Talk:Armenian nationalism

Modern Armenian nationalism

There are so many serious problems with this entry that I am astonished that there have been no contributions to this talk page. Meowy 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed almost all of the entry. Meowy 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that all the garbage has been removed maybe some editors can add proper material, such as contribution of named Armenian writers, poets, politicians, etc, emergence of political movements and parties, religious factors, influences of Western political thought and revolutions, etc. Meowy 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the "garbage" you removed. If you have concerns, try to explain yourself instead of blanking articles. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained. It is full of propaganda, off-topic material, POV material, and material which is a word for word copy of content already on the entry for Armenian national movement. Meowy 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of the Turkish propaganda removed: "Armenian nationalism has its roots in the romantic nationalism of Mikayel Chamchian". In other words, Armenians had no concept of nationhood before the 19th century! Fits pretty well with the cruder side of Turkish propaganda (the sort for domestic consumption) in which it is claimed Armenians never had a state of their own and were always ruled by others. My addition of "in the modern period" removes that deception. "Armenian nationalism is characterized by irredentism". "Irredentism" requires there to be a state or country to do the annexing - since there was no Armenian state (and there is no Kurdish state) the use of the phrase is simply not valid. I guess the propagandist mentioned "Kurdistan" to try to kill two birds with one stone! The propagandist also does not seem to know that Khrimian's "ladle" analogy was made after the Berlin congress - the removed text wants to make out it was made before or during it. The rest of the removed text follows a similar vein. Proper material for this entry would include, as I had said, material such as contribution of named Armenian writers, poets, politicians, etc, the emergence of Armenian political movements and parties, religious factors, influences of Western political thought and 19th century revolutions, etc. Meowy 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any propaganda here, least of all Turkish. It is debatable whether there was any concept of nationhood, anywhere, prior to the 19th century, see nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't see it, it does not mean it is not there. I suggest you read up more on this specific subject (should take you about 5 years, minimum). Because you have failed to make any response to my comment on the misuse of "irredentism" I will remove that section from the article, as well as restoring the required "in the modern period". Meowy 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you failed to respond to my observation that some of the material on this entry is a word for word copy of content already on the entry for Armenian national movement. I hope to return at a later date and dissect the contents of the entry sentence by sentence, explaining what I think should be removed or rewritten. If you disagree, then you (or another editor) can present an argument against that removal/rewrite. Or if you agree, you can say so. From that, a final form for this entry can probably be agreed on. BTW, if you want to have a reasoned conversation here, please don't make insulting comments on users' talk pages. Meowy 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Armenian national movement is in fact a subtopic of this article. I don't see a problem. I fail to see you present any sort of case other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. dab (𒁳) 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a subtopic of THIS article, then why has it ANOTHER article all to itself? It is you who have failed to present any argument for your reverts (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Address my comment on the meaning of the word "irredentism" and prove your assertion that, quote, "ethnic nationalism is an entirely modern phenomenon". Meowy 19:53, 5 October 2007

(UTC)

I removed the first paragraph (even if it was sourced I would do so) because it implied that Armenian nationalists claim territories from Tigran's empire. Which is hogwash. I've never seen even the most uber hardcore nationalists do that. Territories that are usually claimed are Greater Armenia, Little Armenia (including Sophene) and sometimes Commagene and Cilicia. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, it isn't sourced. Until it is, we should assume that it is just the personal opinion of (𒁳).

If you look back at the earliest version of this entry, that paragraph is essentially the same, and is without a source. That is why I was so surprised that there had been no content in this talk page, given that so much of the article's content was controversial and unsupported. Meowy 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "claim" that Eupator talks about is mostly a claim to recognise what Armenians see as the historical Armenian identity of those regions - it is not a serious claim that they should be incorporated into Armenia! Meowy 16:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no pre-modern Armenian nationalism. You still fail to point out just what is problematic about the text. --dab (𒁳) 16:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is a statement like "there is no pre-modern Armenian nationalism". That statement is plain wrong. But I don't need to explain my opinion further because you are not giving any reasons to support your statement beyond the circular "I think ethnic nationalism is an entirely modern phenomenon so there cannot be a pre-modern Armenian nationalism". Meowy 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A fully POV?

This article seems to be a fully POV material with a lot of unsourced materials. Id like to mark some more importants:

• ""Greater Armenia" as advocated by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF never advocated the "Greater Armenia"- see the meaning of the term: it will be something with the borders till Israel..., also Greater Armenia falled thousands years ago, they advocated "United Armenia" or since 1920 the Wilsonian Armenia) during Soviet times claimed Nakhchivan and Eastern Anatolia as far west as the Trabzon Province but did not extend into Syria" (by one word- the borders of "Wilsonian Armenia").
• "Armenian nationalism in the 20th century never tired to emphasize the "ancient origin of the Armenians"" - ?, the ancient origin of Armenians is a historical fact, why it will be called nationalism? If by Armenian nationalism you mean the Armenian Rev. Federation marked at the prev. sentence, it asks about ancient origin of Armenians very rarely (ARF never participated in the discussions related to the Ancient Armenian history, any facts?, sources?).
• "Since then, Armenian nationalism has notably been opposed to Turkish nationalism, especially over the refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide by official Turkey". - the refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide by official Turkey is not a specific character for the Armenian nationalism: many officials and even parliaments, human rights activists etc from abroad opposed that refusal, do you need citations? its not something specific for the Armenian nationalism even not for the Armenian people only!
• "The need of the Armenian diaspora to derive its identity from anti-Turkish sentiment has been denounced as detrimental to the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, to the disadvantage of the Armenian state." - What means Armenian diaspora? All the Armenians living in the foreign countries? Its not an organization, surely Armenian diasporans have different opinions to any question. how many Diasporan organizations you can cite who supports this.
• "See also": we can find Wilsonian Armenia here (its not a nationalism (by W. Wilson?), rather a historical, diplomatical fact, maybe you mean some interpretations?); Martiros Kavoukjian - at the articles talk page I marked that one critical article on "chouvinism of one his book" is not enough to call this person/scientist/architect an obvious nationalist.
• "External links": a fully POV- three partisan Turkish opinions (Elif Shafak, Turkish Weekly, an Azeri ... personal page at geocities... on Armenian nationalism)? Where are Armenian ones? Where are not biased ones? Andranikpasha 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

feel free to add links to Armenian nationalist websites - they would be fully on topic here. Regarding "ancient origins" and Kavoukjian, I do suggest you familiarize yourself with the topic a little bit before campaigning about it. Of course the Armenian genocide is widely recognized, that doesn't change the fact that Turkey's denial (unjustified as it is) is functioning as a point of focus for Armenian nationalism. The article isn't taking any stance on whether nationalists are "right" (except in cases of claims on ancient history, which need to stand against academic consensus). dab (𒁳) 10:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see at every edited according to the theory on "Armenian Nationalism" article, its a lot of unsourced information which can be considered as POV or even OR (are you agree that sources needed as I marked below?). I never asked about the existence of modern Armenian nationalism and its sites, Id prefer the authors who going to prove the existence of such a subject to add some sites on Armenian nationalism. I even dont know a foreign site (is there any)? If authors too, then what is this according to the authors - a Turkish POV? Sorry Dab Im going to disagree with the POV or OR that Turkey's denial is a point of focus for Armenian nationalism! I think its a point of focuse of many democratic, human rights activist movements around the world, its a point of focuse of many prominent and not so well-known multi-national persons including Orhan Pamuk, Taner Akcam and Hrant Dink. You're going to represent here that focusing as something special for the nationalists, thats not right: its something specific for many humanist, international movements (including the respected Union against Genocide of Turkish intellectuals)! Pls do not mix it with nationalism. Andranikpasha 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just decide on an almost complete removal of most of the existing content and then get to work on what the article should contain, material such as the contribution of named Armenian writers, poets, artists, politicians, etc, the emergence of Armenian political movements and parties, social changes amongst the Armenian population in Turkey and Russia, wider political and social reforms within those two countries, religious factors, influences of Western political thought and 19th century revolutions, etc, etc. Meowy 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

um, on what grounds would we "decide on an almost complete removal of most of the existing content"? Please, people, "A fully POV"? If we are going to discuss Armenian nationalism, can we at least do it in a half educated and half literate manner? --dab (𒁳) 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not engaged in any discussion. You have not addressed any of the points that have been raised by three different editors. If you want to start a discussion, try going to the top of the talk page and work your way down, answering each point raised. Why not start by trying to justify your use of the word "irredentalism"? So far, all you do is throw insults, "half educated and half literate" being the latest. Meowy 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

look, I'm not going to write an essay on irredentism just because you feel like asking for it. We have a full article on Albanian irredentism, at Armenian national movement. Now what is your question (make it a reasonable one, not one that is merely designed to tire me out and make me walk away in exasperation). dab (𒁳) 18:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the "neutrality of this article is disputed" text since you do not seem to want to dispute or discuss the content, or any of the points I made, and you were the only person who was formerly disputing the content. Though having one person disputing an entry's content did not seem sufficient for the inserting of that message in the first place. I will also re-insert the words "modern period" that you seem to like removing because you also seem to be unwilling to discuss why they should be removed (beyond your dogmatic restating of your belief - unsupported by evidence - that nationalism only exists in the modern period). Meowy 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Meowy, pls at first read the starting of the topic. Its me who is discussing the content, and after a while Ill made also some changes. so pls before the deletion of the tags discuss my points here and try to add sources if they exist. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I though it was dab who put it there.

Often, I find that the POV tag is used in bad faith, as an easy way to sabotage an article, which has devalued its use and credibility. So it should be got rid of as quickly as possible. It has been 6 weeks since you made your initial points, so now do the editing you think should be done - every point you made I accept. Meowy 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, i think this part is an unrelevant info and better if we delete it: "Armenian nationalism has notably been opposed to Turkish nationalism, especially over the Turkish refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. The Armenian diaspora derives much of its unity from campaigns against this denial." If a source on it really exists (I think this quote is rather an unrealistic POV) we can discuss it but anyways I asked many times - how a refusal to recognize the genocide by Turkey is become an important point for nationalists. I dont think if we can find even one true Armenian nationalist who cares about this. Andranikpasha 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is true that an important facet of the expression of modern Armenian nationalism, especially amongst the diaspora, has been opposition to Turkey's continuing denial of the genocide, that it is a unifying force amongst otherwise disunited groups, and a large part of Turkey's denial is bound up with expressions of Turkish nationalism. There have been writers, including Armenian ones, who have pointed this out.

I do agree that there are problems with the wording, but that is because of the initial overall bad-faith within the entry - facts have been clearly slanted, distorted, and worded to agree with someone's pre-set agenda. For example, in the part you object to, the original writer clearly wanted to imply that the genocide is a fabricated event, a myth invented and propagated by Armenians just to obtain unity. I think the info should stay, but maybe it should be rewritten to be less POV. Abd once the whole entry has been improved and expanded it won't stick out so much.

A problem with this entry is that the article has no definition of what "Armenian nationalism" is - the bad-faith contributor clearly wants to imply it is an entirely negative thing in both goals and expressions. Surely Armenian nationalism is not the sole domain of the "nationalist", rather it is the public and collective expression of Armenian ethnicity? Meowy 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Meowy, Im agree with you and its why I putted the POV tag. We should describe more carefully what means "Armenian nationalism" and how its related to "public and collective expression of Armenian ethnicity", to not merge "opposition to Genocide/Holocaust etc crimes denial" with "nationalism" which is a separate movement and sometimes even itself denies such facts especially happened in a different country. Andranikpasha 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

National liberation movement

How national liberation movement is not nationalism? What is next national liberation was a terrorist organization? Besides it is cited information. --Anglepush (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, national liberation movement is surely not a nationalism, so pls do not add unrelevant info here. add only that info which is directly connected to Armenian nationalism and at least once is using this term. This article already contains some POV which should be cleared up. see the discussions above. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is your source for the claims that "national liberation movement" is not a source Armenian nationalism. It surely sounds like like your POV. How could you claim the OBVIOUS: "National liberation==Nationalism", is intact unrelated concepts. --Anglepush (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglepush, pls calm down! Im not had to prove anything but the user who make new dubious addings. national liberation (a movement against national oppression) is not the same as nationalism (if they're the same then we sould merge two articles). if you have any sources asking that they are the same we can put it there. otherways its better to not make original interpretations and use your info at Armenian national liberation movement. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenian nationalism is not a composed from single element (national movement). National liberation movement was a part of this "nationalism" during 19th and first part of 20th century. These concepts are not same. Merging is not validated. The source I have given, which you removed, is a well received Armenian source for the history of "Armenian Nationalism." It is YOU which deny established source, or from my perspective the obvious connection. You have to present why this well established point should be removed. If you can not brought better citation, please stop this reverting the cited information. Anglepush (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you're asking that Armenian national liberation movement is an element of nationalism. Any sources, or it is your opinion? Surely it is not obvious. the source you represented is called Looking Toward Ararat, I see nothing related to nationalism. Does Suny mark a connection with Armenian nationalism? If no, then lets stop add this quote. and about some other your addings: "World War One"- the text is not connected only to WWI its not a correct name! the same thing is with "21th century". the text there is rather related to 1980-90's. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In "Looking Toward Ararat" the most important determinant of the Nationalism of Armenians was claimed to be the unity of the Armenia (unity of Armenian homeland and the "Armenian national movement" is the activities toward this unity). The goal of unification ensured that Armenian political movements would have little in common with other political movements between 1880-1914. The meaning behind "Looking Toward Ararat" is the Armenian unity. That is the national goal during this period. You need to reverse back that section you deleted. If you do not like "21th century", you can use "Recent" which eliminates the time boundary. But you have not presented any citation which will disprove my position. Anglepush (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglepush, I know who is Suny and what he says. I dont need original explanations of his books. My question is: Does Suny mark a connection between Armenian national liberation movement and Armenian nationalism? Can you represent a quote asking that according to Suny "Armenian national liberation movement is an element of nationalism"? yes or not? otherways according to such a logics why to not include here also the Armenian National Chamber Orchestra (also National-Nationalism), Armenian National Anthem, Armenian national dances, Armenian National Library, etc etc? Andranikpasha (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are just arguing to argue. We are talking about nationalism, not opera or gymnastics. You are removing a period which Armenian's, who claimed that they were nationals, are acted on their patriotic feelings. These activities are called as "national liberation movement." The level of this conversation is very low. You need to fix your act. You are objecting the obvious. If you have a source that claims "Armenian national movement" is not "Armenian Nationalism," please present. Otherwise stop this behavior. The level of your discussion is beyond "Good Faith". Anglepush (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I love the "Ottoman-thought-process" displayed by Anglepush. Back when the Armenian Genocide was at its height, the Ottoman Empire produced a propaganda book titled "Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements" to try and justify the public face of the genocide, the "deportations". It is full of images that the Turks were presenting as hard proof of Armenian disloyalty and rebellion. On one page you will find a photo of piles of confiscated rifles, a couple of pages along is a photo of a relief carving in wood of Haig found in an Armenian school and confiscated. In otherwords, the Turks considered the possession of even the smallest, most innocent and harmless expression of Armenian ethnicity equal in seriousness to the possession of a cache of weapons. Like those Turks back in 1915, Anglepush seems to view any expression of ethnicity by an Armenian as an act of terrorism. Meowy 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Description

Meowy, as you see after I deleted the POV tag we face up here even more problems than previously. Surely we need a description to understand what about this article and should we keep here everything related to Armenia from the Armenian revolts to historian Kavoukjian and anything else, or not. I cant find a description for "Armenian nationalism", so I'll be grateful if any other user including the authors (f.e. dab) represent any for discussion. otherwise it is a question if the topic is notable ... Andranikpasha (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the topic is notable! In a way, the fact that there is some discussion about the content proves it is notable. The problem about not having a good definition for the title of the entry shouldn't be seen as too big a problem, in fact we could just ignore it for now. Get the content there, work on the entry's title later (since it can always be changed). As a rough guide I'm just going by what I said earlier: the entry should be about "the public and collective expression of Armenian ethnicity" (and responses made as a result that expression). It shouldn't cover the same ground as "National liberation movement" because that is a different topic. The latter was ultimately concerned with the creation (or rather re-creation) of Armenia as a nation-state. Meowy 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Im agree! Anyways if anyone can find a description which we can discusse and use will be fine! Especially as for the post-soviet nations the term of nationalism historically have more redical meaning and some prominent intellectuals became victims of Soviet regime under such an unexplained "qualification". Andranikpasha (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed this page Armenian_national_awakening_in_the_Ottoman_Empire - it seems to be close to the content of this entry, and that of Armenian_national_movement. I think that three similar entries are one two many and something should be merged. Main difference is that this entry is not specific to the Ottoman empire and it does not take the POV approach that the only form and purpose of armenian nationalism is the striving for an independent Armenia. Thoughts? Meowy 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think at first we need a description here. Nationalism can have different menings especially for the post-soviet countries where it is mixed with chauvinism. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

New Junk being added...

This is in regard to the text being added that begins with... "The consept of Armenisation of Urartu-range of theories that Urartu was an ancient Armenian State, wholly or mainly inhabited by ethnic Armenians, who spoke on the Armenian language. Concepts of Urartu Armenian affiliation are published primarily in Armenia, most often in popular literature, and the global scientific community rejected as unscientific and unprofessional."

The text, while "sourced", is simply false. It is not only "Armenian" sources that link Urartu and Armenia, it is all of international historical scholarship! I'm reverting this addition another time. Serouj (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Any source saying the truth is junk for you as I see... Source you call false is Diakonoff, Starostin, Schnierelman and others.. They are all junk and garbage because they dont satisfy your National ambitions... but you and the ones like you hurt more than anyone else prestige of Armenian and Wikipedia ofcourse... Because of falsificators,that not let objectiv wiev points exist in wiki, wiki is not serious source. And Armenian History image on sight of objectives is Art book... When two person discussing what was Ajax nationality. some ones joking "he was Armenian hahah" if you need arguement you will %100 find it in Armenian books... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberatium (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Later period section of the Urartu article. That will answer your questions. This section is based on primary sources (from Xenophon, Strabo, Hebrew sources, and medieval Armenian sources). Serouj (talk)

well, the text as it stands isn't acceptable for inclusion, that much is clear. Whether it can be morphed into something acceptable would be a matter of revising it into something grammatical and verifiable. Currently, Urartu is not mentioned on this page. Clearly, the idea of "Proto-Armenian Urartu" is significant to Armenian nationalism, and the addition was trying to discuss that, unfortunately just in broken English and based on obscure Russian references,[1] but the topic itself would certainly merit discussion. Serouj, perhaps you can help turning the addition into proper format. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian and unfortunately the thesis of the addition is simply false. (The thesis being, "Concepts of Urartu Armenian affiliation are published primarily in Armenia, most often in popular literature, and the global scientific community rejected as unscientific and unprofessional.") The historical literature points to a deep interconnection between Urartians and Armenians. That is why the entire text has no place here. Serouj (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Armenian ethnogenesis is likely rooted in the late Urartian period. That's it. Proto-Armenain probably didn't evolve until centuries later. However, this is the Armenian nationalism article. Nationalism is about sentiment and ideology, not about history or truth. Regardless of what happened in 7th to 6th century BCE Urartu, this article should discuss the significance of Urartu in 19th to 20th century Armenain nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That "nationalism" you speak of already existed when Moses of Khoren wrote History of Armenians in the 5th or 8th century. He already established the direct linkage between Urartians and Armenians... Serouj (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to his account, Hayk (the Armenian patriarch) descended from Noah, and Arame (the first Urartian king recorded) descended from Hayk. (Entire genealogies are provided in his book.) So the link between Urartians and Armenians isn't something that Armenians came up with in the 19th to 20th century... You've got to look 1000 - 1500 years back! Serouj (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

well, this would be a matter of WP:RS. Cite an academic source that makes the claims you are putting up here. A 9th century BC king called Aramu has nothing whatsoever to do with the Armenians. Note that Armenians is an exonym, the Armenian endonym being Hayer. Please stop suggesting that we use 8th century historiography at face value and start citing real academic literature. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I've destroyed your entire thesis which is that Armenians associated themselves with the Urartians only in the 18th-20th centuries. Moses of Khoren -- an Armenian historian from the 5th or 8th century -- established this linkage WAY BACK! The PRIMARY source (History of the Armenians by Moses of Khoren) speaks for itself. Serouj (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that I do not have any thesis of my own. I am citing academic literature which puts forward the theses of scholarly authors. See WP:ENC. In this case, Redgate (1995) and Kohl and Tsetskhladze (1995), both published with Cambridge University Press. If you find other scholars saying these articles are crap, by all means let's include these too.

Also, can you give me a break with Moses of Khoren already? Moses derived the Armenians from a mythical patriarch, Hayk, who fought the equally mythical Assyrian king, Ninus. This isn't historz, it's medieval legend. Moses had no way of even knowing the names of the kings of Urartu, which were deciphered only in the 19th century. See List of Armenian patriarchs and see List of kings of Urartu. Now spot the differences. You are perfectly right, Moses is a primary source, and as such useless for our purposes. If in doubt, we insist on scholarly secondary sources (see WP:RS). --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Armenians in 4000's disputing that USA was US of Armenia and America is changed form of it.. Claiming it was founded by legendary T-armenator I. in 1984. hehe 83.242.249.242 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-American Bias

In most of the planet, Nationalism is not a dirty word -- although its excesses are. The problem here is that we have an English language medium dominated by Americans and by the British along with their Commonwealth descendants who view nationalism, particularly those forms that are locked in a hostile relationship (for whatever reason) with one of their allies, as a problem. The truth of the matter is that the US, the UK, Australia etc., are some of the biggest practitioners of ideologies of exclusion -- whether cultural or racial. English-speaking citizens of countries that are broadly part of the West should be aware that their own POV is utterly unacceptable to Armenians, Kurds, Russians, Indians, Arabs and others who have been victims of their own imperialism or that of their allies. In other words, butt-out please, if you are an American, you have no ground by which you can come here and do a supposedly "neutral" edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.97 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What upsidedown worldview do you have? The reverse of your claim is true, the US, the UK, Australia etc., are some of the biggest practitioners of ideologies of inclusion whether cultural or racial. Hence the disproval of the word "nationalism" amongst their political elites. In contrast, Armenia is actually one of the most exclusionary countries in the world - and its politicians, priests, and oligarchs are constantly lecturing about what a good Armenian should be doing for the nation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurds

"Armenian Genocide carried out by Ottoman Turks and Kurds in April 1915..."

The usage of the term 'Kurds' in this context implies a collective Kurdish participation in the genocide, as opposed to the widely accepted view which considers only separate, isolated segments of the ethnic Kurdish population comprised of bandits and released criminals to have been involved. Apart from it being incorrect and way off the mark for an encyclopedia, the deceitful usage of this term is insulting to say the least. Therefore I have removed it from the page and replaced it with "Kurdish bandits and released criminals" instead.

Frankly, the purpose of the term's usage in this manner is unclear to me. I demand an explanation from the user accountable for the placement of that term as to what his/her intentions were. 82.171.125.22 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.125.22 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armenian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423130744/http://archive.hetq.am:80/eng/society/h-0203-vharutiunyan.html to http://archive.hetq.am/eng/society/h-0203-vharutiunyan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926224041/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11091 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11091

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)