Template talk:History of Armenia

Mitanni

Why isn't Mitanni one of the predecessors of Armenia? -- Davo88 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, what does Mittani have to do with Armenia or Armenians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Egyptians referred to Mitanni as Nahrin/Nayiri and if these 2 are synonymous, both of them should be included. -- Davo88 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Naharin has nothing to do with Nairi. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

They're synonymous, as in they both mean "land of rivers". Armenia is indeed a land of rivers, the source of Tigris and Euphrates, rivers that gave life to the whole area. Besides, if the Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization, we have all the right to put Mitanni as a civilization of Historic Armenia. -- Davo88 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No they both don't mean land of rivers. Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization because Seljuks absorbed Iranian civlization. At the time of the Mittani there was no such thing as Armenian civilization or Armenians. There is no connection even geographically. Mittani had its center in SYRIA, at its largest extend which lasted for a short while they covered barely 10% of historic Armenia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I found a new academic source that you said I needed. I found Hovick Nersessian which in the New York Academy of Sciences. He mentions that Mitanni is an Armenian kingdom also Ararat arev 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hovick Nersessian is no good. He's a nobody.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Being in the New York Academy of Sciences is no good? Thats not a good academic reference? Ararat arev 00:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That tells me squat! Who is he? What does he do? What are his credentials? I can't find any reference to him. For all I know he doesn't exist. The notability factor is enough to exclude him as a reliable source.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Nahrin and Nairi both do mean "land of rivers" The Egyptians pronounced it Nahrin and the Assyrian pronounced it Nairi. These 2 peoples were Semitic, and they pronounced slightly different, but same meaning. The Armenians and Armenia you said didnt exist at that time? Armeni is mentioned as early as 2300 BC, not only that but all these other kingdoms that "participated" in our history. Like when you put Hittites. Hayasa, Haik, Armens is there in the Template. So whats the issue with Mitanni also being there? Ararat arev 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosilli already explained to you how they both don't mean land of rivers. I will not even entertain the idea of Armenians existing as a well defined ethnic group in 2300 BC. Please never ever again bother me with such nonsense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Im saying Haik, Armens, Hayasa, these are in the Template:History of Armenia, why cant we put in the Mitanni link also? Ararat arev 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Man o man Eupator shouldn't even repeat himself o_O Nareklm 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just tell me why those others are there in the Template, since you said Armenians didnt exist at that time. Ararat arev 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Haik is the legendary founder of Armenia. Armens are allegedly the proto-Armenian speakers of the Armenian language. The Hayasa are linked with Armenians by multiple sources and inhabited historic Armenian exclusively. Hurrians from Syria with an Indo-Aryan aristocracy whose borders barely touched historic Armenia for a short while have nothing to do with Armenia!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurrians who came back and built the kingdom of Urartu. These Hurrians were from Mitanni. Also, Hittite is way out of historic Armenia even. Ararat arev 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time you led me to believe we are getting somewhere you start regurgitating the same old bs. Hurrians didn't "come back" anywhere...Yeah Hitties are also away from historic Armenia and they are not in the fracking template! Even then I can cite thousands more connections between Hittites and Armenians than Armenian and Mittani.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you forgeting Tigran the Great's Armenia's lands?

The man's time cover the entire Mitanni region, and Indo-Aryan is barely existing at that time. So $&*#ing what? Tigranes also ruled Judea and the territory of moden Lebanon.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) The Proto-IE which Sanskrit was written in, which Artak Movsisyan mentions the Mitanni names in Armenian Ararat arev 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Artak Movsisyan can go and jump off a cliff with his translations of names. Did he by any chance translate Mithra into Mihr? lol-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you also look in the Kurds page, you see that they particpated in the Mitanni. They were tribes and very close tribes with Armenian tribes. The Nairi is in their page also and Urartu even. It says these tribes were with them. So Mitanni's time Kurds tribes were there also. So our tribes like Nairi is there at that time. Mitanni participated in historic Armenians and Armenia. These tribes particpated in our ethnic history. Ararat arev 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a lesson in logic. Just because there is bullshit and poc in Kurd related articles that doesn't mean there needs to be more of the same in Armenian related articles. This is not a contest of who can spout more bs.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at this:

As they settled, the Hurrians divided into a number of clans and subgroups, founding city-states, kingdoms and empires with eponymous clan names. These included the Gutis, Kurti, Khaldi, Nairi, Mushku, Mannaeans (Mannai), Mitanni, Urartu, Lullubi and the Kassites among others. All these tribes were part of the larger group of Hurrians (Khurrites), and together helped to shape the Hurrian phase of Kurdish history.[13] These groups, except the Mitanni leadership, are thought to have been non-Indo-Europeans. Ararat arev 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Good for the Hurrians. So what?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Speak clearly on this last part. What do you mean good for the Hurrians? You mean you agree first of all with what it says? If you do, then you see that Urartu and Nairi is in our Template right? What's missing ? Mitanni. Ararat arev 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nairi and Urartu were based in the territory of historic Armenia. Like Gaul was in modern France and Dacia was in modern Romania. Mittani weren't based in historic Armenia there were located in Syria.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about locations here? I told you the greatest extend was in Greater Armenian during like what, 60 BC ? Which extended all those lands. Tigranes is not Armenian to you also? Another thing ethnicity has nothing to do with the locations. If you are saying Mitanni is Persians and Indians roots, where are they now? Where is their locations now? Way way down there man Ararat arev 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I have no idea how to respond to that politely. No offense but it's gibberish. You need to reconsider your involvement here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I proved to you also. You dont seem to answer on the Persian and Indian issue . If their ethnic roots are from Mitanni also? Where are they now? Their "location" is not even close man to Mitanni's location. Ararat arev 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I want an answer Eupator. I told you Persians and Indians are way out of that area. Mitanni was in our ethnic roots. If Persians and Indians have their roots in Mitanni, look how far they are now. So you agree with me? Let's agree so we can add in Mitanni there. Ararat arev 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember a while ago you said Vahan Kurkjian was mentioning the location of Mitanni in Armenia? So you see there is our reference also. Ararat arev 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain to you IE migrations when you think Sanskrit is a proto-IE language... I never said that, nor is there anything stupid like that in Kurkjian's book. Understand that Mittani will never be included in this template. Any attempts by you to do so will be reverted. I will never ever again try and explain you anything. This is the end of it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is this Eupator character? Don't be an ignoramus. Read facts before you resort to your own assumptions. Have you even compared Armenian hierographs with the Egyptian ones? They are similar in language and use the same words. Armenia goes back to 12000 BCE and stop searching for the exact word "Armenian". Its the same thing as finding the word "Greece" in ancient texts. You will not find it. It has variations. Pathetic fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.19.135 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultures and Nairi

I think that Nairi should be added before Urartu given how that tribal confederation of sorts proceeded the Kingdom of Urartu. We should also add the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture given how it spread from the Ararat plain as well as the Trialeti culture. This seems to be standard practice with similar templates: Template:History of Greece includes Helladic and Cylcadic civilizations as well as Minoans, Template:History of Austria includes Hallstatt culture etc. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupator (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kura-Araxes & Hayassa-Azzi

Kura-Araxes has no known connection to Armenia. It ended about 1,400 years before the Orontids even arrived in Armenia. Any connection is speculative. A tag of

is more appropriate for Kura-Araxes as you note since it addresses the archaeological history of Armenia. The same tag should, in my view, also apply to Hayasa-Azzi--all we know about Hayassa-Azzi is that it was a 13th and 12th century BC ancient kingdom and an enemy of the Hittites. No one knows if they are Armenian per se although they would be placed under the Armenia-related topic tag. In contrast, Urartu should be placed in pre-historic Armenia since it existed very close in time to the Orontid kingdom. Artene50 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only connection we need is that it was on the territory of Armenia. Modern state or people don't matter. This is the norm in Wikipedia. End of story.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

other nations have a whole heap of kingdoms, civilisations, empires ext.. which dont relate to the modern state or people, and yet they are still on the template because they once existed on their territory! where is the consistancy on this website! either include them for armenia, or piss off and delete these other ambigous entries in all other templates. no wonder people think wiki is a joke! good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.187.44 (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Eupator but AA keeps saying or implying that Hayasa-Azzi or Kura-Araxes are descendants of Armenians of which there is no proof. Even Dbachman said that to equate Armenia with Kura-Araxes culture, in its talk page, is WP:SYN. No one knows what happens to this people after their culture disappeared. A better template, since it directly links to the archaeological history of Armenia, for Kura-Araxes is the "Armenia-related topics" which Mikkalai suggests. The same case is preferable for Hayasa-Azzi since we don't know what happened to its people after the fall of the Hittites. They would be part of the archaeology of Armenia under 'Armenia-related topics.'

In contrast, Urartu definitely belongs to the pre-historic section of Armenia because 1) it was the immediate predecessor of the Orontids and 2) there is a very strong probability that some Urartians were ancestors of today's Armenians. The last Urartu king, Rusa IV lived only 15 years (d.585 BC) before the reign of Orontes I in 570 BC. I wish there were a few good scholarly books on Urartu for me to read because some sources claim that Rusa IV died in 584 or 590 BC. (very confusing!) But Rusa IV certainly was overthrown one generation before Orontes became king. Artene50 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what aa says. They can be on both templates just fine. We don't edit within a framework of what others might misinterpret. You and AA are the ones suggesting unrelated stuff. Now stop disrupting multiple articles and this template. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eupator. An idea: Why don't you place the Armenia-related topic tag at the bottom of the Azzi-Hayasa article (see below) as Mikkalai has done for Kura-Araxes culture? Everyone who reads Kura-Araxes will know it is related to the archaeology of Armenia. The same can then apply for Azzi-Hayasa. If an article has too many tags, the article is distracting and the Admins will remove them. Artene50 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[[Category:Ancient peoples]]
[[Category:Archaeological cultures]]
[[Category:Archaeological sites in Armenia]]
[[Category:Archaeology of the Caucasus]]

New Template (2012)

This can be ignored, the template has changed since, see the next section.

I want to know what people think of the new template.

The color code:

• Green: Pre-history
• Blue: Antiquity
• Red: Middle Ages
• Orange: Early Modern Age
• Purple: Modern Age

It's organized to give an in-depth template for the full history of Armenia (geographic area and states). The states are in bold and are the main articles, some sub-sections include dynasties, minor states, vassals, key events, etc.)

Some articles that I believe deserve an article (which I may work on) are included (as in the Phrygian Theory, or the Nakhichevan deportations by Shah Abbas).

Here are two versions of the images:

Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Frost178, please stop your edit war. Adding Arme- to Shupria distorts the template box (makes it too wide). Shupria is the more objective name, so it was chosen. Mt. Ararat has nothing to do with the history of Armenia other than it being a mountain in the Armenian Highlands. We're not including Lake Sevan, Lake Van, Mt. Aragats, etc. to this article are we? There is no reason to include Mt. Ararat for the same reason. The Empire of Armenia has no article for itself. "Ancient Armenia" to refer to a time when Armenia never existed is inaccurate and anachronistic. If we are going to use a title for it, it should be "PREHISTORY" which I am planning on including if you stop your edit war. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot have a period of time called ANCIENT the precedes ANTIQUITY since ancient is the adjective form of antiquity. Please stop reverting it. Prehistory is the most accurate name for the period since it refers to the geographic area LATER known as Armenia, hence, being part of Armenia's PRE-history. Additionally, before this new design was implemented, the period was ALWAYS referred to as "Pre-History." Why do we need to change the content simply because the design has changed?
Please EXPLAIN why you believe it is required to add the word "Kingdom" in the area entitled to TIMEFRAMES/PERIODS. Besides, there are many kingdoms in the period named "Ancient Armenia."PLEASE DISCUSS BEFORE MAKING EDITS

The new template is a step in the wrong direction. We should go back to using the standard, {{region history}}, and remove the excessive colouring. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This template is based on the History of China and History of Iran template. I believe it provides a more organized structure than the templates mentioned in {{region history}}. I do admit the colors don't look very appropriate, though. Let me try removing colors and keeping it white. Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There. Tell me what you think. Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

better, but still pretty horrid. we should at the very least use {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Now if only there was a third person in this senseless edit war with Frost.Kentronhayastan (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with align right

There are problems with {{align|right}} for the dates. The dates are wrapping over to a new line, and then look like the correspond to the next line. there are a few ways to fix this: (1) remove the alignment, or (2) do what I did in the first section using an embedded infobox, or (3) add some nowrap around the lines, which could make the box too wide. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you did to the first section worked great. Would it be possible to the the same for the rest? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would but someone keeps reverting my edits. I will wait until the edit flood stops. Frietjes (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Odd, I don't see anything wrong on my computer. What you did looks fine on a computer, but try looking at the template using a phone. There needs to be a different way to do it.

On another note, Frost has returned with the IP address 76.232.254.14 and is editing all pages on Armenian history. He is undoing the purpose of the template's collapse and expand feature. Its purpose is because the History of Armenia template has become the biggest one on Wikipedia. Havinh the eras hidden, while having the appropriate era remain open, makes it less overwhelming (for example, if you go to Satrapy of Armenia, the "Antiquity" list will be open by default, whereas the others will be closed). Frost (or the person with IP address 76.232.254.14 if I'm wrong) believes all pages should have them expanded at all times. Let's discuss this so that we can come to a conclusion on this point. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think your solution is a very innovative one and even has potential for similar large templates, it could be the way of the future! I'm not familiar with Frost but the anon seems to be the same one who for some reason complained to me about you on my user talk page because the Marzpanate period was omitted, though I see you have since re-added it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the issue. On the contrary, your infobox solution seems to work for my computer, but on my phone, it's adding a box around the text. I'm going to try some things to solve the issue. I'll revert to your infobox if I find no solution. Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried it on a PC, phone and a Mac, and had no issues with alignment. Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

no, it's a major problem. the dates wrap over onto the next line and look like they are associated with the next entry. I am going to remove the right alignment until this can be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess making it wider solves the issues, though it looks a little large no? The History of Greater Iran template has a similar solution as your previous one. Maybe it's not so bad to have boxes in the phone version. I'll try some things in my sandbox and if I find a solution I'll bring it here. Thanks a lot for your help. Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

One solution would be to put "BCE/BC" at the top right, next to the sub-title (for example, next to "Achaemenid Period"). Since all of the articles are set in BCE/BC, there is no need to include it in every date. We can specify CE/AD when the dates pan BCE to CE. This is a solution that was used on the History of Greater Iran template. I just can't figure out how to do it using the style of this template. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Titles centered or left-aligned?

I believe centered looks better. Plus, when a list is shown, it becomes confusing since it blends in with the periods and content. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

it's even worse now. the title text overlaps with the [show]/[hide] links. unless you make the template wider, this will be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

it's overlapping right now? It's not even centered. (the titles are left-aligned for me right now). I thought it was only Renaissance & Early Modern Age that overlapped with hide/show... which is why I had made it smaller. Is there a way to make text narrow? as in the inexistent {{narrow| ... }}? Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

no overlap with the left-aligned and wider box. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I still believe the main titles should be centered (it looks a lot better). What if we ditch either "Renaissance" or "Early Modern Age"? The Armenian renaissance happened during the Early Modern Age anyway. What do you think? Is it still overlapping (as you know, I can't tell since it didn't overlap for me in the first place). Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Marzpanate Period --> Marzpanate Armenia

It appears that the user KentronHayastan removed a very important chunk of the section (Marzpanate Period --> Marzpanate Armenia) in the Antiquity. Can you please restore that part? It is the part after Commagene, we have our leader in the Christian era Vartan Mamikonian, battling against foreign rule in our land. He apparently removed this part, I dont think this user who appears is Armenian historian, is in fact ruining in a very clever way. Please look out for his changes on this matter. Thank you. 75.51.173.37 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten to transfer that period to the new template. Thanks for pointing it out, though it was already fixed hours before this was posted here. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ancient," "Antiquity" or "Bronze & Iron Age"

Frost778 is suggesting we use the word Ancient instead of Antiquity, and extend its period to include (merge with) everything before it (or, age1 in the template's code). I disagree. The original template had the word "prehistory" since it covered a period before the history of Armenia per-se. He suggested we use the word "Ancient" instead of "Prehistory," which is inconsistent since Ancient and Antiquity are synonymous (see Antiquity), hence, both cannot be in the same template for different eras. I opted for "Bronze & Iron Age," since I'm assuming Frost's problem with Prehistory is because he would like to merge Armenian history with that of states that existed before Armenia (be it proto-Armenian or non-Armenian in the Armenian Highlands), consider prehistory implies "before Armenia." I figured Bronze & Iron age which is far more neutral since it doesn't give a hint on opinion on what those states represented, and fits more accurately the role of titles in the template since they represent ages. He is using the history templates of Iran and China as justification for his argument, but I don't believe that is a valid justification. Are there any other opinions? Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all who is Frost? Second Im an Armenian and you appear as an imposter, even though your name in Armenian for those who dont know means Heart of Armenia.

3rd here is the real issue:

My lovely friend, you still havent gave me an answer why they have ANCIENT in 3200 BC, and why we cant, you realize these other users are slowly going to realize, if not already, what im talking about, and that you are an imposter, your name in Armenian for them that dont know means Heart of Armenia. So I suggest you either show yourself true, or you are an imposter. I told you a simple question regarding why our lovely friends of Iran Persia, can have ANCIENT in 3200 BC of there History of Iran TEMPLATE, and our History of Armenia is not allowed to in that area of time I just mentioned to you. Got it buddy?

You just changed the word to ANTIQUITY in the History of Iran part for the same 3200 BC time! You didnt do anything different there. Who are you trying to fool? Its the same meaning you put in the same era, put the same word , one of those words in the same ERA in the History of Armenia, where you have Bronze Iron Age. The issue is not if the word is ANTIQUITY or ANCIENT, the issue is where you put it in 3200 BC time for them and for History of Armenia you dont put it at that time.

And you are saying History of Iran to have ANTIQUITY in 3200 BC is not a valid argument? Please buddy. Explain to me how Persians exist in 3200 BC, and that you changing the word with same meaning to ANCIENT, as you put ANTIQUITY now, is not a valid argument and point Im trying to make here. Persians or History of Iran should not have ANTIQUITY at a time they dont exist, not even Proto-Persians. So tell me why you are not putting ANTIQUITY in that same ERA in the History of Armenia, and you just changed the wor ANCIENT to ANTIQUITY in the 3200 ERA of the History of Iran template. 75.51.172.205 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 75.51.172.205 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"you appear as an imposter" Is that a personal attack? You are a blocked user (your identity as Frost778 is confirmed), why are you editing? Who is the imposter? When you get unblocked, you are more than welcome to contribute constructively. The template of Iran is irrelevant to the template of Armenia. I can use the same type of fallacious argument: Georgia's template uses Prehistory, Bronze Age and Antiquity. Make valid points that will convince me and others that "Ancient" should be used instead of "Prehistory," "Bronze & Iron Age" and/or "Antiquity." Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Frost778 is someone who got blocked for edit warring on this template 3 days ago, and posted a nearly identical screed to the above at the top of their talkpage... so it's looking pretty suspicious for you. And seriously, wikipedia doesn't care what your username is, what it means, or what your ethnicity is, we care about product quality. (With some exceptions like offensive words or company names, etc.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)