Talk:Urartu/Archive 1

What exactly is the "Proto-Iberian world"?

--Yak 22:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have tried to expand this page based on info from WWW. I cannot tell whether the paragraph on linguistic affiliation makes sense. Anyway, further details should go to the Urartian language page.
Jorge Stolfi 04:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

What is meant by "Urartu is Ibero-Caucasian"?
As far as I know, Ibero-Caucasian is just a theory that the three or four language families that are presently spoken only in the Caucasus (South, Northwest, Northeast, North-central) have a common origin. However, at present there seems to be no linguistic evidence that all four families are related; not even the most ardent "lumpers" have claimed a connection between South and North Caucasian. In fact it seems that some people claim to see a connection between NW Caucasian and Indo-European, back to 10,000 years — and they are having trouble showing it. So the connection between N and S Caucasian, if it exists, must therefore be even more remote than that.
So if there is significant affinity between Urartian and any of those four Caucasian families, it can be with at most one of them, and this article should say which one. The "Ibero-Caucasian" or "Proto-Caucasian" theory is best left as a speculative section in the Caucasian languages page, until someone manages to convince enough linguists that it is real.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Urartuan is a later form of Hurrian. The Hurro-Urartuan languages were then found to have a similarity with Lezgian/Avar/Dagastani which is usually called North East Caucasian. However it was regognised as wrong to classify Hurro-Urartuan as North-East Caucasian so the new term Alarodian was introduced.

Later this family was found to be related to Vaynakh/Nakh languages sometimes called North-Central Caucasian.

Meanwhile on the western slopes of the mountains Circassian (West Caucasian) was found to be related to Hattic. Again it is strange to classify Hattic as Northwest caucasian when the "Hattians" were nowhere near NWC. Hetto-Iberian was proposed first but the extension of the term Alarodian to include the new Hatto-Circassian family was also suggested on the basis of certain similarities.

Finally the term Hetto-Iberian was applied for all 5 language groups. Georgian linguists objected to being excluded from the Hetto-Iberian family since they claim transcaucasian Iberia as a Georgian kingdom not Circassian. They proposed a new much larger super family called Proto-Iberian which also included Basque, Etruscan and Pelasgs. However the existence of such a super family is not very well attested at all as of present.

Unfortunately a little Georgian politics has affected all such related pages and has to be filtered out carefully so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.Zestauferov 12:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

nations

is nothing too far-fetched for nationalist disputes?? Anyway, don't say "Modern Armenians are the descendants of the Urartuians.", say, "according to Arthur Peabody in Armenians — why they rock (de Gruyter, 1982), ethnic Armenians are descended from the Urartian population". Replacing my made up one with a genuine reference, of course. dab (ᛏ) 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [1]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

fine, but since he is as persistent as his nemesis, will this mean all Turkey-related articles will remain protected indefinitely? This is not a solution. Arbcom him, ban him, rollback him, he has left the arena of fair-although-biased editing and may be treated as a vandal. dab (ᛏ) 19:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I absolutely agree with you on the point that Rovoam should be banned from editing Wikipedia and his account should be closed indefinitely. In fact, I was arguing about this for long time now. However, this would not be the solution. I said before and I repeat it here too: the only way to deal with this person is for other editors to unite and withstand al his spurious edits and vandalisms. Only after seeing the determination of Wikipedia editors will he realize the whole senselessness of his actions and will retreat.

On the other hand, realistically, the process of banning this "user" from Wikipedia would require decision by ArbCom, i.e. a long and slow process. Therefore, I think, Tony's protection of these pages was the only right option at the moment.

p.s. Just for records: here's the list of pages protected by Tony, which underwent Rovoam's vandalisms: this page, Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Arran (Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan, Safavids, Turkey. --Tabib 19:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree with dab that he needs a good arbcomming. This will probably happen. However he probably can't be physically banned, he's too obsessive and has too many IP numbers. I agree with Tabib that a show of unity against his determined abuse would show him that his bread has landed butter-side down. He must be pretty demoralized already; we just have to keep on until he realises he can never win. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe we've had to protect the article of an obscure nation that's been gone for close to three millennia. This feels like a new low. Isomorphic 05:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Rovoam's revert on Kura-Araxes culture was ridiculous; he removed a whole group of edits, only a tiny bit of which was even by Tabib. Most of what he reverted was by me and a third user. He's being spiteful and stupid. Isomorphic 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I ask for unprotection of this article. There was nothing like an edit war going on, and I don't mind reverting nationalist biases every couple of days. If we keep it protected, how shall it improve? Tabib, I will revert anti-Turkish and pro-Turkish bias alike, I don't care about Turks or Armenians, in relation with this article. The whole thing is just ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected as requested. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dab, you're right. I would gladly distance myself from reverts, if I know that someone is there to watch out this person. I thank you all for your principled positions.--Tabib 06:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam (72.25.94.178 and 67.4.226.19) edits

I have reverted edits by a well-known troll and vandal User:Rovoam to last version by User:Isomorphic on 00:47 May 17.

The reason why I reverted his edits is because they were spurious.

He first removed a NPOV sentence I have authored and instead, introduced his sentence [2], which was earlier removed by User:Isomorphic stating "rm POV statement; there is no historical consensus for this" [3].

After that his edits were softened a bit by Isomorphic [4]. And then, this person has introduced again the NPOV sentence, written by me which he himself has removed. Thus he tried to present himself as if his edits were valuable to Wikipedia [5].

I believe all users should deal with this person very carefully, because he is rather obsessed and is very good at manipulating with public through various malicious tricks.

In my message above I have named the pages that suffered from Rovoam's vandalisms and were vprotected. Just recently, this person started also to vandalize Nakhichevan and Karabakh and I'm afraid if he persists, these pages will have to be protected as well. --Tabib 12:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

enough with the Armenians! just revert them without comment. I would like to see one reference making the claim, and we'll cite that, no problem. Cite sources, Rovoam, don't edit-war. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

stubborn reverting

this is silly. Should we ask for protection of the article until anon either cites a source, or grows tired? dab (ᛏ) 08:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab, unfortunately, one has to understand the motives behind his actions. This person is a fanatic and extreme nationalist. But at this moment, in my personal viewpoint, the reverts, vandalism and spurious edits he is doing is not realy for propagating some idea, it is just the expression of his anger and hatred and willing to take revenge from me for whatever reasons he has in mind. He thinks that by vandalizing various Azerbaijan and Turkey related pages, which I have ever contributed even insignificantly, he will get me down.

I believe, this person will not stop for quite some time, he will be testing the reaction of various editors, will try to confuse them, deceive them, anger them; he will continue blatant and sneaky vandalisms (not obvious at a glance), maybe even will try to justify his actions by his wish to "teach [me] a lesson of tolerance" (?!) ([6]). I am absolutely convinced, the only way to stop this person, is to stand united against him and revert all his edits, without consideration. In the long run I also believe ArbCom should also review its decision on him and completely ban this person from editing Wikipedia. He's been under revert limitation and personal attack parole, but since then he's been systematically violating revert limitation and also on numerous occasions waged personal attacks, and I am not talking about vandalism yet and replacing user pages with other pages from Wikipedia dedicated to various human organs..--Tabib 13:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he was banned? It's just that he is difficult to block, but he has no business editing Wikipedia, obviously, with such an attitude. See WP:AN/I#Rovoam_and_vandalism, it seems people are considering contacting his ISP and/or the authorities now. Maybe some "real life" pressure will make him go away (sheesh. think how easy it would be just to put up your own webpage, with no one interfering). dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

protection

ok, I agree with the protection at this point. This was getting a little bit too annoying. I also agree that we are reaching a new low, protecting articles on ancient cultures because of political pov vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Since article is protected, can you post this map into article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu.jpg

User:PANONIAN

Or, alternatively, I would suggest this map, originally from an Armenian source (but the author of the map is a Western scholar, Hewsen). It is even more correct and clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu-Biainili.jpg --Tabib 15:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's been three weeks; unprotecting. --Golbez 04:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

map

I suppose Image:Urartu-Biainili.jpg is fine for the moment, but its copyright status is dubious, we'd need a full reference where it was published, and it needs to be redrawn, preferably in colour, as a GFDL image (see Wikipedia:Maps for that). dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Initially, I have posted this map during discussions in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh [7]. The map is taken from an Armenian web-site http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/armenians/history_p1.html (scroll down a bit and you'll see a link to map). As you can see in the lower right corner the map has two annotations. First, it has the sign of the web-page ("HyeEtch"), which may imply that the web-site reserves the copyright for this image. But just above this sign there is also a writing "Robert Hewsen", which makes me think that this map is actually scanned from a book by a Western scholar and placed in that web-page. Nevertheless, the actual copyright of that very image may be the web-site. Therefore, I concur with Dab on his point that perhaps some of our editors could prepare exact copy of this map for exclusive use in Wikipedia. --Tabib 09:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

exclusive use in Wikipedia — you mean, free use under the GFDL :) if you have time, why don't you try the GIMP, I usually draw my maps with it. dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expand

In the upcoming weeks I'd like to expand this article. I hope to add more information to each of the existing catagories and to make a few new ones as well.--Moosh88 00:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You have expended it for the worst. You and Eupator have introduced POV in this article. Fadix 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to make any major edits like I wanted, as I have been very busy. So I don't see what you're talking about.--Moosh88 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Urartu was then invaded by Scythians from the north, and finally conquered by the Scythians' associates, the Medes, in 612 BC. Many Urartu ruins show evidence of destruction by fire. Even before the Urartuian empire came to an end, Armenians had been mixing with the Urartuians. But it wasn't until the demise of Urartu, that the Urartuians adopted the Indo-European Armenian language and the Armenians adopted certain aspects of Urartuian social, political and cultural institutions. The Urartuians thus became the Armenians and vice versa. That is POV. Fadix 23:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It certainly overstates what is known. My understanding is that, while Armenians consider Urartu part of their heritage and most academics believe that there was an Urartian contribution to the Armenian people, there isn't much solid evidence one way or another about the relationship between Urartian remnants and proto-Armenians. There's a gap in knowledge between the fall of Urartu and the rise of Armenia. Isomorphic 07:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's really much more simple than people make it out to be. Urartians were the Hurrian speaking elite and rulers of the state. After countless wars with Assyria, already weakened Urartu is destroyed by Scyhtians/Cimmerians. Right about the same time Media takes over, obviously Medians favored the native and newly arrived IE's rather than the Hurrian speaking peoples. That's why their language and culture take a back seat, while IE's dominate from then on arguably in a syncretic society.--Eupator 19:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds basically right to me. But still, the truth is that all we have is speculation, assumption, and some weak evidence. Nobody truly knows where the Urartians went, or how long they kept some form of coherent state. I know some have suggested that a greatly weakened Urartian entity may have existed in the north for some time after the cities fell. Isomorphic 02:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You just raised my concerns about the changes made. Fadix 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember, after all, that we're talking about a people who were completely unknown to history from before the time of the medieval Armenian hisorians, all the way until the last couple centuries. Yor "first source" is a joke. If you take that sort of thing seriously, I have a bridge to sell you. Isomorphic 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Every body who is neutral notice that this page is owned by some POV-pushers. They remove sourced material which they don't like from the article. e.g. following text: [8] Urartu was what is now Armenia, a country that covers Armenia itself and parts of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Much of it is where the modern Kurds live, and the Kurds are the direct line of the people who lived there then, although interbred with subsequent peoples. The Gutu or Kuti lived in the middle reaches of the Tigris about 2000 BC, in Sumerian times, and were related apparently to the Kassites who lived to the east on the edge of the Iranian plateau. The Assyrian name of them, Kirtie, evolved into Kardi. The name of Babylonia used in the Amarna letters is Karduniash. The Armenians crossed the Caucasus in about 600 BC, pushing the Chaldians to the south so that they lived in what is now Kurdistan. The word “Kurd” is “Kald” with another common consonantal change. Asina 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the following : WP:Verifiability--Eupator 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

once you cite your first verifiable source, we may start considering whether or not we have a dispute. You may, for example, check out Armenians to learn that it is far from certain that the "Armenians crossed the Caucasus in 600 BC". You are just copy-pasting random material from crackpot websites, in violation of both GFDL and Verifiability/CITE. I suggest you read a book on the topic and come back with ISBN and page numbers. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other sources referring to the Khaldi:

The Urartians or Chaldians in the hills to the north of the Assyrian steppes had shown they were a danger to the Assyrians who accordingly had a keen interest in stopping the Chaldians from using their temple to their god Chaldi at Musasir. [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/Judaism/Persian_Judaism/book2/pt6.htm]

The Chaldi (Urartu) signs from the 8th century BC also talk of the land between the Transcaucasian Kura and Araxes River area and often mentions their horses. From a military expedition they obtained 10,000s of horned cattle and 100, 000 s of sheep, and 100s of horses. /Mescaninov, Leningrad (Chaldi). [9]

These are in addition to my first source which is a good one [10]. Asina 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to want to argue that there is a connection between the Khaldi and the Urartians. I admit that the hypothesis sounds less far out than others I've heard, and I have nothing against mentioning it. You just need to tell us who suggested it, in what publication. Piling on the dodgy weblinks (Messopotamia in a title is not exactly a seal of quality) is of no interest. Name a scholar and cite his suggestion. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is another academic one Ephuater:

This country was formerly the home of one of the great empires of ancient history; that of the Urartians or Khaldians, who could dispute the hegemony of Asia with Assur, at the time when the first colonists were settling on the seven bare hills that afterwards were Rome By: THE REV. W. A. WIGRAM, D.D. [11] Asina 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And remember that this is not a matter of Kurdish nationalism since Kurdish nationalists see themselves as PURE Aryans (such as Medes) and look down as unknown peoples such as this. Asina 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

and here:

but it is very doubtful whether Armenians have any connexion with the aboriginal Khaldian inhabitants. Their own traditions absolutely contradict the theory; but their modern national writers are apt to claim such descent. [12]

Maybe this should be included If other nations are ignored? Asina 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway remember that in academic world Kurds are regarded as a very ancient people of the region; even long before Armenians came to around lake van in 7th B.C.:

The Armenians took refuge in the Lake Van region in the seventh century B.C., apparently in reaction to Cimmerian raids. Their country was described by Xenophon around 400 B.C. as a tributary of Persia. By the first century B.C., a united Armenian kingdom that stretched from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea had been established as a client of the Roman Empire to buffer the frontier with Persia.

Xenophon also recorded the presence of the Kurds. Contemporary linguistic evidence has challenged the previously held view that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes, although many Kurds still accept this explanation of their origin. Kurdish people migrated from the Eurasian steppes in the second millennium B.C. and joined indigenous inhabitants living in the region. Source: U.S. Library of Congress [13] Asina 23:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Wigram links begins to convince me that the Khaldi were identified with the Urartian by some 19th century scholars, so let's mention the association. We still need a proper citation though. Note that the Khaldi are attested at the Black Sea coast, in the Bronze Age, while the Urartians are attested in Armenia, in the Iron Age. If anything, therefore, the Urartians derive from Khaldi stock. That's a hypothesis and should be sourced. dab (ᛏ) 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I see no reason at all to say that Kurds were the real inhabitants of Urartu because they definitely are not, it is like saying that the Babylonians, Elamites, and all the ancient civilizations in the Near East were all Kurdish. The Kurdish may of had occupied or inhabited some lands in Urartu but they made very little to NO contributions to Urartu, just like right now they make no contributions to any government's lands they live in, because they are a nomadic people. Also how can Kurds be in the Armenian Highlands before the Armenians themselves, that sounds a little paradoxical, because the first mention of Kurds ever being WERE BY ARMENIANS!!! Whoever says that Armenians migrated to the Caucasus because of the Cimmerians invading Phyrgian has no knowledge of Armenian history or even history itself. This was just a thought or a notion of Herodotus who throughout the history of the modern age has been called no more than a myth because of all of the fantastical stories he tells of. So whoever quoted him must also believe in Cyclops, fairies, elves, 76 foot tall giant demi-gods or gods themselves, and they must also believe in talking animals and beastiality because Herodotus wrote about gods taking the forms of snakes and cows and making love to humans on Earth.

This all just ridiculous and is getting totally OUT OF HAND. A hypothesis, not even a hypothesis a quick thought or notion, of an unreliable source like Homer who believes that 2.6 million Persians invaded Greece whereas the largest army ever ammassed before and after that reaching all the way up through probably the High Middle Ages must of had been at the very most 100,000 Romans with a battle with Hannibal. Back to the topic, all of these so called "facts" that are presented by this laughable Kurdish nationalist were are no more than hypothesis' lacking enough base or grounded information to be considered anything more than that, they aren't even theories, and you need to understand the major differences between the former and latter to recognize and acknowledge the absurdity of this discussion, this shouldn't even be discussed that is how stupid this is, and I am surprised I was the first one to come across this. Anyway if there are any questions about the historical accuracies of what I have just presented please ask them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.192.171 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And where the hell does it say that Armenians crossed the Caucasus in 600 B.C. "dab" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.192.171 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

The Kingdom was known as Armenia to the Greeks living in western Anatolia, possibly due to that fact the contacts they had with Urartu, were through the people calling themselves Armens, or Armenians. So to Greece, and thereafter to the Roman Empire, the country was known as the land of Armens – Armenia.

This was edited to form the current, improved version of this short paragraph without the Armenian POV. --Azzarzurna 10:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tree of life

I removed the sentence referring to the tree of life. (It was believed to be the site of the Tree of Life and was sought after by various kings in that era.) This claim is apparently based on The Urantia Book – text of dubious origin. Moreover, even if one assumes the text to be genuine and valuable, he/she still can’t make the claim, because Urantia refers to the Earth not to Urartu. I am not aware of any historical texts of Assyrian or Hittite origin mentioning the Tree of Life in Urartu. Evgeny 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Urartu Ethnic Composition

This message for a bunch of guys who arekeeping to remove my edit. The ethnic composition of Urartu was a subject of dispute in the page "Armenia". But there is some temporarily agreement now on that subject - Urartu' people and Armenians were different. Please stop removing my contribution to that section with relevant reference. Otherwise, let's refer to mediation--Dacy69 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. We know that two languages were spoken in the region. That's it. It's already stated in the article that Armenian is Indo-European and Urartian has affinities with Hurrian. No need to repeat things twice.--Eupator 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo, is it proclamation? Who knows? I and some other know different things - and we cite sources. --Dacy69 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is for Eupator, Ararat rev and other guys who are just keeping to destroy other contributions. Please read other authors - I.Diakonov for example. The problem with some Armenians is that you are so ardent, brain washed by a sense of nationalism. What if Urartu is not your ancestors - how it impacts Armenia. For example - Russia should not be less proud if their first kings were Scandinavians. Britain was conquered by Normanns. So what? It became great empire, anyway. It does not matter at all for your ethnic pride if Urartu is not your direct ancestors. But it is big problem for the science of history - nationalists try to re-write and distort it. This problem exists now in Iran, Russia, Balkans, Caucasus. Everybody is competing for being the most ancient. I recommend, you guys, read your compatriot's book - Ronald Grigor Suny: for example, Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History or Populism, Nationalism, and Marxism: The Origins of Revolutionary Parties Among the Armenians of the Caucasus--Dacy69 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Don't discuss other editors or their possible motives. Consider yourself warned. --Eupator 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack in my message. Academic - yes. It is about attitude to history. For personal attack please see my discussion page and Ararat rev comments. Now about my points. Just would like to cite Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074433/Urartu) "The Urartians had a number of traits in common with the Hurrians, an earlier Middle Eastern people. Both nations spoke closely related languages and must have sprung from a common ancestor nation (perhaps 3000 BC or earlier). Although the Urartians owed much of their cultural heritage to the Hurrians, they were to a much greater degree indebted to the Assyrians... The Urartians were finally overcome by invading Armenians toward the end of the 7th century BC."--Dacy69 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you think is a personal attack. Remain civil. Also, if you haven't noticed yet, Wikipedia is not Brittanica.--Eupator 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is. I've seen it from Ararat rev. Read Wikipedia guidelines - it is based on well reputative sources not propoganda. Britannica is one of reliable sources. So, it has a right to be inserted along with others.Let's return to the subject of this page. perhaps, we can recourse to mediation--Dacy69 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is no truth. There is no consensus on ethnic composition. We can't site one side's view as a fact. Read my additions in the "Language Debate" section. We don't know whether Urartian was spoken or merely written in the area, so we can't know for sure what the ethnicities were. Though I believe it points to them being Armenians.--TigranTheGreat 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is one of POV which is indeed supported by many reputative scholars outside Armenia. Let's refer to mediation. Why you are so afraid of this procedure. Otherwise, I have to recourse to Arbitration--Dacy69 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Save us your threats, familiarize yourself with wiki polciies before you resort to threatening. Arbitration will never be accepted for this.--Eupator 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article already clearly mentions the minority and majority positions. And it doesn't say U. was armenian--TigranTheGreat 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, watch for your language, instead. I don't threaten. I propose mediation and inform you about my further steps - this is in a spirit of cooperation. Again for threatening look at some other users on my talk page. And for TigrantheGreat - My point is about ethnic composition. My POV with reference to sources. That part says that Urartians and Armenians has coherent links. I don't agree. Let's resolve through mediation.--Dacy69 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It already says that Urartians and Armenians spoke different language. The "coherent" links is about culture--if they lived together, they must have developed some common grounds.--TigranTheGreat 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I accept the point about language. It is written in Language section. However, as I argued with Ararat rev - language is not only issue. My further point is the Armenians moved there later, in 7-6 BC. I see there is no agreement on mediation procedure? Why we should not try? You are pretty confident in your arguments. So, maybe I will lose.--Dacy69 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need any agreement. You can call for mediation anytime you want! --Eupator 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am filing request for mediation on this, as well as on Yerevan page. I ask parties involved to put their signitares--Dacy69 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Page has now been fully protected upon request at WP:RFPP. It will stay until people can resolve the disputes. Nishkid64 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hopefully we can straighten things out. Nareklm 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator and TigranTheGreat are asked to sign mediation agreement. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Urartu --Dacy69 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

do not hold articles hostage with your pathetic quibbling over 'ethnic composition'. The 'ethnic composition' of Urartu is totally uninteresting to anyone but Armenian nationalists. This isn't an article on Armenian patriotism, it is an article on an ancient kingdom. If you want to argue about various theories of Armenian ethnogenesis, do that over at Armenians and History of Armenia, where it is on topic. On this article, there shouldn't be more than one sentence containing a link to those articles. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you stop calling every contributor of Armenian descent an Armenian nationalist? Anyone who raises objections is an Armenian patriot to you? And who are you to say what ethnic composition (or anything for that matter) are interesting to? Try showing some of that Swiss neutrality we admire so much. Hakob 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is happening here but

I can assume, given that Adil (Dacy69) is back. I appologise to dab for my answer, but settling issues is the only way to keep this article clean from Adil intrusions, since believe me, he will refuse to leave the article alone. First of all, this article is about Urartu, so I fail to see why people are bothered about it, more particularly nationalist Azeris editors like Adil.

Is there any link between Armenians and Urartians? Herodotus claims that those living in Armenia are the natives who acquired the language of the conquerers, which he claims to be the Phrygians. It sounds weird at first that Adil will obsessivally fight on this, since Azeris have the same sort of claim on the Caucasian Albanian, claims which he supports himself. We know that Herodotus was probably right on the basis of Haplotype and other genetic sequencing tests that Armenians are more genetically linked with the Caucasus indigenous people than those of the 'Thraco-Phrygian region.' Also, there are Armenian language anomalies and barrowing in its structures which suggest indigenous language assimilation.

I have already placed those works as references in the past, which treat about the Armenian language structural differences with typical Indo-European, suggesting early mixture.

Problems of Armenian Phonology I, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1954), pp. 197-201

Problems of Armenian Phonology II, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 4-8

Problems of Armenian Phonology III, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 38, No. 3, Part 1 (Jul., 1962), pp. 254-262

On the Placing of Armenian, by J. Alexander Kerns; Benjamin Schwartz, Language, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1942), pp. 226-228

Is Armenian an Anatolian Language? by William M. Austin, Language, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1942), pp. 22-25

The Etymology of Armenian ert'am by Charles R. Barton, Language, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), p. 620

'Initial' Indo-European */y/ in Armenian, by Robert Minshall, Language, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1955), pp. 499-503

Some Effects of the Hurro-Urartian People and Their Languages upon the Earliest Armenians by John A. C. Greppin; I. M. Diakonoff, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 720-730

The Position of Tocharian among the Other Indo-European Languages by Douglas Q. Adams, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 395-402

The Indo-Hittite Hypothesis by E. H. Sturtevant, Language, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1962), pp. 105-110

Adjacency Parameters in Phonology by David Odden, Language, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 289-330

Selected Studies in Indo-European Phonology, by Gordon Myron Messing, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 56 (1947), pp. 161-232

Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian by I. M. Diakonoff, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 105, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 597-603

The Armenian Aorist by G. Bonfante, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Jun., 1942), pp. 102-105

Mountain of Tongues: The Languages of the Caucasus by J. C. Catford, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 6 (1977), pp. 283-314

Statistical Measurement of Linguistic Relationship by Alvar Ellegard, Language, Vol. 35, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr., 1959), pp. 131-156

Having said that, I will also add that, indiginous Armenians had various aspects of their cultures directly influenced by the Urartian Kingdom, their Gods, their buildings etc.

Finally, there is no point in raising any issues such as 'Armenians are not Urartians', which I assume Adil is doing, since no one I think claims they are, on the other hand, the Armenian Kingdom founded after the fall of Urartu has been founded by the same indiginous people, but the domminating class was replaced. Fad (ix) 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I asked to verify my identiy to settle this issue and to stop groundless accusation.

Second, my interest in Urartu is in its genuine history - and to get rid of falsifications and speculations. I don't mind to accomodate various theories. And I don't mind when other people are interested in the history of other countires. This was the way how the science of history was developed. Ancient Egypt's history was developed mainly by Europeans, wasn't it? Germans wrote about ancient Rome, French scholar Grousset studied Turkic nomads, etc. There are many other examples. And here in Wikipedia Armenian user Clevelander are making his edits in Azerbaijani sites. This is a spirit of Wikipedia.

Now to the question itself. A long list of publications does not produce more reasoning, particularly, if they are about language. Piotrovski, when pointed to Urartian and Armenian differences, studied material culture. Here, in Ethnic Section, (not Language) it was stated about etnnic similarities and continuity btw Urartu and Armenians, which is basically non-mainstream opinion, which even the Armenian MFA is not supporting. In the 6th century B.C.E., Armenians settled in the kingdom of Urartu (the Assyrian name for Ararat), which was in decline” [[14]]. (Perhaps this will be removed soon)... Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and many other scholars maintain other opinion. This, I argue, should be reflected in the Ethnic composition section. The same is applied to page Armenia, in section of Antiquity, when it states the same ethnic bonds and gives only Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory. And, we perfectly know why this point is made by nationalists.--Dacy69 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, my accusation of you being Adil, is a result of a merging test which has a higher specificity than Checkusers which uses IP addresses, since anyone bright enough to use proxies could get away normally. If you want the results and my investigations, it will be my pleasure to post them on your talkpage. But I reserve the right to keep my sampling method introduced in SAS based platform to myself. About the Britannica source, you much about know that this is not a position accepted by everyone. Herodotus claims the Armenians are the indegenious people who acquired the language of the Phrygian invadors. But anyways, I fail to see the relevancy of this discussion with the main subject of this article. Fad (ix) 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

all this isn't even on-topic here. This is the article about Urartu. The relation of Urartu to the historical Armenians, such as it is, should be discussed on History of Armenia and Armenians. We will only place a brief link to these articles here, regardless of the merit of the Urartu-Armenians connection. I wish this article would attract editors interested in the actual topic, not just in some ethnic label intended to give an aura of antiquity to modern Armenians. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article dispute. Association of Members' Advocates

User:Dacy69 has made a request for assistance in the editing of the Urartu article. According to Dacy69, the dispute centres on differing views on the ethnic composition of Urartu. As Dacy69's advocate I have looked into the case and spoken to several editors - some by email. Dacy69 has shown me evidence that there is a view held by some specialists in this matter. The view is known. The view is documented. As such, regardless of personal or political feelings regarding this view, it is entirely appropriate that the view is mentioned in the Ethnic composition section of the article. If there are any editors who continue to have a problem with this they should address their concerns to me. It is acceptable that editing of the article continues. However, it is not acceptable for documented and referenced views by acknowledged specialists to be deleted from the article. On Wikipedia we aim for balanced viewpoints.

Dacy69 has also complained about the language used by some editors in discussions regarding this topic. While it is understandable that feelings can run high during an editing dispute, I would hope at this point that everyone involved would assume good manners and only comment on the material. Also, there has been mention that Dacy69 is a potential sock-puppet. I have looked into this. There is no evidence for this. So I would assume that from this point on editors will stop making that accusation. If any editor has any queries about this or any other matters relating to this case they are welcome to speak to me. SilkTork 12:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Urartu images

Dbachmann those are Urartu images. You even approved one of them that is on my page with the 2 Lions. Those are all Urartu images. I put the same info you put on the 2 Lion Urartu freize. Ararat arev 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

, you [15] even approved one of them with the same info and tag. You put the PD-art link with it. Those are Urartu images. Ararat arev 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I "approved" of them in the sense that I do not assume they are a copyright violation. Which is nothing more than a kind assumption, I wouldn't put any money on it. Now, this means, I don't necessarily think they need be deleted. If you want to insert them here, you will need to tell us what they depict. "Urartu family" / "Urartu warriors" is not good enough. What are they? drawings of a frieze? Drawn by whom? Published where? Where was this frieze? Where is it kept? You cannot just plaster this page with random images you found on the internet. You need to provide references as to what is on your images just the same as for text you insert into an article. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you add those parts, since Ive seen you do with other images? Im saying can you do it, because you might provide with more info on it, and approve it more. Ararat arev 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean like, I dont know what to put like "Urartu warriors" what else should I put ? 8th century BC? Or you want something more. Ararat arev 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy is acussing me of reverting when we havent even got response here. You havnt responded cause you were out away from the internet. He isnt even discussing in Talk pages, Nareklm. He keeps reverting to get his way out of the issue when I told you about in your page. Once again the guy isnt dicsussing changes on Talk pages.Ararat arev 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are like children, you're making this a big deal when it was already there. This is how it was and it should stay like this. Dbachmann just said to add in more info of the images Ararat arev 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

if we are the children, how is it that you're the one breaking all the rules to keep it the way you like it? Thanatosimii 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You had not removed this thing. This 16 year old comes and removes it and even puts "copyvio" on it, trying to get a reason out of it. When the admins handling copyright approved it. Ararat arev 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Thanasimii, you're not seeing the whole situations. Ararat arev 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the image is legal, it is not beneficial to the article. This article is full of cruft images, and they need to be taken out as per the guidelines on why we have images. Please spend some time reading up on wikipedia's goals and guidlines over the next few days. Thanatosimii 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The images were there and its childish what he's doing. He is 16 years old. That should tell you. This image I want to stay there. He doesnt just get his opinion in this, and neither do you. There are many like Davo88, Dbachmann, and others have a say in this too. Khoikhoi also. Ararat arev 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanasimii, what happened also was you came in the scene when you saw Nareklm removing images. You came in and joined this, by making a big deal out of no where. Otherwise you left it how it was before. Ararat arev 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I like Dbachmann's opinions, and I want his say in this. The others too Ararat arev 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop referring to other people talk here you added the images and you discuss it we don't need other opinions theres enough people on this article and so far everyone has opposed it. Nareklm 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to answer that way when you childishly were the one that started this big deal. And if yoiu read in Talk:Mitanni Thanasimii does say to get other peoples opinioins. Ararat arev 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay? than this is not going to be solved anytime soon. Nareklm 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I explicitly said do not go around soliciting other people's attention to such a minor issue. The rules are the rules. According to the rules, random images=not ok!. Obey the rules. Thanatosimii 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For Eupator

It is generally agreed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians- besides sources I mentioned you can look at an exact phrase [16]

The Armenians moved in Armenian plateau in VII-VI BC = In the 6th century B.C.E., Armenians settled in the kingdom of Urartu (the Assyrian name for Ararat), which was in decline - Armenian MFA [17]

After all, you are proposing editing to my language. Ok, why I can't make it to yours -you removed my suggestion regarding Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory which is indeed minoruty view:

Certain words and theories are laden with political significance. Thus, the controversial linguistic theory of T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov (1984), which sees the original Proto-Indo-European developing in direct association with the Proto-Kartvelian (West Caucasian) and ancient Semitic families of languages in an eastern Anatolian homeland, receives an extremely warm reception not on its linguistic merits, but on its locating Proto-Indo-European speakers in the historic Armenian heartland. Proto-Indo-European thus becomes a buzzword for Proto-Armenian. This questionable identification is transparent in tendentious interpretations of Bronze Age and later prehistoric materials from Transcaucasia, as exemplified by V.E. Oganesian's (1992) implausible ethnic interpretation of the fantastically suggestive iconography on a silver goblet recently excavated in the Karashamb cemetery north of Yerevan; or by G. E. Areshian's (1992:27) detailed and ingenious, albeit strained, attempt to weave together historical, mythological, and archaeological materials to demonstrate that "Armeno-Aryans" constituted "the population living in the basins of the Araxes and Kura from the end of the third millennium BC" and "continuously carried out rituals connected with Indo-European cosmogonic mythology.

from -- Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (edition mentioned above in the discussion page)

But anyway, you should discuss further editing and proposal to SiklTork. --Dacy69 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Composition debate

Lets find some agreement here. It appears to me as an outsider that there is a political dimension to some of this editing. It also appears that some information is being included, not for academic reasons to explain to the general reader the theories, counter theories and known evidence for the ethnic composition of Urartu, but to make political points. I would like to see appropriate content relating to known theories of the ethnic composition of Urartu. And I'd like an explanation as to why it is felt the Proto-Indo-European debate belongs here in such detail.

We can take this sentence by sentence if needed. I'm not sure why "assumed" has been used in the first sentence. I was happier with Eupator's "argued", because it does reflect that it is a theory, not a proven fact. I am suggesting that "argued" be used. SilkTork 19:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is generally assumed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians. . The Urartians were succeeded in the area in the 6th century BC by the Armenians. Hypotheses based on this narrative could place Armenians in their traditional homeland of eastern Asia Minor anywhere from around 1200 BC to around 700 BC (pushed eastward from Phrygia by the invasions of the Cimmerians in 696 BC). A competing view suggested by Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in 1984 places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland. A recent study (Gray & Atkinson) that applied the statistical tools used in timing genetic evolution to the lexical evolution of Indo-European languages strongly implied that the Indo-European homeland indeed appears to be in Asia Minor, and Armenian language (hence a well-defined group speaking it) split from it (along with Greek) at around 5300 BC, and split from Greek shortly thereafter (but the "split" from Greek was statistically less obvious). After the disappearance of Urartu as a political entity, the Armenians dominated the highlands, absorbing portions of the previous Urartian culture in the process.

---

there are two issues here. The Hurrian-Urartian connection is pretty uncontroversial, the langauges being similar, and nobody has political stakes here. Then there is the Urartian-Armenian connection which is problematic, since the languages are completely different, and Armenians do have a political interest in it (apparently, although it is unclear what they would gain even if it was proven that every Armenian is a pure blooded Urartian). The "Armenian PIE Urheimat" cruft, controversial or not, is simply offtopic here and belongs on Armenian hypothesis (while this is the article on Urartu, for crying out loud), remove with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Db, why don't you edit the section and change it to your liking? I will be satisfied with "your version". Obviously there is a political stake, otherwise Dacy69 would not have introduced Armenians into that section to beging with!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you already did. I have absolutely no problem with the changes you made.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First - current version needs clean up ("see" should be put in bracket, etc.) Secondly, Armenian issue was not introduced by me in this section. It was before my editing (check history), I just put majority view into this section. There is no political issue here - I agree with 'db'. It is indeed put by some nationalists who wants connect Urartu with Armenia. Thirdly, I suggested to shorten sentences about Proto-Indo-European dispute in this section but as usually Eupator just cut off my suggestion. It is enough to mention Gamkrelidze-Ivanov proposition, which is a tiny minority. And finally - I see that Uratu-Hurrians connection is suggested to have only linguistic ground. Indeed Piotrovsky, archeologist, studied first of all, material culture, not linguistic. But in order to end this dispute finally, I am ok with current version (but it is better to have some reduction of Proto-Indo-European dispute).--Dacy69 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

how splendid, everyone seems to agree. Please do add reference to the material evidence of the Hurro-Urartian connection, I didn't mean to imply that it was exclusively based on linguistic evidence. As I said, the Hurro-Urartian thing is really quite uncontroversial, it's the Armenians' role that is the difficult bit. "Armenian PIE" aside, it really boils down to, were they present in the 6th, the 7th, 8th, or even 9th century, which is really just a sliding scale and a precise date for the "Coming of the Armenians" to Urartu is of course impossible to establish. dab (𒁳) 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's impossible, although the related research is fascinating. The fact is the involved parties are not interested in that at all though. DB, being a proponent of the Kurgan hypothesis don't you support the idea of language replacement in regards to the Urartu/Armenia debacle?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good. So this matter is now closed? SilkTork 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Khoikhoi, there is absolutely nothing controversial about my edit. It is based purely policy. We avoid weasel words: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. According to the definition of Weasel word

Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording.

"generally assumed" is a "generalization by means of a gramatic quantifier, and is therefore a weasel word. It's best to present the theories as "majority" vs. "minority," as it's more precise.

This is from a critique of the minority view, using the more precise "majority" term:

According to Aslanian, most historians who deal with this question in the West agree that the origins of Armenians are “clouded in obscurity.” [18]

As far as Urartians related to Hurrians, again this is from the source used in the article:

The relationship between Hurrian and Subarean has already been mentioned, and the language of the Urartians, who played an important role from the end of the 2nd millennium to the 8th century BC, is likewise closely related to Hurrian. http://history-world.org/hurrians.htm

--TigranTheGreat 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also look at: It is generally agreed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians. ...[19]--Dacy69 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it to you, TigranTheGreat, that your edit is not "pure policy". To begin with, you need to convince us that "urartology" is even the name of a discipline in actual use, and not something you made up on the spot. Then, talking of a "majority" entails the claim that there is a dissenting minority. Thus, you cannot make such a claim, let alone on grounds of "pure policy" unless you give us evidence of such a minority position. Otherwise, "generally assumed" is much more accurate, it means that some people make the positive claim, while others shrug, saying "yeah, seems likely", but nobody is actually disputing it. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Urartology" is a title of a specific article in the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, volume 12, 1987. The source is reputable, with the only potential problem being bias. The use of the term is not suseptible to the bias problem--whether you are pro- or anti-Armenian, the existence of the term doesn't help or harm either. Even our Azeri user Adil uses the term ("Dyakonof (top urartologist)"--[20], hence it has nothing to do with pro-Armenian bias.

The minority view is well documented in the article, and there is a specific paragraph on that view. If there is minority, there is no general assumption. I mean, come on, even for the pro-Genocide position we would never use "generally assumed."--TigranTheGreat 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can google the following term--урартолог--(which in Russian transliterates urartologist), and there are good deal of hits from reputable russian science sites. Same with "urartology"--TigranTheGreat 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the term, I was just saying you'd have to back if up somehow, which you have now done; concerning the lacking evidence of the existence of a dispute over Hurro-Urartian, I don't know what you mean? The only documented dispute is on the role of Armenian, not on the relation of Hurrian and Urartian. Look, I recognize there is a dispute on the presence of Armenians. Majority: they arrived around 700 and by 600 dominated the area; Minority: They were present since before 1000 and formed a substrate in Urartu from its beginnings. The presence or absence of Armenians in early Urartu is however irrelevant for the classification of Urartians. Armenian presence would mean just that, there was an Armenian subject population even in early Urartu. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Bachmann, I see the misunderstanding now. Given that I have studied in an Armenian university and am well aware with the minority position, I believe I should explain it, especially that I have observed that there is some confusion about it in the West (partially, I blame it on the tendency of some Western historians to label it "nationalistic" without examining the evidence). I have been planning to do so for a while but never had the time to (and even now it will have to be shorter than I would hope). The following is only explanation of the minority view, without sources (the main source is the Arm. Sov. Enc.)

Here how it goes (and my prior edits, now removed by you, reflected it). The majority believes there were Hurrian Urartians (natives) and indo-european Armenians (immigrants) in Urartu. The minority view is that it was all Armenian--i.e. the Urartians were in fact Armenians. The view holds that the native Armenian population remained in the highland after the PIE split, and in the 9th c. established a unified Armenian kingdom (i.e. federation of Armenian-speaking tribes). And as it has been throughout the Armenian history (prior to the invention of the Armenian alphabet), the Armenians adopted a foreign writing and language to record their deeds--a Hurrian dialect, written in cuneiform. It is further suggested that the language was adopted from Hittite and late-luvian archives, where Hurrian inscriptions existed. I.e.--the "urartian" language was not spoken in Urartu--it was merely written.

The evidence behind this "Urartian was not spoken" view is that it is very limitted, repetitive, non-creative (as used in Urartu)--i.e. it's not what a spoken lively language would look like.

Now, once we propose that Urartian was not spoken, we need to determine "what was then the spoken language of those who wrote in Urartian." The answer given by the minority view is Armenian. And the reason is the plentitude of Armenian loan words. Since you asked for such loan words, I will copy a few here (first I give the Urartian form, then in parentheses the Armenian original): tsari (tsar)--tree; abili (aveli)--more; suri (sur)--sword; istini (ast)--here; ini (ayn)--that; iese (yes)--I; aru (ar)--take; atu (utem)--eat; artsibi (artsiv)--eagle. In sum, there are 70 such loanwords.

How do we know they are Armenian loanwords in Urartian and not the other way around? Because the words are indo-european--hence they couldn't be native Urartian.

Now, I realize you are sceptical towards anything that seems nationalistic, but I believe it's best to put labels aside for a minute and look at the theory itself.

Also, since the current version does not accurately reflect the minority view, it should be corrected.--TigranTheGreat 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was discussed already many times. And here below you find quotes about nationalism, Uratu, etc again. I think you should read the whole discussion before repeating the same things. And if you know Russian where Armenian users are quite active, yuo can find article on Urartu which indeed states that apredominant view is that Urartians were Hurrits. And they were not only based on linguistic but archeological and other grounds.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395

No less problematic are heavily slanted interpretations of the Urartian kingdom, the first historically attested state in Transcaucasia (ninth to seventh centuries BC). Armenian chauvinists must explain why this state, a worthy adversary of the neo-Assyrian Empire of northern Mesopotamia and one that expanded over much of "historic Armenia," composed its royal cuneiform inscriptions in Urartian, a non Indo-European ( i.e., non-Armenian) language, related to Hurrian and ancestral to the Northeastern Caucasian family of languages spoken today by different peoples in Daghestan, Chechenia, and Ingushetia (see Jankowska 1991:231). Reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom, and there is a real sense in which the Armenians are the cultural heirs of Urartu, but an essentialist view of Armenian culture which equates it precisely with the Urartian kingdom cannot be sustained. One must distinguish between popular and professional Armenian interpretations of Urartu, the latter being subtler and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. More discriminating professional archaeologists, who may accept the reasonable theory that the ethnogenesis or formation of Armenian culture occurred during post-Urartian Achaemenid times, extol the might of the Urartians and see them exercising political control over most of eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and Transcaucasia; in this respect they remain the direct precursors of the Armenian kingdom under Tigran II.Page 157

Certain words and theories are laden with political significance. Thus, the controversial linguistic theory of T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov (1984), which sees the original Proto-Indo-European developing in direct association with the Proto-Kartvelian (West Caucasian) and ancient Semitic families of languages in an eastern Anatolian homeland, receives an extremely warm reception not on its linguistic merits, but on its locating Proto-Indo-European speakers in the historic Armenian heartland. Proto-Indo-European thus becomes a buzzword for Proto-Armenian. This questionable identification is transparent in tendentious interpretations of Bronze Age and later prehistoric materials from Transcaucasia, as exemplified by V.E. Oganesian's (1992) implausible ethnic interpretation of the fantastically suggestive iconography on a silver goblet recently excavated in the Karashamb cemetery north of Yerevan; or by G. E. Areshian's (1992:27) detailed and ingenious, albeit strained, attempt to weave together historical, mythological, and archaeological materials to demonstrate that "Armeno-Aryans" constituted "the population living in the basins of the Araxes and Kura from the end of the third millennium BC" and "continuously carried out rituals connected with Indo-European cosmogonic mythology.Page 158 --Dacy69 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph merely confirms the existence of a minority view (though in a very POV manner).--TigranTheGreat 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we conclude with the boring "Armenian" stuff soon?

Urartu is straightforward as the predecessor state of ancient Armenia. So yes, Armenians are the bona fide inheritors of Urartian culture. That's as far as it goes (I daresay that the proposition that Urartians "are" Armenians is more on the batshit-nationalist side). This is not the "Origins of Armenians" article, and if Urartu is notable to Armenia, it does not mean that Armenia is notable to Urartu. The scope of this article is Urartu. People come here because they want to read about Urartu, not Armenian origins. All haggling over Armenian origins belongs on the Armenians article. Thank you. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I am sorry you find the Armenian connection to Urartu "boring," but it's central to Urartu. Even Dyakonoff devoted a good chunck of his Urartu chapter to the origin of Armenians--for a good reason: even from Dyakonoff's point of view, Armenians were a key element in Urartu's ethnic make-up, and played a major role in its history. Here is a link to Dyakonoff's book, specifically to his chapter on Urartu: http://historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000002/st03.shtml. If you find a Russian speaker, take a look at how many times Armenians are mentioned. I am also sorry you find "Armenians are Urartians" nationalist, but that is your POV, and you know better than me that on Wiki we represent both majority and minority POV's, without asserting either as truth.--TigranTheGreat 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its boring for you because you are tired of defending lies and truth always prevails over evil, lies, and deceptions. I mean how dare anybody try to erase Armenia from history just one more step in the direction of the total obliteration and ereadication of the Armenian peoples, something the Turkey and Azerbaijani governments have always tried to accomplish. While Armenia may not be important to Urartu, Armenians are important to Urartu.

Previous Aryan(IE) states and tribes that influenced Urartu

Somebody please add this very important info that proves Urartu was not just Hurrian and links with Armenians from Vahan Kurkjian's page:

There appears to have been a pre-Indo-European substratum of speech which strongly influenced the Indo-European-Armenian. Professor N. Marr, a Khaldist authority, suspects that the language of the Vannic cuneiforms (Urartu cuneiforms) is of the type of several modern Caucasian dialects of the Japhetic class. However, the Aryo-Indo-European must have exerted great influence upon the Urartean, even long before the times of the Vannic Empire.

On the other hand, E. Meyer cites names of royal princes many centuries before Christ in the Taurus area and Palestine, and later in Commagene; names such as Arta-tama (king of Mitanni), Arta-skana and Artamana, all more Iranian in character than Indian, and all bearing the Arta prefix which persists in Armenian names to this day.

The Subarean (Asianic-Hurri-Japhetic) language is the basic stratum of the various above-mentioned tongues; it was topped and strongly affected by the Aryan-Mitanni language, from which mixture the Urartean sprang up, it being related in turn to the old Hatti-Asianic, the new Caucasian and through Indo-European elements, to the Aryan languages. On this Indo-European-Armenian foundation was superimposed the Urartean speech, which was forced upon the conquered natives, from whose dialects also an additional stock of words was assimilated in the course of time. Traces of anthropological types of culture, religion and social customs are being discovered from time to time under the Armen stratum. The same may be said of the linguistic heritage of the past.

In his analysis of the known Iso-Urartean root-words, Professor Ghapantsian of Erevan University identifies one-fourth as of Hittite character. Many other root words and grammatical forms of non-Indo-European types have been found, but belonging to an Asia Minor group. All non-Indo-European elements, the Urartean and others, descend from the Subarean common origin. The same applies to the anthropological strata of the population of Armenia, whose chronology is stated by Professor A. Hatch as follows:

• Subarean basic stratum dating from 3000 B.C.
• Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum dating from 2000 B.C.
• Mosch-Muski-Aryan-Phryge stratum dating from 1176 B.C.
• Hatti major infiltration into Armenia 1200 B.C.
• Khald-Urartean rule in Armenia 9th century B.C.
• Phryge-Armen rule in Armenia 650 B.C.

Vahan Kurkjian, "History of Armenia," Michigan, 1968, [21] 206.148.188.118 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vahan Kurjian is Armenian heritage and obviously can not be used here. It's POV.--Dacy69 17:18, 13 February 2007(UTC)

This is an Armenian article not Azeri get over it, we can use it here. Nareklm 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

the reason for this isn't that it is "POV" but that it isn't scholarly ("Subarean" indeed...) literature. if we can unearth the original publications and check what they really say, we can certainly use them. Incidentially, an Indo-Aryan superstratum in Mitanni is well know and widely accepted, it just has zilch do do with Armenians. And I would be rather interested what, if anything, a "Mosch-Muski-Aryan-Phryge" is supposed to be. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen man, get your facts straight. The Armenians are native to the Armenian Highlands. I see where you are coming from, when you say Armenians have nothing to do with the previous states and tribes before Urartu. The problem is you dont see that the Phrygian-Armen type came later, yes thats true, they came later and intermingled with the native Armenians in the Armenian Highlands. I told you get your facts, there are tons of evidence from Assyrian, Persian, even Egyptian references of Armenians. They all wrote the word Armen in a different way slightly, but referring to the same native Armenians there.

And another thing the Aryans are from the Armenian Highlands, and for all of these people that have taken the Aryan out of the IE for Armenians, make me wonder what are they up to with that false information. 206.148.188.123 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is excessively citing the unreliable Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (which is in Armenian), whilst completely overlooking the far more authoritative and balanced Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which was, although, edited by an Armenian, L.Shaumyan). Here's on Urartu itself: http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/114/412.htm, here's the map of Urartu: http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/010/001/281578467.jpg and here's the Urartu language: http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/114/411.htm . I would also suggest to make a better use of the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as other Russian-language sources, since they have produced the most scholarship on the Urartu. The Armenian Encyclopedia claims should not be used, at least not exclusively. --AdilBaguirov 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

to anonymous user - I don't see any reason to dicuss it again - I mean Armenian issue. Look at whole discussion above and you see, there is no proof of their presence in Urartu (except some reference to Gamkrelidze-Ivanov hypotethis, which is reflected in the article). Some nationalists just again try to come back with that.--Dacy69 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not just Gamkrelidze-Ivanov hypothesis, there are way more references and sources regarding Armenians being native to the Highlands, check your facts. 206.148.188.60 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

study the discussions above--Dacy69 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Even Dyakonoff stated that Armenians descended from Urartians (though were not identical), so it's not just "Armenian nationalists."

Во всяком случае, нельзя считать, что Армения совершенно сызнова должна была создавать цивилизянито после гибели Урар ту и что только ко II — I вв. до н.э. в ней вновь начинает преобладать рабовладельческий господствующий класс. Хотя на нагорье уже начал складываться новый, армянский народ, но армянское общество было прямым продолжением хуррито-урартского,

At any rate, one can't consider that Armenia had to completely create a civilization from scratch after Urartu's fall, and that only in 2-1 cc. BC the slaveowning ruling class starts to dominate in it. Though on the highland a new, Armenian nation was forming, but the Armenian society was the direct continuation of the Urartian.

I.M. Dyakonov, V.D. Neronova, I.S. Sventsitskaya, "History of the Ancient World," v. 2, Moscow 1983

http://historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000002/st03.shtml

Plus, the views of Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia are the official views of Soviet Armenian historiography, not just nationalists. As for Great Soviet Encyclopedia, it's nothing more than political propaganda enforced and dictated by Communist party's PolitBuro.

--TigranTheGreat 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're aware, the anon's IP adresses are 206.148.188.123, 206.148.188.60, 206.148.188.108, etc... now, 206.148.188.247 is a blocked sock of Ararat Arev. All of these start with 206.148.188. Coincidence? I think not... Thanatosimii 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat - it was me who in the section of Ethnic Composition put a referenced sentence that Armenians absorbed Urartian culture. Of course, Armenians did not started with scratch. But when recently some introduced in the section of Ethnogenesis that Armenians consider themselves as descendant of Urartu - this is basicly completely different thing. And many scholars opine that this view is nationalistic. I put reference which is being continuesly removed by Eupator and Nareklm. If you refer to Russian sources, then go to Russian Wikipedia and read about various theories about Urartu ethnicity. The most dominant is about Hurrit links. It also mention Armenian links but as marginal and nationalist. In Russian Wiki you have one non-Armenian user, Russian scholar Pavel Shehtman who is ardent supporter of Armenia. But even he admits that this theory is nationalistic. --Dacy69 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does ASE suggest that only nationalists believe in it. In fact, it is ASE's official position (check the Urartu article in volume 12)--Urartians were Armenian speakers. A Russian wiki user's opinion is not fact.--TigranTheGreat 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

people - there are difference in between 'armenian society' & 'armenian nation'!! Almost any nation that lives in place of previos nation retains many same characteristics and traditions. and because of that the society can be the same or be similar to the predecessor, but nation or poeple absolutely different. Dyakonov and others always clearly distinguished between Urartu tribes and people, and between the Armenains. in fact, he and others always used 'proto-Armenians' instead of simply armenians, which distances Armenians even more from ancient Bianlini people. even modern Avars are more like ancient Avars and Huns than Armenians like Urarteans. Armenains ancient people - don't need inventions. --Gazanfar 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the majority view believes Urartians and Armenians were not the same, but were direct continuation of one another. The minority view never states that Urartians were the Armenian nation--just Armenian-speaking population: i.e. Armenians.--TigranTheGreat 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That assumption (Urartu is Armenian speaking population) is totally out of mainstream science. Regarding language - as put forward by quotation to which I refer: "Armenian chauvinists must explain..." I've put less strong word 'nationalist'.--Dacy69 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your quotation reflects the author's anti-Armenian POV. We don't assert such POV's on Wiki. Calling one's opponent "chauvinist" is highly unacademic--TigranTheGreat 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

guys, "армянское общество было прямым продолжением хуррито-урартского / Armenian society was the direct continuation of the Hurro-Urartian". That's the long and short of it. That's what we say in the article. There's no problem with it. I don't see how you can in seriousness fill pages of debate about a brief and simple statement like that. just ignore the angry anons. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

to TigranTheGreat - the word 'nationalits' is widely used in Wiki. Wiki's task is to give information and various opinions. And a reader then will judge. Here we have a reference to reputable scholarly work Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology - excatly about nationalism and archeology. It is not about Armenia - indeed it is only small piece of the book - Urartu case. the rest is oethr cases, starting from Aryan issue during Nazi Germany, and etc. Since you give sentence that Armenians claim their ethnic linkage to Urartu - it is relevant to give a view of scholars on that.--Dacy69 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where your coming from so if we remove "Modern Armenians claim descent from the Urartians" will you be satisfied? Nareklm 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen - a theory that Armenians claims their ancestry to Urartu has been mentioned in the section 'Ethnic composition'. I am reasonable man - even though it is out of mainstream science I don't mind to mention it. A reader will judge. Our task to give as much information as possible (except strong POV) So, why we should repeat that second time. If you feel that it is necessary to repeat that information again in the section under discussion then I have every reason to state my referenced info too. If we accept Armenian Soviet (!?) Encyclopedia why a reputable work of 2 western scholars should not be mentioned. I will win this case, I am sure, as it was previously.--Dacy69 00:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

The quote is misleading it should not stay, plus we don't want a quote that has to do with "traditions" that are probably nationalist revisioned, the section is fine so lets keep it that way. Also Haik found Armenia or something not Urartu this quote seems wrong. Also that part about intermarried, it was Hayasa-Azzi and the Armens. Also there is no mention about Urartu, "The region and former kingdom of Asia Minor that was Greater Armenia lay east of the Euphrates River" Artaxiad 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another quote: It appears that sometimes in the 4th century B.C. the Armenians expanded into the plain of Ararat, probably as a result of the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander the Great. [22] All the people moved to the areas they populate now at a certain point in the history. Grandmaster 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes man I know what you mean but this is not clear therefore it should not stay, there are numerous sources stating where Armenians allegedly came from and most are not clear, the two you stated are not clear it is just messing the whole section up. It doesn't matter where Armenians migrated to, adding quotations or references that are obviously thrown down from traditions and theories or even from stories is not helping, the quote it self is not clear and it is not verifiable. Artaxiad 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think about it. Grandmaster 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since you added it you discuss here, we don't need other peoples opinions since this is not hard to verify these are also traditions passed down which obviously are not accurate, no reason for it to stay summarizing Armenian history in one quote is no good, since it contains nationalism also. Artaxiad 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete verifiable content. Did you read the above quote from Hewsen? It appears that sometimes in the 4th century B.C. the Armenians expanded into the plain of Ararat. Grandmaster 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats your point? who is he referring to ? Urartu? Artaxiad 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats only one part also. Artaxiad 09:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources say that Armenians moved into this area at some point in history. Nothing strange here, all the people moved around the globe and I don't think there are such people on earth who always lived in a certain area. The article should state the fact. Grandmaster 09:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please read this [23]. The quote I brought from the eminent scholar Diakonoff [24] Overrides the Tertiary source like Columbia Encyclopedia and Iranica. Artaxiad 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in that paragraph which says that secondary sources override tertiary sources. Thanatosimii 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In case of a contradiction, the wiki OR page is clear: All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore I quote: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

Columbia Encyclopedia is a Teriary source. It does not even have an author mentioned. My dedicated source is a secondary source. It is from the greatest investigator of Armenian history and is focused specifically on Armenian history. [25]. Diakonoff also wrote articles on many ancient languages including Hurrian and Urartu. Artaxiad 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that the authors of that policy did not intend to allow it to be used to forbid tertiary sources. Thanatosimii 18:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. Tertiary sourced are allowed to be used here. Grandmaster 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible.. They differ because one is a general work of reference which is based on outdated scholarship and was not written by a specialist (the Columbia article doesn't even have an author - the chances are that it has just been repeated verbatim from an earlier edition of the Encyclopedia), while the books of Diakonoff and Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture are specialised works with articles written by experts. Artaxiad 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me a link to that policy, please. From what I can see the policy says: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. Columbia is a third-party published source. What is the source of your quote? Grandmaster 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Read this:

Another migration of Indo-Europeans began in the 12th c BC, at the time of the Trojan War. It concerns the eviction of Thraco-Phrygian tribes (called "foreign settlers") from their native lands by "the People of the Sea" (i.e. early Greeks, Minoans or Mycanaeans). The Thraco-Phrygian moved through the Euphrates into the Armenian Plateau. First inhabiting the land immediately East of the Trojan kingdom in Asia Minor, the Thraco-Phrygians settled on the Western edges of the Armenian plateau and intermingled with the "Haiassa-Aza", further developing Indo-European language, culture and physical features.

One of these people's were the forebears of the Urartians, who spoke a distinct language, perhaps borrowed from Assyria and Babylon, but more likely from the Hittites or later Thraco-Phrygian tribes escaping the war at Troy.

What this means is the Khaldi tribe of Nairi which is Urartu, were the people that migrated not the Armenians. As we have stated before many ancient records mention Armin, Ermen (which you Turks and Azeri's and Kurds also say in this form), Armani. Armenians always been Native in the Armenian Highlands. 206.148.188.197 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, since he keeps adding this, This text was added by banned user Ararat Arev editing via anonymous accounts. Thanatosimii 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My source [26] is Academic I.M. Diakonoff [27] who is quoted in by J.P. Mallory [28]. You can look at the Russian wikipedia for wider exposure to Diakonoff and his work. So who is the author of your source in Columbia Encyclopedia? Artaxiad 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't who you are talking about Thanatosimii I never added those. Artaxiad 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev was a user with a strong POV to push who was recently banned for a violation of the 3rr rule. After this, he went rather beserk editing with anon accounts. They're rather easy to spot because the IPs are all similar. He kept reverting my delete, so I just decided to tag it such that editors not involved in that particular dark spot on this page's history will know not to interact with him. Thanatosimii 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I know about that, thanks for clearing it up I was a little confused though. Artaxiad 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Okay that quote is a folk-history version of Khorenatsi, its even referenced there, it needs to be removed its misleading again I want a response I know if I revert it GM will come rushing here but respond please now so we can do something. Artaxiad 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You should not remove sourced info. If you have reliable sources stating otherwise, add them to the article as well. We need to report all existing views on the subject with proper attribution. Grandmaster 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what you're doing, what you're doing can only be described as overkill. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that applicable here? Grandmaster 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a stronger source than the authorless Columbia Encyclopedia.

My reference is stronger key reference: I. M. Diakonoff, The Pre-History of the Armenian People (revised, trans. Lori Jennings), Caravan Books, New York (1984), ISBN 0-88206-039-2.

See Page 127

(The old Armenian nation was formed in the Upper Euphrates valley from the components - the Hurrians, the Luwians, and the Proto-Armenians (the Mushki, and possibly the Urumeans). Moreover the Hurrians and later the Urartians constituted the main mass of the nation and determined the basic line of biological succession, while the language of the nation, because of a certain historical situation, was taken over from the Proto-Armenians

See page 129 (From all that has been set forth it is evident that the history of the Armenian people is a direct continuation of the history not only of the Proto-Armenians, but also (and to no lesser degree) of the Hurrians, the Urartians, and the Luwians. The main mass of the Armenian nation consists of their descendants; there was historical when a person might speak Old Armenian, his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was more likely to have been bilingual, while his forefather was a pure Hurrian or Urartian')

See page 130:

(The Mushkian (proto-Armenian speaking Indo-Europeans) kingdom of Alzi in the 12th to 9th centuries B.C., later included in Urartu, can also be viewed as one of the nuclei of the Armenian state, but to a certain extent we can view as such nuclei any Hurrian, Urartian, or Luwian kingdom in the Armenian Highland. These states were also created by ethnic groups which were not foreign to the Armenians, by people whose descendants merged with the Armenian nation, although at the time they themselves still spoke other languages).

I am asking you again, who is the author of your source? Also I am going to incorporate all the above quotes from Diakonoff. Artaxiad 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nothing in your citation of Diakonoff say that Armenians are identical to Hurrians or other tribes, rather it says that all those tribes became later a component of Armenian people and absorbed by the latter or merged with. Let's not make up concusions. It was stated in the section of Ethnic composition that Armenians absorbed Urartian culture. Also on page "Armenia" you can find a quote saying that "all these people (Urartu and others) participated in the ethnogenesis of Armenian people (It seems that Eupator or someone else put that quotation). So, we state that Armenians contains and absorbed ancient peoples of Armenian plateau.

FYI - In Russian language book of Diakonoff (Дьяконов И.М. Предыстория армянского народа. Ереван, 1968, с. 202-203) the author claims that Armenians are a part of Phrygians.

Besides, various reputable encyclopedias, such as Columbia, were quoted in Wiki many times, so I see no reason why we should question that. As a matter of fact, Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett book reference was removed from the page. Should we quote Diakonioff then pls. restore Kohl and Fawcett one's. It has many positive reviews.--Dacy69 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires English source whenever possible and only in the case of lack of materials we can refer to Russian. We do not lack materials in English. The book I quoted is from 1984 and either you are selectively quoting him or he has changed his position from 1968 to 1984. What Diakonoff states is very clear. Proto-Armenian speakers have at least 3000 years of presence in the region. He also says proto-Armenian speakers are only one component of Armenian nation. Urartu, while not a proto-Armenian language is also as equally part of the Armenian heritage. This is mentioned directly by Diakonoff. Also he says Urartuian language forms a component of the modern Armenian language which is significant and shows a symbiosis between proto-Armenians and Urartuians. Artaxiad 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we speak about the same - we have stated already that Urartians participated in the ethnogenesis of Armenian people. The former were absorbed by the latter. They are not identical as you say ("Urartu, while not a proto-Armenian language is also as equally part of the Armenian heritage.") So, what do you want from current balanced version? Diakonoff never said that Armenian and Urartians were identical - he said that Urartians became a part of Armenian heritage. We mentioned that. But for origin of Armenians Diakonoff said that they emanated from Phrigians. And your quote does not denounce that. I would appreciate if you could bring quotation more that you did because as I told you, I suspect you just used secondary source.--Dacy69 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Columbia quote we should remove it theres no need, it is a legendary saying that has no scholarly importance what so ever. Artaxiad 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear dacys opinion on this also. Artaxiad 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i am adding back Columbia encyclopedia quote removed by banned user Artaxiad--Dacy69 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because he was banned doesn't mean you have to remove all of his contributions. If thats the case I'll remove all of banned user AdilBaguirov's contributions. Artaxiad has a very good point that Columbia reference is unnecessary because it has no scholarly importance. Vartanm 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete referenced info, it is against the rules. We discussed the quote with third party users, and it was agreed to keep it. Grandmaster 05:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any discussion or agreement to keep it. Vartanm 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to go thru whole discussion page. Second, it is your task to disapprove Columbia Encyclopedia. what it says - about migration - was actually confirmed by other sources and reflected in part of "Ethnic Composition".As you see from my discussion with Artaxiad he made false judgement out of Diakanoff work.--Dacy69 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have went thru the whole discussion page and I still don't see any compromise. And judging from your discussion with Artaxiad he has a good point that author less Columbia encyclopedia is not a good source. Vartanm 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad could say thousand times that Columbia encyclopedia (perhaps second largest and reutable after Britannica) is not good reference. It is his opinion, it is not proof. He should have disaprove the text by refering to other scholarly articles. Diakonoff is not in conradiction with Columbia.--Dacy69 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is also apparent - several suddenly emerged anons try to remove that quote. Some of these anons are socks either of Artaxiad or Ararat rev - both banned users. It does not add power to your and Artaxiad arguments.--Dacy69 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how this article could be neutral when Azeri users interfere constantly in old Armenian history solely to discredit, change and alter other Armenian Contributor's comments and Armenian History. I am talking about user Dacy69 and other azeri "contributors". You guys are welcome to contribute in Armenian History articles but please be fair and stop the "cat and mouse game" it is really annoying and none is benefiting of it. Not the wiki community nor the users. Gegman2

Add space to "werethe"

title says it all Jason Quinn 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ArmenianHighland as a source

ArmenianHighland cannot be used on Wikipedia or anywhere else as a source since it's pseudo-hystorical fantasy rubbish. Neither can you label a majority scientiic view as "Western" and the a minority view as "Armenian".- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up carefully! ArmenianHighland is not used here as a source! Its used once as a link! Andranikpasha 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why add a humurous site to what's supposed to be a serious article?- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If what you said were true, the article could remain this way, however, it is not, so revert.--Moosh88 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why sourced information was removed. VartanM 02:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moosh88 is indulging in pointless revert-warring, that's really all there is to see here. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont think Moosh88's addings (or revets) are so pointless. I worked for a long time to make an article for this topic at Wiki, I read many sources in different languages and its not fact if the Urartians (not the term) were succeed by Armenians (even the Diakonov disputed it later, some researchers ask that only the term was succeed). So maybe its better to discuss these and other problematic points with Moosh88? Andranikpasha 10:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Columbia quote in the end should be removed. It merely repeats the majority position that is represented elsewhere in the article in full length. The quote is mere cruft, sticking out of context, and harms the quality of the article.--TigranTheGreat 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I put refrences to Mallory, who found distinct Kura-Araxs pottery in Mitanni. James P. Mallory, "Kuro-Araxes Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

User:Thanatosimii even agreed that the Mitanni deities were Indo-Aryan, but not all the kings, because the Arta prefix does not exist in Indo-Aryan (it is rta), but in Armenian it does. Look at Thanatosimii's edit, however Dabachmann reverted back to his version.

Dbachmann is dead wrong when he says Arta is a loanword from Iranian, because first of all, no one every said Arta is taken, give us the source saying that, 2nd I showed that the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan sub branch was before 3rd Mil. BC, thus before Mitanni. That also backs up the Kura-Araxs, (which is Indo-European-Armenian), link with Mitanni, and shows that Armenians were involved with Mitanni.

During the time of Kura-Araxes culture, that was linked with Mitanni, is mentioned Armani and Ermenen I provided sources for all. Is this all a coincidence? I am trying to show dbachmann that this is not nationalism, but based on archeology, linguistics, and records identified with Armenians. And besides these names, before the Iron Age, there is Hayasa, and Nairi. So how can all this be coincidence especially since so many artifacts, and scholars that support this. Consider all of these, before making such claims dbachman. All the contrary theories base this info on Herodotus, and not many scholars don't base Herodotus as the best source for reference, he is unreliable, as more scholars are seeing he is not accurate. There are no other records to say Armenians were not present in the region, prior to 600 BC. All of these "professors" are basing it on Herodotus, it is absurd.

I sourced to all of the linguists who say that before the 3rd Mil. BC That grouped Graeco-Armeno-Aryan into a sub group of Indo-European language family. Look here [29] Nowhere did I cite a source from armenianhighland.com yet User:Dbachmann continues to ignore all of these sources, and keeps bringing up geocities, and armenianhighland.com I can now say with full confidence, that he is biased, and has abused his role as an admin. Take a look at his drastic change to the Mitanni article, and decide for yourself.--Moosh88 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is an academic Egyptian site (Tour Egypt), which also mentions that Hurrian is Indo-European.--Moosh88 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really hard to sort through this gibberish. Why is the Urartu discussion page polluted with all this crap about the Mittani anyway? What do you not understand about the Mittani? Mittani was a state populated by non-IE Hurrians and governed by an Indo-Aryan aristocracy (scholars know this because of the names of the kings and the deities they worshipped). That's it! What does Kura-Araxes have to do with this? And "-arta" is so obviously a loanword!- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you not read, I just showed you how it links. Find me an academic site that says "arta" is so "obviously a loanword" And why is it that Arta is still one of the most common prefixes in Armenian, yet the language, which we supposedly borrowed it from, does not use it at all, yet they have many other words which we share. So why would such an important word, Arta, which means righteous, and was especially used in the name of Kings, not be used anymore by Iranians? This further proves that the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan was a "common language", and existed 3rd Mil. BC, or older. Please refrain from calling academic sources crap.--Moosh88 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Over 60% of all Armenian words are IRANIC loanwords. More than Romance loanwords in English. Iranians don't name their children Vartan and Tigran also, doesn't change the fact that both names are Iranian! You're talking about proto languages and hypothesis that link them. Completely irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with Urartu, so stop distrubing the article. Which academic sources? Like Tour Egypt? lol- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Touregypt is not an academic source. Thanatosimii 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not talking about proto languages, I am talking about the fact that ALL linguists place the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group of Indo-European in the 3rd Mil. BC. Whether the homeland was in Armenia or not.--Moosh88 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all not all linguists even share that view, not to mention place it in the third millenium bc. Second of all, so what?- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the quote "Modern scholars, however, believe that the Armenians crossed the Euphrates and came into Asia Minor in the 8th cent. etc" is dubious and can be deleted as a compromiss: "For example, over a century ago linguists established that the Armenian language is a separate branch of the Indo-European language family.11 Armenian, English, French, Russian, Greek, Albanian, Hindi, Farsi, and a hundred or more other languages exhibit striking correspondences in their sound systems, vocabulary and grammar. Statistically, those correspondences could not be random; they could have resulted only if these languages came from a common source.12 Linguists have adopted the metaphor of a language family for languages so related, calling that common, reconstructed source from which these languages descended, Proto-Indo-European.13" "Similarly, linguists theorize that some 5000-9000 years ago, before recorded history, the Proto-Indo-European language splintered into dialects, one of which was Armenian. Armenian is nearly unique among the Indo-European languages in that Armenian is a separate branch of the Indo-European language family, unlike French and Spanish, which have a common intermediate source. Its immediate source is Proto-Indo- European itself. The Armenian language dates to the early period of Indo-European differentiation and dispersion some 5000 years ago, or perhaps as early as 7,800 years ago according to some recent research,14 that eventually spread Indo-European speakers throughout Eurasia from Iceland to India." p.4 "This fact about the genesis of the Armenian language is consistent with several competing theories of the genesis of the Proto-Indo-European language family and its earliest speakers.15 Just where the Indo-Europeans first lived has been the object of lively scholarly debate.16 Many scholars place the Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highlands and the plateau of Asia Minor to the southwest.17 Others believe that it was in Eastern Europe or southern Russia.18 Recent research suggests that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans was near the Armenian Highlands (which is supported by the spread of agriculture from Mesopotamia westward to the Balkans) and that a later dispersion of the Indo-Europeans took place from southern Russia in connection with the development of horse and ox-driven transportation.19". "scholars believe, for example, that the earliest mention of the Armenians is in the Akkadian inscriptions dating to the 28th-27th centuries BC, in which the Armenians are referred to as the sons of Haya, after the regional god of the Armenian Highlands.20 Others cite Sumerian inscriptions of Naram-Suen dating to 2260 BC as the earliest mention of the name in a form recognizable as Armenian. These inscriptions refer to Sumerian battles with the Armani.21" etc. see [Thomas J. Samuelians work].Andranikpasha 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. It's pseudo-historical romanticism. The language of your paragraph is dishonest and pov at best.The last bits are just ridiculous. Sumerians? Come on! These are very very fringe theories, often borderline psychopatic. See: Historiography and nationalism, National mysticism. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What Eupator is saying here amazes me. First off, he doesnt seem to realize almost everyone living in Armenia, knows that our history didnt begin in 600 or 500 BC's, but much much earlier. Second point regarding Eupator's "So what"? , on the Greco-Armeno-Aryan in 3rd millenium and older , as some linguists put it older than 3rd millenium BC, but either way they put it there, ALL of them. So what? So "Arta" is not "Iranian" haha, its ALL of the above, Greek or Iranian , or Armenian. Its not just "Iranian" , you are like a child man. You have so much to realize it seems by your answers. You probably know the answer, but you are just babbling nonesense when you probably know better.

By the way, ArmenianHighland.com is not Ararat arev haha, thats another stupid thing you're doing Eupator, by trying to say there is one or 2 people that only read and understand his site hah. I just told you everyone living in Armenia pretty much knows our true history. 75.51.175.105 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that Columbia big quote at the end: "they intermarried with the indigenous peoples" <-- these "indigenous peoples were known as Hayasa, Armani, Ermenen(Thutmose III academic source was put that Dbachmann removed), etc etc. So these have nothing to do with Armenians? Is that what you are saying Eupator? hah. 75.51.175.105 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"That's not acceptable. It's pseudo-historical romanticism." -Dr Samuelian is well-known (also in the USA) expert! Have you any sources asking his research is pseudo-historical, nationalistic etc (or it is your opinion)? Also see his work he referred many prominent scolars opinions, its not a just original research!Andranikpasha 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, eupator and dab have ignored ALL sources I have provided, books, articles, websites, etc. Majority of them are from non Armenian scholars. Without taking the time to read over these sources, they call it "fringe theory", and "national mysticism". I am not the one who is pushing POV here, I source, I provide links. It's these two who give their biased opinion, and to make it worse, link me to wikipedia articles, which can't be used as a source.--Moosh88 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep asserting we have not read. Stop that. There is a difference between rejecting a source after consideration and rejecting a source before it. Thanatosimii 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you keep missing the point, which is: why do I say that? Maybe because all three of you attack only one source, or bring up armenianhighland.com (which has nothing to do with this), or you call me a pov pusher/nationalist in a sublte way. You have not rejected any serious sources cause you have not taken the time to look over them. Plus, even you had considered them, who are you or what right do you have to reject scholars at the level of Colin Renfrew, T. V. Gamkrelidze, V. V. Ivanov, Martiros Kavoukjian, Marija Gimbutas, and J.P. Mallory, just to name a few?--Moosh88 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Moosh but none of those scholars come even close to claiming the ridiculous assertions that you have been making here. Stuff that was fed to you by we all know who. Not even one! The funny thing is that some of those scholars support opposing theories. None of this has anything to do with this article. It has been hijacked, and even in its current state is full of rubbish. Do something useful instead. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, who are you to reject Speiser or Gelb? Thanatosimii 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with the Mitanni topic, but would still like to draw attention to the Columbia quote. It's out of place--it needs to be incorporated as an additional reference in the earlier discussion of majority position, not stick out as a full block quote at the end.--TigranTheGreat 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some corrections and addings but I think we need also some other changes in the procees of discussions related to the hronology of the views, addings of some sources included Prof. David Lang's views, views of int'l and Armenian scolars marked by me and other users and some other important sources like 1. T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, The Early History of Indo-European (aka Aryan) Languages / Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, March 1990, pp. 110 -116, 2. Encyclopedia Americana, v. 2, USA 1980, pgs. 539, 541, 3. Theory of F. V. Luschan and his moddern supporters (Die Tachtadschy und andere Ueberreste der alten Bevölkerung Lykiens / "Archiv für Anthropologie". XIX, 1890, etc.) etc.Andranikpasha 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You just replaced a factual statement majority with a weasel word "some" and replaced minority with "another". If that's not pov pushing, what is?- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, you're going to start an editwarring here! While all other users included Moosh88 going to discuss here their edits with sources (reliable or unreliable- we can discuss them) the only things you're adding here are your own views. No sources, no facts! You're asking about neuthral user. Who am I? First time I made any editions here! If you think Im not neuthral you need to prove! "factual statement majority with a weasel word "some" and replaced minority with "another""- Factual? OK! Prove if they are really factual as Samuelian's sources says different thing than your original research. If it is factual, then prove it! POV pushing is words like majority and minority, not those of neuthral "some and another". We need more sources, more facts and less feelings! Andranikpasha 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect me to reply to such an emotional outburst? - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between my and your emotions is that my "emotions" are sourced:) If you're going to discuss something here pls at first collect some sources. The POV tags added by you need a justification! What parts are POV, why, what sources by your opinion must be deleted and what sources must be added etc.? Andranikpasha 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What sources? Like Thomas Samuelian? lol A lawyer :) You need peer reviewed academic sources! - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the weasel wording back to "majority/minority." Since it apparently caused the introduction of the pov tag, I removed it too. I left the clean-up tag--it seems like the article needs some work.

Andranik, "Weasel words," such as "some, in general" etc, are discouraged on wikipedia. You can read the policy here: WP:AWW. Also, if both majority and minority views exist, we have to state them. If you look under "Undue Weight" heading of WP:NPOV, you will see the policy.--TigranTheGreat 00:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Like Thomas Samuelian? lol A lawyer :)"- Read carefully his bio! "Thomas Samuelian earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania. "He is the author of numerous studies in law and public policy,... as well as Armenian historical and linguistic publications"[30]. Is it a shame to have two specializations by such well-known US educational institutions? Andranikpasha 08:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice how eupator doesn't talk about your very valid points, but instead indirectly attacks you by calling your views emotional, when the same can be said about his. And Tigran, I think eupator needs to look over those links you provided, just as much as Andranik, as he has ignored all sources, and only believes in the ones he has provided.--Moosh88 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The links are for everyone. You are all my children, I am your shepard, you can all come to my bosom.--TigranTheGreat 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed misleading text

I have removed words «Urartu was the kingdom of Armenia» from the first paragraph because they were misleading and even incorrect. If one reads the given source carefully he/she would see «Urartu, ancient kingdom of Armenia and N Mesopotamia». The words that I highlighted already give a clue that word «Armenia» is used in geographical sense and gives additional location which was omitted from the Wikipedia article. Moreover, Wikipedia article gives a link from «Armenia» to the country of Armenia, not to the Armenian highland which makes the citation from the source (Columbia electronic encyclopedia) completely inaccurate.

I believe that this point should not be blurred in any way, because, although in scientific literature scholars clearly distinguish between Urartu and Armenia (or Ancient Armenia), in some popular Armenian press some unsupported speculations have been published suggesting that Urartu was in fact Ancient Armenia.

The edition of Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia sites the book of Piotrovsky (B. Piatrovski, Ancient Civilization of Urartu, 1969) as a source who never mixed up Armenia and Urartu. M. Chahin in his book “The Kingdom of Armenia. A history” Curzon press, 2001 ISBN 0-7007-1452-9 on page 43 writes: “Since c. 600 BC when the Armenians succeeded the Urartians, that area has been described as Armenia. I must emphasize, however, that it is thus described as a geographical, not a political region.”

Based on this I believe that the misleading statement has to be removed (geographical information is already included later in the same paragraph). In addition, it is more appropriate to cite other books and articles, not encyclopedias.

-- Evgeny (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Urartu, in all the literature I have seen, is considered the direct cultural forbearer to modern Armenians. When we call it an Armenian Kingdom, we generally are not referring to its location, but to the the fact Urartians are considered ancient Armenians. I believe this has been discussed on numerous occasions before without alternative consensus.The Myotis (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I also (following a number of sources) consider Urartu as a direct cultural forbearer to Armenians, however, Urartu was NOT Armenia. For example, Roman Empire is a direct cultural forbearer to Italy; however it would have been wrong to name Roman Empire as «Italian», wouldn’t it :)?

On the other hand, I am familiar with a number of publications (non-scientific though) of Ishhanyan, Suren Aivazyan and some others who state that Urartu IS Armenia. Such approach was heavily criticized by many scientists both in Armenia and outside Armenia as pseudoscience. I can provide over 20 sources published in scientific literature from 4 countries including Armenia, which are critical of this view.

Based on this, I suppose that the word «Armenia» in the first paragraph linked to modern country is completely misleading, «cultural forbearness» is adequately explained in other sections.

Evgeny (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the source for this particular misleading statement was misquoted and as a result misinterpreted. Evgeny (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A group of IPs are edit warring to keep "of Armenia" on this article, without discussing it. I dont have an opinion on whether "of Armenia" belongs there, but EvgenyGenkin's comments above warrant discussion. As a result I have rolled back and semi-protected the article. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

216.175.77.149 (talk · contribs) [31]

24.185.134.54 (talk · contribs) [32]

216.175.73.199 (talk · contribs) [33]

76.232.253.34 (talk · contribs) [34]

Wikiproject Armenia tag

I reverted your removal of the project tag. Please refrain from removing project tags in the future, they are not content related and are essentially harmless. If you take a look at the history of the article you would notice that the most of the users who worked on the Urartu article are from Wikiproject Armenia. Also if you're interested in Armenian related articles, Urartu being one of them, you are welcome to join the project. VartanM (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"...most of the users who worked on the Urartu article are from Wikiproject Armenia"

Ah, that would explain why the Urartu article is so skewed. I am interested in Urartu-related articles, and am part of the Ancient Near East project. Armenians are first attested in the Orontid dynasty, after Urartu's collapse. The Archaeology project does cover Armenia's relationship with Urartu. Sumerophile (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase myself, removal of the tag is considered vandalism, I'm sure it wasn't your intention, so I will kindly ask you to revert yourself. The project tags are not content related and you have no right to remove them. VartanM (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have readded the history of Armenia template. If this article should have any template it's this template. See the Minoans article and the History of Greece template, or Dacia and History of Romania and countless of others. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you removed the appropriate portals for this page, and replaced it with an inappropriate template. I am not involved with Dacia or the Minoans. Sumerophile (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand that this is outright vandalism Sumero. If you are unaware of the consequences to users who engage in such disruptive (to say nothing of annoying) behavior, now would be a good time to acquaint yourself with them. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Urartu may have some relevance to Armenia, as a predecessor state. Armenia, otoh, has little to no relevance to Urartu. Hence, it is perfectly fine to link to Urartu from the "History of Armenia" navbox, but that certainly doesnt warrant the transclusion of that navbox here. Avoid template clutter. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although a link in a navbox has been used as an excuse to put the navbox on the pages themselves.[35] Nicklausse (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude ancestor states from historical nation. As per precedents, such as Minoans|History of Greece, Dacia|History of Romania, Khazars|History of Russia, Scythia|History of Ukraine, Golden Horde|History of Mongolia, Odrysian kingdom|History of Bulgaria, etc. I believe it should stay. Unless you can confirm absolutely that all of these examples are inappropriate and need to be changed, I think it would be a unfair and a un-uniform poicy to remove said template. The Myotis (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said this better myself. This matter is closed.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would propose removing some of those templates from some of the above-mentioned articles, if I were involved in those projects; most ancient state articles don't have modern state templates.

The template that belongs in this article is the Ancient Near East portal.

Nicklausse (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why some and not others? And, while I am fine with the Ancient Mideast temp, why do you think that it cannot coexist with the modern History of Armenia temp? The Myotis (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't make blanket statements. In this article, if you are going by ancient states in modern borders as you suggest above, you should replace the Armenian history template with a Turkish one. Neither belongs on this ancient, unrelated state. Nicklausse (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article before you haphazardly pass such judgments. Urartu is considered the direct progenitor of the Armenian ethnic group and Armenian state. The The Hay and Armen tribes appeared just after the Kingdom, and Ancient Armenia was essentially a cultural continuation of the Kingdom, not just a state that happened to be in the area. the Armenians did not just show up out of nowhere when Uraratu fell, and it is generally believed they had been living there before. This has nothing to do with location or borders. The Myotis (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did notice the article is full of this very unscientific POV. Nicklausse (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is a POV you are pushing, then we should be having a different discussion. The templates in the article are meant to reflect content, not your personal beliefs on what content should be. It is foolish to force your interpretation of evidence onto an article without making a sound argument for changing the article itself. The Myotis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm, yep, all that unsourced and nationalist-sourced pseudohistory has to come out of this article. Nicklausse (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was pathetic. This article has been discussed and deliberated on for moths, and what you see is the final product. Jumping out of the blue and making accusations of bias, without a shred of evidence, specification, or alternative sources (trustworthy or otherwise) is useless. Try again. Try an actual argument, this time. The Myotis (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Myotis, what's pathetic is nationalism. Nicklausse (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, just stop wasting our time already. If you have a concrete complaint, write it down here. If you have came to talk about nationalism, go visit a forum or go fix some other articles which are in far greater need of fixing than this one. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have failed pathetically yet again. Third try? The Myotis (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaint clearly is a nationalistic slant throughout this article. Sumerophile (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially since it is the official state dogma of Turkey (whose territory contains most Urartian sites and whose archaeologists are doing the most work on Urartian sites) that there is absolutely no connection between Urartu and Armenia. Any archeologists questioning that orthodoxy would find their access to Turkey removed. Meowy 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I readded some unexpl. deletions. Urartu is a part of Armenian history. Its a historical fact. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again I readded some deletions by another user continuing Sumerophile's denial of obvious sourced facts. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Urartu at its greatest extent" map

There are serious problems with this map. Large areas of Urartu have been missed out, in particular all of the Erzincan, Mercan, and Erzurum plains. Altintepe, a very important site thought to date from the period of Argisti II, is located near Erzincan. As well as being wrong, the map in places is just silly: for example, it puts the northern border of Urartu along the course of the Murat river as if ancient borders followed the precepts of modern political boundaries. Palu, on the "wrong" side of that border was actually another important Urartian site. Meowy 20:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I readded CN tag for an possible OR by Dab. Any "Transcaucasian Highland" (especially for Uratu) never existed in historical theory and is something from Ankaran "historic factories". Andranikpasha (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

bullshit. It would be Ciscaucasia from the point of view of Ankara. "Transcaucasia" is from the point of view of the Russian Empire, but the term has become standard. Ok so where was Urartu? In Eastern to Southeastern Anatolia. Is the description "Highlands" appropriate? Not if we consider its maximal extent as far as the Mediterranean. The lead is just supposed to give a rough geographical idea. "Eastern Anatolia" will do as far as I am concerned. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You agreed that that is really bullshit! I prefer if you (and me) to not do OR for terms here but use the existed reliable historians while describing something. I have nothing against the bullshit of "Transcaucasian Highlands" if you have at least one source describing Urartu as a country in "Transcaucasian Highlands". If no such a source, pls leave this and do not describe me anyhow (included as patriot, you never know if Im a patriot...). Andranikpasha (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (

I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's ok, because you seem to have no idea what I am talking about either. How about you just propose an alternative phrasing like a sane person would? I am happy to state Urartu was in Eastern Anatolia because that's where it was. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Soory, but this phrase is also an OR. Urartu was situated not only in nowdays Eastern Anatolia, but also in nowdays Armenia (I dont know how you're going to call the territory of nowdays Republic of Armenia, a cultural center of Urartu - see Erebuni, Teishebaini, Karmir Blur) and even the territory of Artsakh (Urartian Urtekhini) and North-Western Iran (some settlements were founded in the territory in the North of Urmia). So I prefer to have the pre-prev. variant than these non-correct ones. What was the problem with the last one you changed? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - Why to not write just Transcaucasia: scientifically it looks correct. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

sheesh, it is precisely because Urartu was not only in Eastern Anatolia, nor only in Armenia that I opted for the wider term "Transcaucasian Highland". I am not sure how you can accept the term "Transcaucasia" but not "Transcaucasian Highland". Sure, much of Armenia corresponded to much of Urartu. But the extent of Urartu went beyond Armenia. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel you have an idea that Im a racoist just thinking to write something nationalistic everywhere. But only thing I need here is scientifically correct info (not fantasies, not propagand- SOAPing) for everyone. Yes, Im an Armenian, but the only thing I need, to see correct terms which we (you, me, anyone) can prove by a reliable source. If no any source wrote that urartu is in Transcaucasian Highland, it means that it is an OR. We (you, me) can send this term to a scientificcal journal, encyclopedia, and if scolars apprive it, we can cite and use it here. Otherways, no Transcaucasian Highland exist, and Urartu cant be situated in an fantastic place like that. "... Highland" is an geographical term, we need atleast to see serious geographical books using this term. What is f.e. Azerbaijan, "Transcaucasian Lowlands"?? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

no. I just find it slightly irritating to have you spouting accusitions of Pan-Turkist propaganda simply because somebody used the term "Transcaucasian Highland". Fwiiw, I opted for that term because at Armenian Highland we say that the Armenian Highland proper is contained within the larger "Transcaucasian Highland". I really don't care two hoots about the precise terminology used just as long as we make clear the general region where the kingdom was situated. I really don't see what you want. Transcaucasia is the land south of the Caucasus. The Transcaucasian Highland, it would figure, is that part of Transcaucasia with a high elevation above sea level. I really see nothing "Pan-Turkic" in that. dab (𒁳) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, talk of those who use small-scale maps comes to mind. "Transcaucasia" and "Circaucasia" (or Circassia) are both terms of Russian origin, and describe territories lying immediately south and north of the Caucasus mountains respectively. "Transcaucasian Highland" is a term that could never seriously be used to describe territories now located in the Van, Erzurum, Erzincan, and Elazig regions of Turkey for example, all areas that are a very great distance from the Caucasus mountains. What source has ever used that term in relation to the territory of Urartu? Urartu was located mostly in what is known as the "Armenian Plateau". This is a geological term, not an ethnic one. The fact that the use of such a term by a Turkish citizen might get that person a prison sentence in Turkey does not mean that it cannot be used in Wikipedia, where accuracy should take precedence over a nation's political dogmas and historical hang-ups. Meowy 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ararat & Urartu

I think that last removal of the fragment connecting Ararat with Urartu by user Emilyzilch and the comment for this removal are incorrect. I didn't introduce that fragment to the text, I agree that it is poorly sourced, but as far as know scholars do believe that “Ararat” and “Urartu” is essentially the same word — Aramaic "hwrrt" which should have been pronounced "Urartu", but was changed to "Ararat" in biblical texts by Masoretes who used to place "A" instead of any unknown/forgotten vowel. This transformation is described in Piotrovsky’s book listed in sources. Evgeny (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My objection is to "Scholars[3] believe that Urartu is an Akkadian variation of Ararat of the Old Testament. Indeed, Mount Ararat is located in ancient Urartian territory, approximately 120 km north of its former capital." "Scholars" do no such thing. First, the Akkadian form of the word appears before any such Hebrew or Aramaic, so the idea that it's an Assyrianisation of a Hebrew word is ridiculous. Second, the importance of Mt Ararat, which is named after the Bible's Mount Ararat, is questionable. Here the argument again is circular. I don't mind the intro discussion mention that the Bible refers to a northern kingdom called Ararat, but the subsequent discussion in the body of the text that I removed is certainly incorrect and problematic. Look at the reference: it's to a Christian apology site, not to a reliable source. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that source provided in the article is lame. The argument that I provided is from Piotrovsky’s book which is definitely a reliable source. In my version (Russian) it is located on pages 32-33, I don't have the English translation (Boris B. Piotrovsky, The Ancient Civilization of Urartu (translated from Russian by James Hogarth), New York:Cowles Book Company, 1969.), so I cannot specify the exact page. Further, biblical reference to “land of Ararat” in Isaiah XXXVII, 38 and in 2 Kings XIX, 37 a number of scholars attribute specifically to Urartu, assuming that Sennacherib’s sons escaped to Urartu (Shubria in particular). This is again stated in Piotrovsky, in works of Arutunyan (e.g. Арутюнян Н. В. Биайнили (Урарту), Издательство Академии наук Армянской ССР, Ереван, 1970), and in many other articles (I can find them, if necessary). Please, specify your sources and clarify your argument. Evgeny (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)