenia and not Noah's ark, and so the debate has no place here (which you correctly pointed out by deleting an extensive passage about the expeditions and their "failures"). All that's needed here is a statement that the main mountain of Armenia was traditionally linked to the Flood, which is correct.

I don't think Armenians ever considered the ark to be anywhere other than Mt. Ararat. In fact, from their first days till now, Armenian sources always refer to Ararat as the sacred mountain where the ark landed. This is stated in the Armenia translation of the Bible around 400 AD (one of the oldest translations of the Bible), it was stated so in the works of ancient, medieval, and later Armenian historians. It is depicted on Armenia's official coat of arms.

I don't know if Kruds traditionally thought that the ark landed in the southern mountains, or it's a fairly recent account, but even if they thought that, this is again an article about Armenia, and not the Kurds, and those additional details belong to an article about Noah's ark. In general, it's Mt. Ararat that's been associated with the Flood.

By the way, what foreigners referred to as "mountains Ararat" was in fact Mt. Ararat. The reason is that, as the ebibleteacher passage above (and picture on that page) says, the mountain really has two peaks--Lesser Ararat and Greater Ararat. They form however a single unit, which is why their official name now is Mt. Ararat. Here, take a look at its picture here: http://www.hyeguide.com/images/ararat/ararat2.jpg. Isn't it magnificent :)? When you live in Yerevan, you are blessed waking up to that view every morning.

By the way, the above is stated in the britannica article as well:

Ararat consists of two extinct volcanoes, their summits about 7 miles (11 kilometers) apart. Great Ararat, which rises 16,853 feet (5,137 meters) above sea level, is Turkey's highest peak. Little Ararat rises in a smooth, steep, nearly perfect cone to an altitude of 12,877 feet (3,925 meters).

--TigranTheGreat 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short reply, Tigranes, more maybe later. Of course "Mount Ararat" is the traditional landing place, as the Bible says so, but to my knowledge this biblical MA is not universally identified with the highest peak of the range. Cheers, Str1977 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, Str1977. It is the traditional landing place, which is what the article says. It is also true that it's not universally accepted--some people think it's in Kurdistan. Since this article is about Armenia and not about the Flood or Noah, the debate about the ark's location is inappropriate here--it is a deviation from the main content of the article, and so has little if any relevance. If anyone wants to know what people think about alternative locations of the ark, they can check out the articles on Noah's ark or the Flood. This is also the reason why you deleted an irrelevant paragraph about the details of expeditions to Mt. Ararat, and that "no evidence was found," which means you recognized that such details are unnecessary deviations from the main topic of the article.--TigranTheGreat 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urartu[edit]

Scientifically, there has been no direct connexions established between the Indo-European speaking Armenians and the Caucasian speaking Urartans. I strongly discourage nationalistic statements in an encyclopaedia article.--Khodadad 00:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources. On what do you base your allegation?

PS: What is the connection between Dravidian Elamites (hey if Urartians are Caucasian) and Indo-European Iranians? :) --Eupator 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Armenian language consists of Urartuan words. Many gods in Armenian pantheon (most notably Armenian Hayk=Urartuan Khald) come from Urartu. Every scholar agrees that Urartuans played a role in the ethnogenesis of Armenians (majority believes they mixed, minority believes Urartuans were Armenians). Plus there is a nice cafe in Glendale called Urartu, great sandwitches and drinks--my fave--the Urartuchini. So, there is a connection.--TigranTheGreat 08:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian theory of Urartu is not accepted by most of objective scholars. Its popular between Armenian scholars that are mostly proffesionally not historicians but geologists etc. [1] [2] in such dokuments serious scholars claim that Urartu language is not relative to Armenian... But it not means Armenian people have no relation to Urartu. Proto-Armenian(Mushkis) lived in Urartu and loaned many words. And when Hurrians migrated to somewhere north they became rulers of their new homelands. Liberatium (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation movement[edit]

Ottoman, could you please copy here the relevant paragraphs from your sources that you used? I.e.:

^ The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics By Richard G. Hovannisian p.129 ^ British Diplomacy and the Armenian Question: From the 1830s to 1914 By Arman J. Kirakossian page 58 ^ Der Minassian, Anahide, "Nationalisme et socialisme dans le Mouvement Revolutionnaire Armenien", in "LA QUESTION ARMENIENNE", Paris, 1983, pp. 73-111.

Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the "History, Politics, Ethics" in the library, I will look for the full paragraph after Christmas. I have been using a program to track my notes and for the British Diplomacy and the Armenian Question: I have the paragraph and this is the exact copy of my note; "The national liberation movement of the balkan peoples and the immediate involvement of the European powers in the Eastern question had a powerull effect on hitherto suppressed natinal movement among the Armenians of the Ottoman Epire - on the development of a national liberaton idealogy and transformathion of their national identty. The armenian population increasingly realized that uts liberation rom the Ottoman Empire would serve to address their problems, and in 1876, the Armenian national addemby in Constantinople debated an appeal to Europen Powers and Russia with a request to implement reforms in Weastern armenia." Hope this will be helpful 4u 4now. You should have access to all these sources, which the presented statements are only introductory statements of the general concepts. You should have more (native) information on the "national movement" of Armenians of Armenia. They build the republic, and it did not happen by itself, right? Happy Christmas, if I will not have chance.--OttomanReference 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, OR, but as an editor, it's your responsibility to demonstrate that your edits correspond to sources. We all provide quotes when asked. I will wait for those other quotes.--TigranTheGreat 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


—————— "On November 29, the Soviet 11th Army invaded Armenia at Karavansarai (present-day Ijevan) and by November 29, 1920, the Soviet 11th Army marched into Yerevan." November 29 repeats twice. Is that in error or is this two different years? 209.195.110.247 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I hope my rearrangement of the article is okay. I thought that it would be better to divide the article in accordance to historic periods and divide those sections into subsections that concern certain dynasties and periods of occupation. Cheers. -- Davo88 05:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Armenia-soviet-independence.jpg[edit]

Image:Armenia-soviet-independence.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Mannaeans in Armenian History[edit]

Pretty much it's self explanatory, Mannaeans are Armenians, or are some people would like to put it the ancestors of Armenians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.128.67 (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Manneans settled at Lake Urmia, which isn't even situated in "Greater Armenia". Thus, there is no reason to discuss them in an article on the history of Armenia. We might mention them as the neighbors of Urartu in the Prehistoric Armenia article, nothing wrong with that. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Christian cross of the 13th century[edit]

Armenian Khatchkar (Christian Cross), from the Lori region, 1100-1200.

I photographed the following Armenian Christian cross from the Lori region, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New-York. If deemed worthy, could someone introduce it in the article in the Middle-Ages paragraph? Also, putting it in the Lori article would be quite nice. Regards. PHG (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very beautiful picture! I agree that this should be used somewhere. Avarayr (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there was not a country named Armenia until 1918.Urartu was not an Armenian country.I have prove! Herodotos writes about all the tribes in urartu and there are not armenians in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.38.118.223 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
random mindless gibberish

social evolution of the religious/belief system of armenian society.[edit]

The article states that armenia became christianized in 301. Surprisingly, what article does not discuss is the emotional notion of such social/cultural evolution of armenia's citizens. Were armenians forced to convert to christianity or did they choose to? If they chose to become chrisitians; then this leaves a controversy, which is, that how is it possible to covert an entry civilization's belief system (which they held to be true for thousands of years) from one side to another in short while? If they were forced to convert to christianity, in that case, what were the political/economical elements which forced them to make such a choice? And what were the original motives?

Most importantly, there are several questions regarding this issue. 1) Armenians define their origins using a story that is related to bible and the ship of Noah (related to the legend of hike!!!).Now Armenia is an ancient civilization, that existed before Bible (which includes the story of Noah) was written and preached. Therefore, the notion or the idea of Hike, being the father of armenians is just a legend, because Hike is a character related to the story of Bible (as stated, a book much younger than the Armenian civilization). Therefore, the original history of armenian shall discard the idea of HIke being an actual historical character and accept it as a myth and an untrue story. Thus, armenians must search for their original historical story of origin. 2)Right, after the conversion of the Armenian empire into christianity, many churches were build. These churches could not have been built by the regular people, because at That point in history, There were no class system, but a aristocratic system, which divided the society into three categories: Clergy, Lord, peasnat. NOw, peasents could not have build these churches, because they did not have enough money. Lords might have built these churches, but originally lords only donated money to church and they (lords) were not involved in building any churches. Therefore, it is less likely that lords build these churches. Therefore, IT must have been the job of clergy (known as the church priests) to use the money donated by peasants and lords (Peasants and lordes thought that by donating money, they would be saved through church)to build churches. Therefore, clergy gathered alot of money, bought lands, and build churches. In fact clergy was a very rich state of hierarchy which had an enormous power over politics as well. Question: if this theory is right, can one conclude that armenian church is not a center of spiritual inspiration, but rather a political institution, which by using its wealth commercialized it self in order to get more wealth? Was it the aremnian church that manupulated the original history of armeina from what it was to what it is (legend of hike)? Is it or can it still be a trustworthy institution for the ARmenian civilization?? WHAT DO YOU THINK???????????? Scientific perspective (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.199.41 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Proposal[edit]

Instead of this:


I propose:


What do you think? This is according to the Armenian Historical Sources of the 5-15th Centuries [2] nikos (talk)

Looks good to me. Much improved. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Armenia?[edit]

There seems to be a lack of information about the relation between Urartu and the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The origin of the Armenians is also lacking information concerning the part that several tribes took place in the modelling of the Armenian nation, namely the Hurrians, the Mannaeans, the Thracians and probably the Phrygians. The part of the history that is overlooked because of lack of redacted information, is in my opinion the period that took place from 200 BC until 800 AD, because of the influence of the Zoroastrian forces and the coming of Islam. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of old Armenia is up for deletion[edit]

Someone familiar with the history of Armenia, please look at List of regions of old Armenia and give your opinions if that article has any value, and how accurate it is. Dream Focus 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet[edit]

There seems something rather wrong with this passage, in terms of causation, objectivity, and evidence: "In 405/406, Armenia's political future seemed to be uncertain. With the help of the King of Armenia, Mesrop Mashtots thus invented a unique alphabet to suit the people's needs.[34] By doing so, he ushered a new Golden Age and strengthened the Armenian national identity and belongingness." 121.73.34.172 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.historyofnations.net/asia/armenia.html
    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in History of Armenia[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Armenia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "About.com":

  • From -stan: Johnson, Bridget. "'Stan Countries – What the Suffix 'Stan' Means". About.com. Archived from the original on 2013-03-30. Retrieved October 9, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From North America: "What's the difference between North, Latin, Central, Middle, South, Spanish and Anglo America?". About.com.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the History of Armenia[edit]

The articles about the history of Armenia need to be better structured. I noticed that there was an article about "Prehistoric Armenia" and "Medieval Armenia," but "Ancient Armenia" redirected to "Prehistoric Armenia," which made no sense.

What I also noticed is that there is much more information here than within each period's main article. I'm a big believer of breaking elements into smaller components to make sure we don't end up with one part that is too bloated (as this article surely is).

What I'm suggesting to do is to give this page a comprehensible, easy to read summary of each period, which anyone can understand, including someone who is not well versed in Armenian history, and have a link (as "Main article: ...") with the more detailed telling of the period's history there.

I'm willing to do the work, but considering it's a drastic change, it should be discussed first.

Kentronhayastan (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

@Seraphim System and EtienneDolet: Please use this talk page to discuss, instead of just reverting one another. --NeilN talk to me 00:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted recent changes by Ecsari because they are mostly incoherent and contain poor grammar, and his claims are not supported by page 29 of the Suny book. There is no explanation of how Russians "attempted to deal with Armenian issue with great violence and brutality", or how "upper eschelons of Armenian society control the Patriarchate", and what "lower and middle class Armenians' dissidence in 1840" even means. Describing the genocide as a "clash" that was "inevitable" is unacceptable. As is calling the genocide "strategic considerations". Too much WP:UNDUE weight is put on genocide denial. "Turkish authorities" (whatever that is) do not "maintain" anything, they deny what is accepted by every reliable source. And it is not just "western academics" that recognize the 1.5 million figure, it is the overwhelming amount of sources, and a figure given by Turkish authorities denying the genocide is no where near as equal to it. And Seraphim System has removed reliable sources of the figures being put in-between 800,000 to 1,800,000. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Etienne is talking about - Etienne removed the citation from content as well as selectively removing the balancing content and well-written encyclopedic discussion which tilted the article in favor of a contentious POV about Sharia and dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire. It seems to me an experienced editor in this topic area should know better, but I guess not. I restored the citation and the content from Suny. I'm not sure the figures need to be included in this article - the Armenian Genocide article would probably be a better place for them, and we have had discussions about including it there before. I have some good recent discussion from Demirdjian about this, but why would it be added here when we haven't even been able to reach consensus to include it in the main article for the Genocide?Seraphim System (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "encyclopedic discussion", everything I reverted was added by a new user, Ecsari (talk · contribs), quite recently without discussion. He cited Suny page 29, which does not support his claims. And "well-written" is just plain false. The version you are edit-warring into the article has POV wording like "brutality", "great violence" and etc. Your edit-warring is not only disruptive since you're up against several users now, but what you're edit-warring into the article is highly POV and problematic which makes it doubly disruptive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the clash between was inevitable" - I have seen in some historical discussions that this was debated at the time and it could be expanded on. There are definitely sources that support this, but it it worth consulting multiple sources to see if more balancing content can be added. But it's not genocide denial, and this isn't the only time Etienne has argued that his opinion that something is genocide denial should determine what can be included in the article, instead of the sources. Seraphim System (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not seeing the POV wording that you're adding to the article? "the clash between was inevitable" is an opinionated narrative, and not encyclopedic. We are not here to judge what should or shouldn't be 'inevitable' in terms of historical events. Also, "attempted to deal with Armenian issue with great violence and brutality" is a POV statement. Not in any way neutral or encyclopedic. Do you have any sort of justification for adding these terms to this article besides the fact that you have followed my contributions just to revert me and are now trying to justify the edit after the fact? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced to a major source for this topic. If you are disputing whether the citation supports the text, quotes from the source would be more helpful than accusations. It's not like you only tweaked the wording, this is a creative reinterpretation of sources that is also an issue on the main Armenian Genocide article that attempts to erase significant points of dispute in scholarship to push one narrative in Wikivoice. For example removing this:

As Ottoman Empire attempted to reform the inequalities and injustices among its citizen

Which is a major issue that is discussed in multiple sources also obfuscated in the main Armenian Genocide article, and then seeking to confuse the matter by making accusations of genocide denial, etc.Seraphim System (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because determining what is "inequality" or what is an "injustice" is not our job as editors. We can consider injustices as fact because what is or isn't considered just is POV and out of our scope as editors. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, what is our job is as editors is to improve sourcing. Just leave it alone for a bit and I will try to improve it, or at least add correct page numbers/chapters and multiple sources, and remove what can't be sourced to at least two sources. I've already seen sources supporting at least some of this content, like the reforms. The language may need tweaking, but the content about the reforms should be improved, not removed. I'm not really buying a NPOV justification to erase something critical like this from the article and leave in only the part about Shari'a and dhimmi (and that without a citation).Seraphim System (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not "leave alone" unsourced content, which citing an entire book practically is. It is your responsibility to find a reliable source before it is included, and then we can see about improving it, but in the meantime all POV, poorly written, and unsourced content has to be removed. However, you are never going to find a reliable source about some mysterious "upper eschelons of Armenian society", some kind of "Armenians' dissidence in 1840", or the Armenian Genocide being described as an "inevitable clash". In Suny's entire book, there is no mention of "eschelons" or " dissidence". Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the editor who added the content Ecsari. All it looks like is you removed a lot of content because the editor was new because he added sourced content to the article "without discussion". First and foremost you are responsible for communicating civilly with editors on talk pages and explaining what you wanted changed and reach a consensus, you removed a lot of content here without justifying it, I challenged the removal, you and Yerevantsi tag team edit warred - this "discussion" has been little more than accusations of bad faith. How can I have a consensus discussion with someone like that? You actions aren't consistent with working towards a consensus or helping out with the heavy lifting and source-based discussion for collaborative editing, answering meaningfully questions from other editors, etc. We don't need subject matter experts like this who revert new editors work because they added content "without discussion".Seraphim System (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I reverted Yerevantsi without further explanation. Reverting with "please discuss" without responding on talk does not seem like good faith - I think it is fair to presume from his edit summary that he looked at the talk page before he reverted. Am I supposed to discuss with myself? I'm not sure what more justification I can give here.I can't discuss with myself obviously, and this doesn't seem like good faith behavior to revert with a summary to discuss when I have already replied on talk and especially have explained that the citation was removed from the content and why I have restored it - which I think it is obvious to look at the edit that it removes significant amounts of well-written, well-sourced balancing content for the stated reason here that Etienne thinks it is "genocide denial" to include it.21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, please look at Seraphim's contributions prior to his/her revert. There are none. This user literally followed my contributions and drive-by reverted me. This user has a history of doing this to me and other users. And now, SS has done three(!) reverts and is on the verge of violating 3RR. SS has been blocked several times for edit-warring and in fact, is still under 1RR restrictions thus violating his/her topic ban. It's all for us to see at SS's really long block log. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following your contributions, and I don't want to discuss anything with an editor who makes accusations like this instead of addressing substantive matters raised by other editors. I reverted your edit because it was detrimental to the article - and even if I were stalking your edits, it is allowed under WP:HOUND as long as it is to make sure you are not doing things like removing large amounts of well-sourced, well-written content or disturbing citation integrity with your edits. But I am not, I guess if an admin really wants to there must be a way to check the logs to see when this article was added to my watch list? I honestly try to avoid you as much as possible, but what you guys are doing — disrupting citation integrity, blanking content with misleading edit summaries — would be considered subtle vandalism if it wasn't coming from "established" accounts. Seraphim System (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Subtle vandalism"? How were my improvements in any way WP:VANDALISM? I've removed POV wording that is in fact favorable to a more Armenian nationalist oriented type of wording to describe the Ottoman government (i.e. "brutality", "great violence", and etc.). Your revert, that came out of nowhere in an article that you've never edited before, actually counts as WP:HOUND. I suggest you read the very policy you quoted:

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Do you see the similarity? Yes, you even have subtlety admitted it just now. You have hounded me because you think that "us guys" (who's "we guys" by the way?) are "disrupting citation integrity, blanking content with misleading edit summaries — would be considered subtle vandalism if it wasn't coming from "established" accounts." If you see that "we guys" have such a problem, report it to the proper forum, but stalking other users' edits is not solution to that perceived problem. And you do not avoid me as much as possible, by the way. You are all over my watchlist because you follow me around and edit the very same articles within the very same topic area consistently. On the other hand, I avoid you as much as possible. You can't possibly say I've ever, I mean, ever followed you around and just reverted you for the sake of reverting. Yet, that is what you do consistently to the point of me reporting you if it happens one more time. I hope I made myself very very clear. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I don't think your edit was an improvement, and if admins think I've done something wrong they can tell me, but I'm not goin to not edit articles only because you are demanding it. You've been editing for much longer then I have so your argument basically amounts to you can revert me, but I can't revert you, because you edited the articles first. Do you comment on RfCs I start? Yes. Do you revert me on articles I am editing? Yes. But I can't because you edited the article first. If you think that is the community standard, then this discussion should move to ANI, because I'm not just going to take your word for it.Seraphim System (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're free to revert me. But not revert me after stalking my edits and engaging me in articles you have never edited before. That's considered WP:HOUNDING and you are aware of this policy. So why aren't you following it? So again, do not stalk my edits and don't revert me for the sake of reverting only to then come up with arguments only after making such reverts to justify your stalking and hounding. I have warned you before. Other users have warned you before. And you continue to do it. So will you stop the stalking and hounding? Is it really that hard not to do something? I mean, you're the one that has complained that you don't want to edit "because it is making me feel physically ill and everytime I get a notification I am anxious/scared"...then why do you keep coming back for more? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking your edits is above my pay grade, and I came back to work on other articles, and as soon as I did more threats and ASPERSIONS. Nothing you are accusing me of excuses the fact that your edit summary says you did not remove any content, when you removed a lot of content. It doesn't excuse that you removed the citation and left the text uncited, twice. It doesn't excuse the fact that your conduct here shows this is some WP:BATTLEGROUND issue and not about improving the article. What I care about is improving article quality. I reverted you because your edit is detrimental to the encyclopedia. You haven't responded to any of the substantive issues with source-based discussion - I held my hand out in good faith, as I have done many times, to start a civil discussion by suggesting that we could look at multiple sources and you have responded by trying to intimidate me and by casting ASPERSIONS, instead of engaging in a civil source-based discussion about specific changes you would like to make.Seraphim System (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "threats" and "aspersions" involved here. Hounding is easy to identify and many editors have been blocked for doing it. How would you like it if I reverted your edits in your contributions just because I can? That's what you did and it's frustrating for good faithed Wikipedia users. And I'm not questioning the revert itself, which would be rather silly. I am questioning the good faith involved in the revert in the first place because you have not edited this article before. Yet, you came out of nowhere within minutes just to revert me. That's hounding. And if it happens one more time, I will not hesitate in reporting you. Also, I have made content driven arguments on this talk page. Please read my aforementioned comments. You have added words like "brutality" and "great violence" to a Wikipedia article which is POV wording. Do you have any sort of justification for adding the word "brutality" to a Wikipedia article? And by the way, can you point to any RFCs wherein which I came out of nowhere in an article just to disturb you? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did check your contributions and it looks like the majority of your edits for the past month have been disputes with me. Not sure how I can stalk you when most of those disputes arise from you reverting me, including in one case where you restored "Armenian Holocaust" to the main Armenian Genocide article in defiance of talk page consensus, but I forgot about it. On the other hand I've made substantive additions and improvements to articles in a wide range of topic areas, and I've had to take time away from it for this discussion. You reverted me on Van (disputing that Van is in Eastern Anatolia), on Turkification, and you accused me of pushing denialist talking points on the Anatolia RfC right after I specifically said those types of comments were causing me anxiety - you also left a D/S warning about the same thing mid-RfC which was completely inappropriate [3] — saying something like this once in a very heated discussion would be excusable, but it is starting to feel like it is a tactic to prevent challenges to the POV stance in this topic area, even where those challenges are based on WP:RS. Seraphim System (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the Armenian Genocide article long before you have. In fact, I've edited that article more than any other user on this project ([4]). So how is my involvement at that article a stalking concern? And stop trying to flip this around. It is you who comes out of nowhere and disputes with me in articles you've never before edited. It is you that WP:NINJA reverts me out of nowhere. Then you have the gall to say I'm the one starting disputes and am acting inappropriate? You seriously expect no disputes to arise when you revert me like that and come up with poor explanations only after you hound my edits to revert me? On the other hand, there was never, ever, a moment in my life as a Wikipedia editor where I went into your contributions and reverted you at an article I never edited before. To say so on this talk page is highly dishonest. Because the list of articles you provided, I've edited them all before. And I mean, all. The Van Province article, I have edited that before several years ago and have Watchlisted it since then. Same goes for Turkification, and in fact, I have topped the chart when it comes to who edits at that article the most. So don't even try conflating your drive-by NINJA stalking reverts to good faith contributions and improvements by various editors in this project. It really doesn't help your standing here on this TP or on this encyclopedia at large. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne’s edit is an improvement. For one, it reduces POV wording. Words like “brutality” does not belong in this encyclopedia. Also, the stuff about Suny is correct. It’s rather obvious and the case ED has made here is quite easy to grasp. Which goes without saying that I think Seraphim is only here because (s)he tends to stalk Etienne’s contributions and just reverts him/her randomly. So the issue is less about a content dispute and part of a larger problem. ----Երևանցի talk 08:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era[edit]

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see no reason to change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, as User:Eupnevma brought this up on multiple pages, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020) lacks legend[edit]

If someone could add the legend, it'd be easier to understand when you're not familiar with the geography. The colors are not enough context. --Rodrigo Lima Jaroszewski (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Armenia&oldid=1194485115"