Talk:Armenians

Archives

• Talk:Armenians/Archive 1

Armenians in Iran

 I don't know where you people got your numbers from but Armenians in Iran are about 100-200 thousand at best, and not 400 thousand.
Majority of them left Iran after the 1979 revolution.

Here's a link http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5109&tmpl=printpage

"The population of Armenians in Iran before the revolution was estimated at 300,000 and their population in the year 2000 at 150,000 by their own Archbishop Babian, though some quote the higher figure of 200,000). Many emigrated to Armenia after the revolution."

^^^^ I got this info from the site, which says there are only 100-200 thousand armenians in Iran and not 400 thousand.

so please puy up the real number.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.227 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Genetic and Ethnic Origins

with the invation of sea people from balkans to anatolia which caused the collopse of Hitit empire, frigians came to anatolia with greek tribes (ioanians and mysians) around 12 BC and settled in central anatolia converged with some anatolians. this is the reason why Today the closest languages to armenian are spoken in west balkans.(Albanian, latin, greek) Frigians are the ansestors of Armenians. Friginans language is the closest ancient language to armenian language. and during romans and partians wars armenians always sided romans. therefore the Romans get armenian population migrated furter to the east of anatolia from central anatolia and cukurova to control the lands which under the rule of partians between 1 BC to 3 AD.

Urardians are the contemprary of prigians in the east, they spoke a completely different lanunage from frigians. Urardians language is much closer to kurdish kurmanci dialects. and Dna of the bones found in urardian burials are different from armenians and and the same as the members of kurmanci tribes living in that area today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.66.61 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information of the genetic characteristics of Armenians and other ethnic groups to which they are biologically related? I am interested in this subject but unable to find relevant material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.252.242 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey I've come across a lot of genetic studies on Armenians, including

"Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome" It can be found easily on the web, and it demonstrates that Armenians and Azeris are more closely related than the latter are to Turks, or the Armenians are to other indo-european speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E10ddie (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenians are of turkish origin (42%), according to igenea (a Swiss Institute for Genetic Research) [1] --Babaeski (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dance Picture

Besides the fact that its being added by ararat arev. Is there another reason why its being deleted? IMO it looks much better then the 70's picture.Vartanm 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the dance picture either actually. - Fedayee 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NK

NK is not independent state. And I don't know why you are bringing disputable assumptions to this case to this article which is about the nation.--Dacy69 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It says de-facto independent, it is self governing w/ no Azeri prescence in it which is something everyone agrees upon. But it is not officially recognized by any country in the world, including Armenia which is something we agree upon as well. This article is about the Armenian people, not Armenia. - Fedayee 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you show Nagorno-Karabakh as a separate entity on that list, you already automatically imply that it is de facto independent. Reference to Azerbaijan must be made because the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is different from that of Russia, France, Iran or Lebanon, which are mentioned concurrently. Since it is not possible for Azerbaijan to appear on that list, some credit to it must be given; you cannot disregard it completely unless Nagorno-Karabakh is officially independent. Parishan 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But who says it is disregarded? It says "de facto independent republic, though unrecognized by any country". Since it says that, the reader will know that "the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is different from that of Russia, France, Iran or Lebanon". ROOB323 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no reference to Azerbaijan. Such reference as absolutely important, since Nagorno-Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan (and defined as such by Wikipedia), and not just some undefined isolated territory that claims indepedence. Plus, "de jure part of Azerbaijan" is a much more clear and concise note than what you propose. Parishan 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I should formally propose mediation for that article (ROOB323 and Fedayee). Removal of well-known info is not acceptable. If mediation will not be accepted - I will resort to arbitration.--Dacy69 18:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Azerbaijan category

I don't think this article should be listed under this category. For one thing, there are very few Armenians living under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan's government. Those that are live in mixed marriages with Azerbaijanis. This community is not as large nor as notable as the ones in Russia, France, Iran, Georgia, Syria, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Turkey. Karabakh should be treated differently as it is not fully integrated into Azerbaijan. -- Aivazovsky 12:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those in Nagorno-Karabakh should count towards Armenians living in Azerbaijan, regardless whether the region is under Baku's jurisdiction or not. For example, many parts of northwest Pakistan are not under Islamabad's constant jurisdiction (and there have been cases of military separatism - see Islamic Emirate of Waziristan), but the people who live there are considered ethnic groups of Pakistan whatsoever. Parishan 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Move article

Shouldn't we change this article name to Armenian people to be more consistent with the other article titles? — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, I see plenty of ethnic group articles without the 'People' addition behind it; examples : Georgians, Germans, Greeks, Russians, Jews, Arabs, Circassians, etc.. In any case, since there is nothing you can confuse Armenians with, I see no reason to change it. The Myotis 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My references

1 - Logo which indicates NK as decafto independent state. I would like to drwa your attention to map on page Nagorno-Karabakh War. It says - "Nagorno-Karabakh is currently a de facto independent republic in the South Caucasus, but is officially recognized as part of the Republic of Azerbaijan". So it is in accordance with international law (and no one can say that we don't care about IL) as well as in accordance with other Wiki pages.

2 - My second edits are about the appearance of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Current version endorces mostly nationalist version of Armenian scholars (plus Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory). We had extaensive discussion about that on page Urartu. Many Western sources maintain that Armenians appeared in EA in 7-6 BC. And even Armenian MFA claims that)

• 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 [2]
• The Urartians were succeeded in the area in the 6th century BC by the Armenians.Urartu on Britannica
• 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. [3]
• Modern scholars, however, believe that the Armenians crossed the Euphrates and came into Asia Minor in the 8th cent. B.C. Invading the Khaldian state called Urartu by the Assyrians, they intermarried with the indigenous peoples there and formed a homogeneous nation by the 6th cent. B.C. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Armenia, country, Asia

So, if we mention Armenian theory we have a full right to mention other sources and theories--Dacy69 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the term “Armenian” is thought to derive from the Armen tribe who lived in east Anatolia prior to Urartu, it would seem strange that the same name would be given to an invading tribe who appeared much later. Who recorded this invasion, I would like to know, and what was their name for the migratory tribes. I have also noted that some of your sources self-contradict. Encyclopedia Britannica online, for example, both states that the Armenians replaced Urartians, and that they were called ‘Urartians’ by the Greeks. None of these three sources cite specific records or research, and we have known way of knowing where they got their information (except maybe from each other). I would prefer sources from an historical research site, university or book, rather than an unlinked page and a unsourced online encyclopedia. Another thing, even if a nomadic tribe did migrate into and merge with native inhabitants of Urartu, wouldn’t that just adds some new elements to the culture already there, rather than, as you seem to be stating, creating a brand-new ethno/cultural group. The Myotis 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue was debated exstensively on page Urartu in terms of Urartu-Armenian relations. I don't think we need to repeat it here. You can look at Talk page on Urartu. I made reference to specific books, as you wish to get, for example B.Piotrovsky, who was one of major historians of Urartu. Here since it is mentioned that Armenians appeared in EA 4,000 years ago, which is out of any mainstream theory, I put one sentence of major view on this matter. Even some Armenian historians do not believe that they appeared in EA 4,000 years ago. Anyway, encyclopedic sources can be referenced in Wiki.--Dacy69 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be also good to quote sources which state that Armenians originated in EA and the Caucasus. I have only one - Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory which basicly declined by many historians. Again - this debate was on Urartu page. However, editors of this article decided to put it straight - Armenians originated in EA (?) --Dacy69 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

user:Artaxiad please stop your game of blaming everyone except youself in edit war. I am here on talkpage long ago. I haven't seen user:Vartanm and you here.--Dacy69 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dacy when someone reverts you do not revert back, that is part of a dispute resolution and calm down please, there's no rush for this so engage here and wait for others to reply. Artaxiad 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You indeed made rv without prior discussion - you need to know rules. You and Vartanm never left comments here before blind rv.--Dacy69 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) And you have purely misled (not to say LIED) when you put in edit summmary that I should engage in talkpage. I am here several days and weeks ago. So you just trying to get attention of admins by putting forward blatant and false accusation in edit summary. I have all 'diff' here and it is easy to show that neither you nor Vartanm discussed on talkpage prior of reverts. --Dacy69 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dacy you added text had pov issues which was fixed to a more neutral POV by neutral users. you came back and reverted to your prior version. Thats why I reverted back. I don't have a problem with the neutral version. Vartanm 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

you haven't seen us here before. Is there a wiki rule that prohibits editing articles without using the talk page? If there is You're in BIG trouble. :) On a more serious note, during this difficult times it would probably be best from all of us to use the talk page before making changes. Vartanm 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly your problem - you should leave comments here and not just saying the same - it is POV but make appropriate references and support your arguments.--Dacy69 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of western sources consider Urartu to be the direct ancestral cultural entity of the Armenians. If you want to shove back the Armenian 'start date' then you will have to prove that the people called 'Armenians' by others were distinct and disconnected from Urartu. Here are some quick web sources that connect Urartu and Armenia. http://www.armeniaguide.com/html/appliedart.html http://library.thinkquest.org/C003796/gather/bc.html http://www.starspring.com/ascender/urartu/urartu.html http://www.armenian-history.com/Nyuter/HISTORY/ArmeniaBC/Urartu/kingdom_of_urartu.htm This message left by user:The Myotis

It is funny. The source from www.starspring.com indeed what I quoted on Urartu page, and it says:

• It is generally agreed that the Urartians arose from the Hurrians and employed a language similar to Hurrian.
• After the disappearance of Urartu as a political entity, the Armenians dominated the ancient highlands, absorbing portions of the previous Urartian culture in the process.

Another your source: library.thinkquest.org says:

• Then they (Armenians) moved to the East and settled in western and southern regions of the Armenian plateau

It actually proves what I argue - Armenians came later in EA, and definitely Armenians did not originate from EA as it was put now in the article. Two other sources mentioned above are Armenian.--Dacy69 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I added references. - Fedayee 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From 4 references 1 - is Armenian community website, 2 - fomer Soviet source. I don't know how we can put that "most western sources", and my reputable encyclopedias equal "some western sources". BTW the Soviet source mention two versions (two theories) as well. Anyway, I am ok as long as this article mentions two versions.

I tried to prove that and did it while somehow many Armenian editors, including you, called that "destructive activity" - even at Arbitration page. You call everything which does not suit your POV in a such way. I hope that (as it was a case with Urartu and this page) other articles, which now a subject of Arbitration, will be sorted out. --Dacy69 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually only 1 is Soviet encyclopedia source, the other 2 are books by American and British people. Don't distort the references.

While it states two theories, the one you speak of is the old one, it says While classical historians cited the tradition that the Armenians migrated into their homeland from Thrace and Phrygia, contemporary scholarship suggests that the Armenians are descendants of various ancient indigenous people who combined in the tenth through seventh centuries B.C. to produce the Uraratean people (Ararateans). These views are not necessarily contradictory since present-day Armenians undoubtedly are an amalgam of several peoples, indigenous (Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi, Hurrians, etc.) and immigrant, who merged as one linguistic family around 600 B.C. - Fedayee 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed 'st' & 'nd' - it should be "1st" source and "2nd". And your sources are not more reputable than mine. As I told you, I am ok with mentioning both theories, as in Wiki we should supply facts, and the reader will judge. --Dacy69 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the data, Dacy. The fact that the Armenians appeared with Urartu culture suggests that an old ethnic group was rebuilding under a new name (and perhaps with new influences) rather than, as you insinuate, a new group that exterminated and replaced the old one. Second, you keep on telling us that Armenian 'origins' lie outside of Anatolia, as if the origins of any ethnic group lie in only one place and nowhere else. Genetic exchange happens frequently to all ethnic groups, even when they remain culturally definite, and continues to happened to such groups even in the modern day. Ethnic groups are defined mostly by culture, which the Armenians certainly did. Also, I would like to know exactly where this supposed Armenian migration was recorded. Was it Assyrians? Greeks? Some other civilization? And did they call them 'Armenians', or is that just one interpretation? How do we know the Armenian migration was not just some ethnographer's theory? The Myotis 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned once - we had exstensive discussion on Urartu-Armenians nexus on page Urartu. Please look at that article's talk page. You can find a lot of useful information and arguments of both sides. What I know for sure that wording here was twisted. Most western sources maitain migratory theory about Armenian presence in EA, but this article states vice versa. I put my references, so the reader will judge. For now I am done with that dispute. Moreover, it is a subject of Arbcom's consideration.--Dacy69 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the Soviet encyclopedia said, that was the old thought, new scholarly belief is that they originated from indigenous people. Check the stuff I c/ped earlier. And the Myotis' statement makes alot of sense, it could apply to any ethnic group. It's worth reading it and not ignoring it - Fedayee 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the Urartu talk page. You did not seem to come to any resolution other than being convinced that you should debate your opinion here rather there. I did notice, however, that the article states Armenia was used synonymously in many ancient sources (including the Greeks and Persians). It also mentions that the Urartuian and Proto-Armenian languages were probably spoken side-by-side in the same kingdom, which certainly suggests an ethno-cultural merge. The Myotis 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not me who started arguing here about Urartu-Armenian links. Whole debate started when my edit was put under question. And, indeed we came to resolution on Urartu page, if you looked carefully at the page. I quote: "Dacy69 has provided appropriate evidence in support of his edits. I have made a comment on the talk page of Urartu explaining that Dacy69 is making appropriate edits and inviting editors to talk to me if they have concerns. I regard the matter as closed. SilkTork 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/December_2006/dacy69" Just some nationalist users continued argueing. But it is not my fault and this is their view.--Dacy69 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit, I suspect, was put into question due to it's rather one-sided interpretation of the facts rather than, as you seem to suspect, just because everyone who disagrees with you is a nationalist. And it does not seem you made any significant changes to the article, as nothing of the same nature you posted here is displayed there. In any case, I think this conflict is also closed and the current NPOV version should remain.The Myotis 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the matter is closed but don't understanbd why you continue argue that I have put one-sided interpretations. You, actually, failed to produce any evidence to support your claim. Your references indeed are supporting the theory which I second. It was user:Fedayee who came up with his references, and they, I believe, not overwhelmes mine. As a matter of fact, my references are much stronger. The theory which Fedayee and you are supporting is a minority view in mainstream science. And on page Urartu neutral user Dbachman supported the theory which I put forward here. As far as whose theory which I call nationalist, I would suggest you to read Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. --Dacy69 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are continuing your own argument. The matter is solved and requires no more discussion. Your original edit was one-sided, which is why we added the opposing thesis (producing NPOV). Whose argument you believe is stronger is irrelevant, you still can give us no original source for Britannica’s claim. And there is no 'mainstream science' view on the genetic origins of Armenians, as no ethnic group has a single genetic origin. You do, of course, realize that you yourself could easily be labeled a ‘nationalist’ from you claims; "since Armenians ‘origins’, as you put it, lie outside of Anatolia, they are racially ‘alien’ and have no right to a homeland there". But if we are to throw around that term (nationalist) to much it loses its meaning. I rather doubt, though, most academics would define Armenians by genes. And I am certainly not willing to track down some obscure political text by an unheard of author so you can prove a political point. The Myotis 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You just are trying to twist everything here. If you look at the page's history you'll see that I came later here and indeed I added alternative theory. Initial text claimed that Armenians were oroginally from EA. So, my edit should be credited as a step to NPOV. As for original resreach - again see Urartu page and references to Diakonov and Piotrovsky. And please don't misquote me - I never claimed that if Armenians aren't originally from EA they "have no right to a homeland there" . It is your words which you try to tag to me. I believe it does not matter where people originated - they have a full right to live where they live now. Just like in Canada - white people came 300-400 hundreds years ago - so it does not mean that they should be thrown away. And again for nationalist theory, land and origin I quote from mentioned book about Nationalism and Archeology: "the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia". I haven't problem with a principle who and when lived in or migrated to somewhere. All these theories about origin or indigenous people exist only for nationalists in post-Cold war era.--Dacy69 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) "

You are not reading what I am saying, Dacy. I did not actually claim that you where trying to say that Armenians have no claim to a homeland, but rather that it was how it could be interpreted, and that a person of such a vulnerable position should not use the label "nationalist" against all there opponents. In any case, using such labels is an ad hominem technique, which uses accusations of an opponents motive the object rather than actual evidence, usually due to a lack thereof. Though, I do find it interesting that you would compare Armenians in Anatolia to Caucasians in the New World. Such a comparison, you should realize, automatically insinuates that Armenians have virtually no genetic or cultural relation to the former inhabitants, and that they in fact destroyed and replaced the former inhabitants with completely foreign elements. I am not certain if that was what you intended to say with your comparison, but I must know do you believe that is true? Also, you continually state that Armenians are "not from" Anatolia, as if you believe that there was only one genetic source for Armenians (do you?). Even in the scattered sources that you do cite the theoretical migration does not wipe out and replace the inhabitants, but instead absorbs and mingles with the people already present, producing a new entity that has been labeled as "Armenians". And since the word "Armenian" has only ever been used to describe people from the area known as Armenia, I would be perfectly accurate to say that Armenians have always lived there. After all, that was were the cultural entity know as 'Armenia' was created. Please be sure to answer my two questions in your response, as this discussion is getting rather circular.The Myotis 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacy apart from having no life, your claims that "most Western sources," "some historians," "scholars argue that," and etc. are unsupported and baseless, as many of your other claims are. Instead of saying those words, actually provide us with NAMES of all the people you are talking about. How can you be credible when your claims are totally false and baseless to begin with. I am surprised that the editor's here even bother to argue with you, since you don't even pay attention to the rules of Wikipedia. You should not participate in any debates, arguments, or edits on Wikipedia unless you start listenting to the rules of Wikipedia, you stop reitterating yourself over and over even when you have been disproved countless numbers of times, your arguments, the data, and the information that you have provided us with are unsupported claims and those that you allege are true were disproven by almost every single editor that has encountered you or that has ever engaged in a debate with you. You are a constant pain, a cyberboor, and you hinder the efforts of many Armenian editors with your foolish nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.223.63 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

Ocobot identified three dead links in this article:

• http://www.euroamericans.net/euroamericans.net/armenian%20census.htm
• http://www.armembassycanada.ca/diaspora/diaspora6.htm
• http://www.statistics.ge/index_eng.htm

I'd take care of these (recover/replace them) but the article is protected against editing by normal registered users. — Ocolon 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

De-facto

Parishan, by removing the term "de-facto" and leaving "de-jure" only shows your POV agenda. Do it again and I will report you to Arbitration committee. Consider this a friendly warning. Regards VartanM 00:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

what else except rv you are doind in Wiki. anyway, even with de-facto name azerbaijan should be there--Dacy69 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-shaped it. There is a mention of Azerbaijan and its status "dejure-ly" and "defacto-ly". NK is in italics so the reader will know its special status. - Fedayee 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Institution

removed from the article

• Levon & Sophia Hagopian Armenian College, est. 1963, Bourj Hamoud - Beirut Official Website

Pomegranates

Who wrote the absurd section about Armenians love for pomegranates? If in a few days no one has responded, I will change that section or delete it.--Moosh88 00:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I like pomegranates but that sentence is not encyclopedic. You might as well remove it now. --VartanM 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read the rest of the section, thats just silly. It needs a complete rewrite. VartanM 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Population in Iran

Is the Iranian population of Armenians really 400 000? Considering all who have emigrated since the Iranian revolution. I think it should be somewhere between 100 and 200 thousand left. AraM 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello AraM, the number is taken from here [4] --VartanM 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems very hard to find valid sources on the internet but, according to this - http://countrystudies.us/iran/45.htm there where 300 000 Armenians in Iran by the time of the revolution in 1979, and 250 000 by 1986. And according to this - http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/ADC/news.asp?id=66 the population today is somewhere around 200 000. AraM 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe 400 000 is the population of Parskahay including those who live outside Iran. I tend to think like this but I also should say that letely there was a talk in the Iranian TV and they clearly asserted that in 70 000 000 inhabitants of Iran are counted 1- All Iranians residng in Iran and 2- Foreign nationals with residence permit in Iran but are excluded 1- Iranian nationals living outside. In any case they are more than 200 000 in Iran because they have 2 reserved seats in the parliament.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The "de-facto"/"officially" formulation was achieved after months of debates and mediation on the Nagorno-Karabakh article. I have synchonized the infobox with the formulation.--TigranTheGreat 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian Empire

Armenia became independent as a result of the break-up of the Russian Empire, not the Ottoman one. Western Armenia has not become independent yet.--TigranTheGreat 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

statue images

Parishan, re [5], I find no agreement on representing Armenians in {{Infobox Ethnic group}} as a bunch of statues. Especially statues not crafted after life but essentially the monumental counterpart of Batman action figures. This is patently ridiculous. The "image" parameter is not intended for a collection of statues, no matter how "ethnic" they are. If people can agree on a collage of mugshots representing the group in question, that's fine. The alternative is no image at all. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me???

mug shot

n. Informal

A photograph of a person's face, especially one made for police files.

Is this how you see us? a bunch of criminals? VartanM 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We had a collection of pictures of real people not long ago, but It was replaced with the statue photos. I personally think that real, living, Armenians should be used in representing a real, living, ethnic group. The original collage, I believe, was deleted due to copyright infringement, though I don't know why stone statues were chosen as a replacement. I agree that a composite photo of 6-10 notable Armenians would be very appropriate. Some suggestions: Arshile Gorky, Kirk Kerkorian, Andranik Toros Ozanian, Garry Kasparov, Anastas Mikoyan.. The Myotis 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous collage was deleted because it was not properly tagged. When it comes to collages each individual photo in the collage requires a separate tag indicating a source. See:File:Georgians banner34687.jpg or File:FamousEthnicRussians.jpg. On the other hand we can make a collage of paintings and statues and use one tag (example:File:Greeks.JPG) in this case however modern photos can't be used.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer, collage of individual portraits, but I don't see a problem with statue pictures, they are works of art of Armenian people. VartanM 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, lets come up with some good collection of 10 famous Armenian people. I made a list please see below. The concern I have is that there is a gap from 393 - to 1817 that is unfilled. Let's try to cover all the historical periods, please bring forward your suggestions.

• Tigranes the Great - 95 BCE - 55 BCE
• Mesrop Mashtots - 361 or 362
• Vartan Mamikonian - 393
• Hovhannes Aivazovsky - 1817 - 1900
• Raffi - Hakob Melik-Hakobyan - 1835-1888
• Hovaness Toumanian - 1869-1923
• Hovhannes Bagramyan - 1897 - 1982
• Aram Khachaturian - 1903 - 1978
• William Saroyan - 1908 - 1981
• Sergei Parajanov - 1924 - 1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelmate (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ, VartanM, are we being a little bit over-sensitive? mugshot = "photograph of a person's face", ok? Police files don't enter into it, my point was that we cannot use action figures and fancy statues. The statues "are works of art of Armenian people"? What is wrong with you? Are you saying the "image" slot in ethnic group infoboxes is intended to present random works of art somehow attributed to members of the group in question? Anyway, things are looking much better now, thanks to Steelmate. Can we now just get rid of the Tigranes II and Mamikonian "works of art"? I am sure you can find two more images of Armenians drawn after life. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks Dbachmann, I think as image we can certainly use any images of Armenian people, something that identifies the Armenian, it can be a portrait or a statue or any work of art that is depicting face or face & body of the person. Statues are widely used by Greeks f.e. and others. But one aspect is that preferable the images should be coming from the time those people lived. F.e. I think modern statue of Tigran II is inappropriate, would be much better to get ancianet represnetation. I think priorities should be in this order:

• Completeness of information - representation of all most famous armenians during all the history of Armenian existance (up to 10)
• Diversity of representation - it means including different medias, like portraits & sculptures & so on. Will show the richness of the culture.
• Appropriateness of representation - image should be made from the time when the person lived. Modern images of anciant times are less/not appropriate.
• Quality of representation - only most vivid, quality images should be included to make impression of the high quality of the web page.

Just my 2 cents.... Steelmate (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got a rather large (c.1400 year) gap between the late Classical world and the 19th century. I suggest filling it with Grigor Narekatsi for one. --Folantin (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You could replace Tigran's statue photo with a depiction from a coin. It would also be nice if there was a woman. Queen Keran perhaps.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vartan Mamikonyan should also be removed given how all we know about him was that he had red hair and a Roman uniform. I suggest adding an image of a Cilician ruler, King Leo II comes to mind.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks everybody. Looks more balanced now. More suggestion are welcome. Steelmate (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This photo of Andranik Ozanyan being up there would be pretty good. He's loved by all Armenians, a national hero that represents resistance to the multiple Turkic attempts at eliminating Armenians during the bloody 1896-1923 timespan. Brilliant general of Armenia featured on medals et al. - Fedayee (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Add Vartan Mamikonyan and Adranik Ozanyan. I think its BS that we already don't have them up there. Also why is a Turk/Azeri deciding who we should put up in our portraits of famous Armenians? Are you guys catering to him or to us, don't forget the aim of this article. Your turning something that is supposed to be informational into something political. Anyways my suggestions are having more people up there. Armenian athletes, businessmen, inventors, artists (everything that falls within the brackets of culture & music), authors, and doctors & scientists, if you need any suggestions just ASK ME. 76.174.223.63 (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Armenians (Armenian: Հայեր, Hayer) represent one of the oldest nations and ethnic groups in the world

Folks, as much pleasing to the armenian soul those words sound, isn't it a little POV? I checked other nations (Greeks, Egyptions, Russians...) non of them use such a self declamatory rhetoric. I would like to see the article about Armenians to become featured, therefore will vote to exclude any POV rhetoric. What do you think? -- Steelmate (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You are the one who added that extremely POV line and now you're asking if it should be removed because it's pov? [6]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, you beat me to it. Joke or not, its still funny. -- VartanM (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, no joke, I added it but wasn't sure if it is appropriate. I saw similar sentence on Georgians article. Any way if we all agree it is POV , let's remove it. -- Steelmate (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it is not appropriate. If you find nonsense on the Georgian article, clean up the Georgian article, don't add nonsense to this one, per WP:OTHERCRAP. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenians (Armenian people) - ethnicity, or a nation?

Also, isn't article about Armenians considered to be about Armenian ethnicity, not a nation? As under an Armenian nation it could be anyone who is citizen of Armenia... (f.e. russian) What do you think? -- Steelmate (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Armenians are both an ethnic group and a nation. You'll find this isn't a problem in other articles: English people, Scottish people, Welsh people, Georgians, Greeks, ad infinitum. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

natio is in fact simply the Latin translation of Greek ethnos. The two terms may be used synonymously also in English. --dab (𒁳) 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia was first Christian nation

Armenia was the first Christian nation not Greece. Iness92 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion". This implies that Armenia was a sovereign state at the time (because, obviously, there were much earlier "national churches", Assyrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, they just weren't "state religions" of independent states. Fwiiw, Arsacid Armenia was indeed more or less sovereign, for a brief period, 287 to 337 AD. Thus, we can say that Christianity was a "state religion" 314 to 337, before Armenia became once again a province of the Sassanids. To state this "first nation to adopt Christianity" claim without qualification is very misleading, and clearly mainly interested to heap another "first" on Armenia rather than providing historical information. The Armenian church was an early church, to be sure, and predates the Theodosian decrees by 90 years, but it was by no stretch the "first" church, except with qualifications that are painstakingly designed to make it so. The important thing wasn't that Christianity was an "official state religion" for 23 years, it goes far beyond that, since obviously Armenia stayed Christian even under Persian and later Muslim rule. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with this. Armenia became a Sassanid province in 428. Where did you get those weird dates? 317? 287? The Kingdom was sovereign in until 387, when it was divided by the Romans and Sassanids. From then on Arsacid Armenia was not truly sovereign and it was incorporated as province when the monarchy was abolished. As for 301 and 314, again not happy with the language. It can be stated without much trouble in terms of sources that even the majority scholarly opinion is in favor of the traditional 301 date (the Roman Catholic Church even uses the 301 date) and add that some recent research hints at a 314 date. Also what's the source for the Chamichian claim?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit the dates are cobbled together from Wikipedia articles. Chamchian is the guy who came up with the "traditional" date: it's always better to have an author than fuzzy a "tradition" (Xorenatsi doesn't have "301" -- there being no Dionysian era in his time. Chamchian was the first modern scholar to calculate absolute dates from Xorenatsi's account). The point I am making, though, is that "state religion" is a bit of a red herring, since the effect of Christianization far outlasted Arsacid autonomy. It is still, worth noting, that the Arsacids were the first rulers, ever, who imposed Christianity on their subjects, no debate there. This is independent of the 314 vs. 301 question, the second such incident being Aksum in 325. The claim that 314 is favoured in current scholarship is informed by Seibt (2002) who states

"A broad consensus was achieved that the conversion of Trdat/Tiridates, the King of Greater Armenia, traditionally held to have taken place in 301, is historically untenable and that 314 is a far more likely date."

dab (𒁳) 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that Greece was not the first Christian nation. "Greece" as we know it did not even exist at the time, thus I would assume anyone who made that claim would be referring to the Byzantine Empire. Christianity was elevated as the state religion of the Byzantine Empire in 380 by Emperor Theodosius I. King Tiridates III of Armenia, on the other hand, elevated Christianity as the state religion of Armenia in 301, and thus it is entirely clear that Armenia was an officially Christian nation before Byzantium, and thus any claims to Greece/Byzantium being the first Christian nation are entirely erroneous. However, there is yet another twist in this drama. There is evidence to suggest that there was yet another Christian nation even before Armenia, and thus that those who claim that Armenia was the first Christian nation are also incorrect. From what I can tell from a number of different articles on Wiki, the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the ancient Syriac kingdom of Osroene are attributed to Agbar V at the very earliest and Agbar IX at the very latest. Kingdom of Osroene Agbar IX ruled from 177 to 212. Thus it is quite apparent that Armenia was not the first Christian nation, while Osroene may very well have been. Deusveritasest (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Armenian dance and music are among the oldest, richest and most original ones ...

Isn't it a little (may be more then little) POV? Steelmate 20:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Richest and most original are weasel words. Among the oldest is not and it should be sourced. VartanM 20:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

in the case of dance, "oldest" is nonsensical too. There is no such thing as "oldest dance". You may discuss claims of the oldest attestation of specific literature on dance. In this, Armenia will find it difficult to compete with the Natya Shastra (likely predating the Gupta period). dab (𒁳) 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Armenian religion?

What was it, and why isn't it mentioned? Funkynusayri 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick (and not necessarily perfect) answers (there is a shortish article on Armenian mythology): (a) Not very well known. Polytheistic. Came under heavy Persian/Zoroastrian influence early on, so you have gods like Aramazd (Ahura Mazda). Other gods include Tir, Vahagn and Mihr. Most popular deity probably Lady Anahita. The geographer Strabo (who lived in the Roman Empire around the time BC became AD) said he couldn't really tell the difference between the religious traditions of the "Persians and the Medes" and the Armenians, although he knew the latter had a special devotion to Anahita. (b) Don't know, perhaps because there's not too much to say about it for sure. --Folantin 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the Orthodox zoroastrianism which is recognized today stems from the time of Sassanids. Before that there were more heterodox forms. Anahita was important among the Achamenids and Mehr was more so among the Parthians. The Parthian influence was stronger in the southern caucasus so the Armenian zoroastrianism was more heterodox even before the Christianization. However it should be noted that the entities such as Tir, Meher, Vahagn, Anahita should not be seen as gods. Strictly taken they are yazata (izad or angels). They belonged indeed to the Aryan (Iranian) pre-zoroastrian pantheon. Zarathusrta himslef wanted to get rid of them all, and you can read in his own Gathas that he rejected all those Aryan (Iranian) gods and acknowledged only Ahura Mazda as the God. He had a monotheistic religion. However after his death and after his religion was geographicaly more widespread some priests rallied and the older elements came in in new forms. Those deities became Izad (angels).--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenians collage

I created the last Armenians collage that included Tigranes the Great, Gregory the Illuminator, St. Mesrob, St. Isaac, Ivan Aivazovsky, Andranik, Tigran Petrosian, Isabel Bayrakdarian, Aram Khachaturian, Charles Aznavour, Viktor Hambardzumyan, and William Saroyan. Unfortunately, it was deleted. Now, however, that I realize how to tag everything, I'm thinking of creating a new collage for this article. Like before, it shall be based on the collages from other ethnicity articles (like the Russians and Georgians, etc.). Based on the discussion above plus the present assortment of small images in the ethnic box, I think that the following individuals should be included:

Row one (left to right):

• Tigranes the Great, obviously
• St. Gregory the Illuminator, founder and patron saint of the Armenian church
• St. Mesrob Mashtots, inventor of the Armenian alphabet
• Ivan Aivazovsky, 19th century Russian-Armenian painter

Row two (left to right):

• Raffi, 19th century Armenian writer
• Andranik Toros Ozanian, Armenian military hero
• Shushanik Kurghinian, famous Armenian feminist writer (we need a woman)
• Aram Khachaturian, composer

Row three (left to right):

• William Saroyan, Armenian-American writer
• Viktor Hambardzumyan, Soviet Armenian scientist
• Charles Aznavour, French-Armenian singer
• Garry Kasparov, World Chess Champion (this is debatable; I had Petrosian in here previously and I included Kasparov here instead because he's more recognizable)

What do you think? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Tigran Petrosyan is more Armenian ;) or you could include our current champion Levon Aronian VartanM (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Between Aronian and Petrosian, I think that I would pick Petrosian simply because he's classic and he was a World Chess Champion.

I still think that Kasparov should be considered, even if he is more Russified. He's all over the news nowadays (here in the West anyway), so he's more recognizable. Plus, not only has he stood up to Vladimir Putin, but he also rescued his entire family from the anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku. Anyway, that's just my opinion. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, didn't we already have this conversation in the recent past on this very page? The trouble with your proposed version is you've got no Armenians between the 5th and the 19th century. Include Narek at the very least. --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to Kasparov, he's not fully Armenian (half Jewish), doesn't identify himself as an Armenian really and in recent years has been acting like a clown in Russia. We absolutely need someone between the 5th and 19th centuries. First thing that needs to be done is to include someone from Cilician Armenia, dozens of people to chose from. Too many modern people. I like the first four, although it would be nice to have Vartan Mamikonian. I would also prefer Drastamat Kanayan instead of Andranik, but that's not a big deal.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Kasparov's out. From Cilician Armenia, what about Levon V? I still say we need a chess player, so maybe we should bring back Petrosian. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Aivazovsky! Surely I support our National hero! And I support the whole list! Anyways as a suggestion: maybe you can add Komitas and Tumanian (or Charents?) as Great representatives of what we call Armenian soul? And also one opinion: is Silva Kaputikyan not more prominent than Kurghinian? Andranikpasha (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of Komitas too, but I'm not sure if we can squeeze him in (we only have room for ten people in the collage, see below). -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov could be in IMO. Someone said he doesn't refer to himself as Armenian. I doubt that because I saw him (in a documentary) celebrating his birthday or something, in an Armenian restaurant. I doubt it was coincidence. The one who said he acts like "a clown in Russia lately" is opinionated, I disagree with him on that. What matters most is that he was one of the best chess players ever, if not the best. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Collage: Final decision

Folks, regarding new collage I believe those are principles that we will need to follow, put your username against the solution you vote for:

• Technical
  • Composition of collage
    • Collage made up of html table of images, where every person's image will have it's tooltip spelling his/her name - easy way to find out who is shown on the picture will just need to point the cursor of the mouse above the image. Also no chance the whole collage will be deleted just becausue it will be found out that some picture out of collage lacks licensing rights. And at last it will be much easier to add/remove or replace a person without modifying the whole collage image. (Steelmate, Eupator sounds good but not necessary, Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky)
  • Structure of collage : rows x colomns
    • 2x5 (Steelmate, Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
  • Ratio of sizing : length of columns / length of rows
    • Golden ratio ~ 1.61 or close to it ~ 1.59, which is reachable only in 2x5 structure by applying appropriate sizing. The 2x5 is also used in other collages like in Georgians but the exact sizing of images there is not optimal for the Golden ratio. (Steelmate, Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
  • Quality of picture(s)
    • Best possible (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator)
  • Format of image(s)
    • JPG
    • PNG as providing better quality then JPG (Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
    • Any of the above (Steelmate)
  • Coordination of coloring so not to overweight dark colors or bright colors (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
• Non-technical
  • Must be of Armenian ethnicity (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
  • Even and full historical coverage (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator)
  • Prominance of person as an effect he or she made on the Armenian nation (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
  • Should cover both sexes (at least one woman) (Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah)
• List of people (please fill the section with people you want to have and put your name there, the end result will be 10 people selected)
  • Names in bold with 4 or more votes

Name	Gender (M/F)	Period	Notes	Vote
Tigranes the Great	M	95 BCE–55 BCE	King of Armenia at its greatest extent	Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah, VartanM, Fedayee
St. Gregory the Illuminator	M	257–330	Founder and patron saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church	Steelmate, Andranikpasha
St. Mesrob Mashtots	M	361/362–440	Inventor of the Armenian alphabet	Aivazovsky, Crzycheetah, Steelmate, Andranikpasha, VartanM, Fedayee
St. Vartan Mamikonian	M	5th century	Armenian military hero, Christian martyr	Eupator, Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky (he covers both a historical period and a military figure plus his contribution to Armenia was more significant than Andranik's), Andranikpasha (Andranik is the National Hero of Armenia, let's not compare), VartanM, Fedayee
Moses of Chorene	M	5th century	Writer of the first history of Armenia	Andranikpasha
Queen Keran of Armenia	F	13th century	Queen of Cilician Armenia	Steelmate
Levon V Lusignan of Armenia	M	1342–1393	Last king of Cilician Armenia	Eupator (Why him and not another? Because he was the last and he fought really hard to restore the kingdom by trying to create a truce between England and France), Aivazovsky (I agree and we need somebody from Cilicia and the medieval period), VartanM, Steelmate as we really don't have anyone between 5th and 18th centuries otherwise.
Khachatur Abovyan	M	1805–1848	Armenian writer and national public figure who was way ahead of his time. Largely responsible for the spread and refinement of the modern Armenian language.	Eupator
Raffi	M	1835–1888	Famous Armenian writer and patriot	Steelmate
Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky	M	1817–1900	Famous Russian-Armenian painter	Aivazovsky (obviously :)), Eupator, Crzycheetah, Steelmate, VartanM. Fedayee
Hovhannes Tumanyan	M	1869–1923	Famous Armenian writer	Andranikpasha
General Andranik Toros Ozanian	M	1865–1927	20th century Armenian military hero	Andranikpasha, VartanM, Fedayee
Shushanik Kurghinian	F	1876–1927	Noted Armenian feminist writer
Komitas Vardapet	M	1869–1935	Founder of modern Armenian classical music	Andranikpasha
Yeghishe Charents	M	1897–1937	Armenian poet and public activist, killed in Stalin's purges
Arshile Gorky	M	1904?–1948	Armenian-American abstract expressionist painter
Garegin Njdeh	M	1886-1955	Politician, political thinker, revolutionary and fedayee. Lifelong service to the Armenian cause.	Fedayee, Eupator
Drastamat Kanayan	M	1884-1956	Politician, revolutionary and general. Lifelong service to the Armenian cause.	Fedayee, Eupator
Aram Khachaturian	M	1903–1978	World-renowned Armenian composer	Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah, VartanM, Fedayee
William Saroyan	M	1908–1981	Famous Armenian-American writer	Aivazovsky, Steelmate, Eupator, Crzycheetah, VartanM
Marshal Hovhannes Bagramyan	M	1897–1982	World War II Soviet Armenian military hero	Fedayee, Eupator
Tigran Petrosian	M	1929–1984	Former World Chess Champion	Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah, VartanM, Fedayee
Sergei Parajanov	M	1924–1990	Soviet Armenian film director	Steelmate
Silva Kaputikyan	F	1919–2006	Prominent Armenian poet, writer, academian and public activist	Andranikpasha, Fedayee
Charles Aznavour	M	1924–	World-renowned French-Armenian singer	Aivazovsky, Eupator, Crzycheetah, Steelmate, Andranikpasha, VartanM, Fedayee
Serj Tankian, System Of A Down	M	1967–	Armenian-American heavy metal and activist group	Andranikpasha
Nune Yesayan	F	1969–	Armenian pop singer
Isabel Bayrakdarian	F	1974–	World-renowned Armenian-Canadian soprano	Aivazovsky, Eupator, VartanM (although she's not too well known), Steelmate

If we are to have a 2x5 ratio, then we need to remove at least two people from the present collage. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Steelmate (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious but when is the deadline for this vote? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's give it a week, not all users expressed their opinion. Steelmate (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are so many famous Armenians to choose from. It's almost impossible to pick 10! :) It'd be cool to have Monte Melkonian up there, but in that case, I doubt our collage would survive without swarms of Turkish and Azeri users attacking it. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, looks like we have a unanimous decision regarding technical solution (2x5, html table based collage). Let's now focus on picking our 10 great Armenians. Steelmate (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have about 8 people that we have a consensus on. I think that we should seriously consider having Levon V Lusignan (someone from Cilicia and the medieval period) and Isabel Bayrakdarian (a woman and world-renowned) be our final 2. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Steelmate (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, odds are we are also going to differ on which pictures are suitable for inclusion!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be new images in PNG format but in the same size (60x95). I say we should use basically the same images for Tigranes, Mesrob, Aivazovsky, and Saroyan that we have now. For Vartan Mamikonian, maybe we could use [7]. For Levon V, I don't see any good reason why we can't use his statue.

For Khachaturian, I like this image [8] or we could go with this [9]. I always had difficulty finding a nice, quality picture of Tigran Petrosian, but I think this is the best one I've seen to date.

I found this really good picture of Aznavour, but, unfortunately, it "is for viewing purposes only" and "no reproduction or distribution rights are granted". We could always use an image from one of his CD/record covers. Any other ideas for him?

For Isabel Bayrakdarian, we could use either this or this, both look good. Any thoughts? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From the currents I like Tigranes and Ayvazovski. I'm ok with Mesrop. Think that we can get a better photo of Saroyan. The bust of Levon is perfect. Don't think Khanjyan's Vartan is suitable, I think a calmer Vartan would be better. For Aram I prefer this[10]. I'm fine with any photo of Aznavor or Isabel.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions for an alternative on Vartan? I'd like to use something different than the coin. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Think Saroyan needs to be redone, as it has improportionately big face as compared to other pix. The first Khachaturyan I like better. For Vartan - coin should be the last choice. The bust of Levon looks good to me as well. I like second photo of Isabel more (in red). Steelmate (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to use the Mamikonian coin and this image of Saroyan. Any thoughts on the new collage? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Relations

Does anyone keep an eye on what is going on in that section now? Steelmate (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me that whole section shouldn't be there. What's also strange is that the party that has added the section, the other guy who modified it and the edit warring guy are all new users.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetic investigation of Armenians is an interesting topic to include on Armenian ethnicity page, I am just afraid of POV intent of the current material. Can we prove it is POV? Steelmate (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only problem. All these studies contradict eachother.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this new hypothesis may be unique, but is new and unreliable, and not widely accepted it should talk more in general about Armenian genetic relations. --Namsos (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically what are you guys' objections to the now deleted genetic relations info? What do you mean the hypothesis of Azeris and Armenians is unreliable? The source given was a peer reviewed scientific study conducted by an Armenian an Azeri among others, it was published in a reputable journal, what more can you expect? We shouldn't be deleting this information solely because we are uncomfortable with what it entails. Also, I don't see what is contradictory about the studies, Ευπάτωρ, please explain. Almost every other ethnic group has a genetics section, so should Armenians.E10ddie (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenians in Iraq

The list of Armenians in the diaspora doesnt give any figures for Iraq which is well known to have a sizeable population, at least 20,000 in Baghdad alone, overall at least 20,000, maybe upto 60,000 (http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=ARM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.125.203 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

Great work on making quality images Aivazonsky! Here we can post our comments:

Image	Comment
Tigranes the Great	I would suggest making head smaller, to be more like all other images, and also his nose touches right border, doesn't look too good. Steelmate (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, but visually his nose still touches the border, also try making the image 5% smaller. Steelmate (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) How's that? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Better. Steelmate (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
	Same suggestion as for Tigranes The Graet, to make it smaller, so we have a consistent sizing and not cut out back of his head. Steelmate (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Good job on the back of his head, the front part touches the border, please make sure there is around 4 pixels left around face to be visually non clinging to the any border. Steelmate (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) How's that? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Better, but I think I would make his head more centered on the picture, right now he is more on the left side, the head by eye is a round object, feathers are not recognized as head by the eye. Also it would give extra space for his gaze distance. Don't think any more reducing in size is required. Steelmate (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
	Looks good to me. Steelmate (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
	Looks good to me. Steelmate (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Aram Khachaturian
William Saroyan
	The only comment I have is the top of his head is cut out, if posible to move image downj, and maybe making it a little (10-15%) smaller? Steelmate (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately, I can't move the image down, because that's how the original looks [11]. We can always get another image of Aznavour but this one isn't bad. I wanted to get a picture of him when he was younger and that's how I came upon this. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I see... Could you at least make it smaller like 10-20%, it looks funny his big head and nothing around ;) Also ,generally ,I would recommend making sure there is a space around faces, no clinging to the borders, and space should be somewhere 4px to be visually percieved. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) This isn't going to work. We probably need a new image. Any ideas? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC) What about this?: [12] or [13] -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC) The one where he is with microphone is more symbolic but I am not sure which one will look better in a collage. Steelmate (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I decided to use the second image, because it was larger and easier to work with, plus Eup liked it. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Isabel Bayrakdarian

Steelmate (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamshenis

Shouldn't we add the number of Hamshenis to the Armenian population of Turkey? This would bring the total number to something like 470,000. Moreover, I feel that there is a precedent for this, as the Georgians add those georgians in Iran and Turkey, who have been in those countries for centuries and no longer speak Georgian. E10ddie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Since I haven't heard any opposition, I went ahead and factored into account the number of Hamshens into Turkey's Armenian population. The sourse only gave a total population of Hamshen at 230,000, and so I added the commonly respected number of 70,000 professed Armenians to this. So in actuality, the 300,000 number come from both my new sourse and the traditional sources. Moreover, I feel it is necessary to include Hamshens regardless of how they view themselves, due to the precedent set in the wikipedia pages of other ethnic groups. See Germans, which includes Austrians, who, by no means, consider themselves German, though they are ethnically identical.E10ddie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not agreed that there are 70,000 Armenians in Turkey, the concensus is anywhere from 40,000 to 70,000.--Moosh88 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but wouldn't the upper limit of the acceptable Armenian population in Turkey still be 300,000=70,000+230,000?E10ddie (talk)

Armenian Population

The latest CIA Factbook states that Armenia's estimated population is 2.9 million. I think the vast majority of sources have the pop under 3 million and I think we should change the 3.2 million figure accordingly. If I don't see any objections, I'll change it in a few days. E10ddie (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well 2.9m are for older sources, now its mostly over 3m+. --Namsos (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most numbers of Armenian in the world should be fixed .. for example in Jordan it does not exceed 4,000.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joudig (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, let's concentrate to make this article featured!

What are the issues here that prevent it to be featured? Please list them here! Steelmate (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Israeli British article). Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

US Armenians

I added a new source that states there are 1 million and half armenians in the US, stating made officially by Barack Obama. Also to mention that the Armeniandiaspora.com source claims 1,400,000 Armenians living in the US. Greetings, --Vitilsky (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jordan

There are not 70,000 Armenians in Jordan. I don't think there are even 7,000. The given source is incorrect. TA-ME (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox madness

The infobox "lots of little flag icons" clutter is generally difficult to contain, but this was a particularly bad case. The infobox listed 41(!) "significant" populations. I argue there is no way populations smaller than 1% of the total can be considered "significant". And this is stretching the term "significant" -- it would be more sensible to put it at 5%, which would give us a clean list of four populations (Armenia, Russia, US, France) in the infobox, which would actually be a meaningful summary of where Armenians tend to live. Yes, these days people from any nation tend to be found in infinitesimal numbers in each and every country worldwide, this is perfectly unremarkable and hardly a reason to take up significant screen space filled with a colorful presentation of the world's flags at the top of an article. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Apostolic Church

The Armenian Apostolic Church is not "Monophysite". The primary system Christology it adheres to (along with the Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Indian churches) is rather Miaphysitism. And while it is certainly correct to refer to the AAC as "Miaphysite", this system of Christology is also shared with other church bodies, and thus winds up being non-distinguishing. It would be better to refer to the AAC as "Oriental Orthodox" or "Non-Chalcedonian". Deusveritasest (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, while the term "Miaphysite" actually describes the Christology of the Armenian Apostolic Church, unlike "Monophysite", Miaphysitism is ultimately shared by all other churches except for the Assyrian Church of the East (on the basis of the Council of Ephesus or the Second Council of Constantinople) and thus winds up being inappropriately non-descriptive and non-distinguishing. I once again recommend "Non-Chalcedonian" as actually describing the Oriental Orthodox Churches as distinct from the Chalcedonian Churches. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Worldwide Population

There seems to be an ongoing battle between the total population of Armenians Worldwide. It is currently stating 8 Million, however according to the Source, it is 10 Million. I personally think it should be changed to 10 Million, as it appears to be the most accurate estimate. Opinions Please! Oh, and another thing, the Largest population figures should be changed to the 10 or so Largest Disapora Communties, instead of places like Czech Republic where only 10,000 or so Armenians live (I actually doubt there are even 10,000 in the Czech Republic! (Shakarian141 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Armenian Popultion per country

In the Armenian diaspora article the section about the population breakdown per country is just being reviewed mainly being updated with reliable and current sources corresponding Talk page section. As there are also numbers given here, I invite anyone working on this article to watch and support this process.
Greets from Munich, 88.65.43.247 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

The debate over the status of the Armenian Genocide should probably occur on talk rather than in an edit war. How is it POV to say that the AG is not proven and is rather an opinionated theory? Isn't this simply the truth? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED 10 MILLION ARMENIANS, NOT 8 MILLIONS

The idiots who keep changing the info stating that there are only 8 Million Armenians worldwide are wrong, as according to all sources available there are an estimated 10 million Armenians. Please can we discuss this properly. 82.12.123.187 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenians by country in Infobox

The edit warring between anons has to stop, and IP user 82.12.123.187 has to change his/her style and language (see WP:CIVIL). I have changed the number for Russia to comply with the cited source (which has been there for ages: only the population number in the Infobox was arbitrarily changed from 1.1 to 2 million by anon on 18 February 2009). I have also provided an up-to-date reference for the figure of "about" 1 million Armenians in U.S. and Canada and reconfigured the corresponding footnote. It now remains to go over the numbers for all the countries after U.S., starting with Iran, and check them carefully against the cited sources. It may be necessary to add some countries and delete others as marginal, but every number should be supported by a reliable source. Please respect my sourced research and move on to checking new information. --Zlerman (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputes Resolved?

It appears the disputes between the number of Armenians has been resolved. Again, these are only estimates, so they vary greatly from 7-12 Million, but the current information is sourced accurately. --Shakarian141 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "de jure"

It's not significant that we mention "de jure" every place where "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" is mentioned. People interested in details can click on the link and they can see that. It is plain ridiculous to add it everywhere, especially in an already cluttered table! (I'm referring to the population table.) Serouj (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh's current status is perhaps the most significant characteristic of its existence, and its direct relation to the Armenian people makes it necessary for the comment to be provided. A similar situation is observed in the article about Ossetians. Parishan (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenian population in AZ outside of NKR

Astourian's paper on the global Armenian population is one of the only academic analysis of this topic. The cited paper on 30,000 Armenians in AZ outside of NKR is plain false. Even the article says, "The Armenians in Azerbaijan are largely concentrated in the break-away region of Nagorno-Karabakh, but there are some smaller Armenian communities scattered throughout Azerbaijan." There are practically no Armenians remaining in AZ who overtly identify as Armenian. What regards those who have Armenian ancestry but don't express it, that is effectively non-Armenian (needless to say difficult to count!). Serouj (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Before talking about Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, the article states: "While some Armenians remain in Azerbaijan (approximately 30,000), they are not represented in these codes." This is enough data for the figure to be included. You have to understand that you cannot express your disagreement with a neutral source and remove it from the article just because your gut feeling tells you that it "is plain false." Whether those people identify themselves overty as Armenian or not is a sociological issue, not a demographic one.

As for the source being 'outdated' (1998), the latest published population figures by ethnicity in Azerbaijan are those from the 1999 census, therefore it is not outdated in the Azerbaijani context. Parishan (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)