Talk:Armenian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Armenian American)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Armenian Americans has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 3, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
June 4, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Armenia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Armenian Americans is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I propose this page be moved to "Armenians in the United States" to go in line with other Diaspora pages like Armenians in Canada, Armenians in Lebanon etc. I will go ahead with the move if there is no opposition. - Fedayee 05:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A separate article should go for that since, this is more of ancestry or ethnic related for example, Chinese American unless we can rename this. Nareklm 05:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see what you mean but wouldn't it come to the same thing? They are both Armenians living in the United States and like other articles don't have "Canadian-Armenian" etc, it just redirects to Armenians in Canada... - Fedayee 05:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"historically proven existence" of "armenian genocide"?[edit]

I suggest to change the word "proven" to "debated" or "disputed", because nothing has been proven about the Armenian Genocide. In fact both Armenian diaspora and Armenian government are avoiding a scientific research by a Turkish-Armenian joint committee to prove or disaprove the so-called genocide.

I'll——respectfully———disagree with the suggestions and aspersions cast upon the Armenians' claims regarding the genocide. However, the phrase is unnecessary and cumbersome here. We do not speak of (or need to speak of) the "historically proven existence of the Boston Tea Party" or "the historically proven existence of Atatürk," for example. Use of the phrase is both a red flag, and, I suggest, a suggestion of weakness on the part of those using the phrase, where no such weakness exists, nor should any such weakness be hinted at. Xenophon777 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the removal of the first part, that has nothing to do with Amenian-Americans, but the second part was sourced and related to to subject. VartanM (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion[edit]

No notice was placed here that this image has been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Other images used on this page may also have been nominated -- please check them all by clicking on them to see if there is a deletion notification on the image page. If there is, use the link that takes you to "this image's entry" to comment on the nomination for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

US Armenians[edit]

I added a new source that states there are 1 million and half armenians in the US, stating made officially by Barack Obama. Also that the source claims 1,400,000 Armenians living in the US. Greetings, --Vitilsky (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenians live in every state beyond the 10 largest concentrations mentioned in the wikipedia article. True the Fresno area has a fairly large community, but so does Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. Armenian immigrants arrived in the Southwest desert to assist in establishment of year-round agriculture, as some came from warm climates of the eastern Mediterranean and deserts of Syria. (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Often the article was altered, deleted and restored in the past, here's a list of known sizable Armenian communities in the US. No doubt Armenian-Americans formed a huge community in Southern California around Los Angeles, but the list includes nearby counties and metro areas where concentrations of Armenian-Americans reside in. (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


I don't know anything about this topic, but I find it curious that, according to this article, "in the early 1990s, many Armenians arrived in the U.S. as refugees of the Armenian-Azeri War", which war, according to its own article, took place seven decades prior. Mike R (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They came after the earthquake (Nov. 1988). California had an Armenian governor (George Deukmejian) and they poured in as refugees, got government assistance, etc. (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenians are one of the well-known ethnic communities in Southern California, mainly the Greater Los Angeles area. I happen to know Palm Springs is a desert resort community with Armenians whom arrived as farm labor, but many are retirees whom worked their whole lives in businesses came to the Palm Springs area. Armenian-American influence in the state of California is a testament of the Armenian diaspora. + (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Genocide Protest.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Genocide Protest.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


I deleted the section about the hypnotherapist. It was just an effort to promote her book and I don't think she has any notoriety to have her picture next to the governor of california, andrei agassi, etc. I could not even find any information to suggest her organization was significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMadisonIV (talkcontribs) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Armenian americans.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Armenian americans.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


Would Armenians be considered Caucasian people? I have heard most opinions noting they are, but someone said on Huffington Post that quite a few are mixed and would therefore be Middle Eastern. (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

By saying 'Caucasian" what do you exactly mean? The American term for the white race or people from the Caucasus, the geographical region where Armenia is located? --Երևանցի talk 19:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
White. Are they supposed to be white people? I always thought they were but I'm not sure. (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines Armenians, along with Arabs, Chaldeans/Assyrians, Iranians, and North Africans as being "White". WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian American/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close readthrough in the coming days, noting any issues here that I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This looks broad in coverage and contains a lot of useful information. It's clear that a lot of hard work went into this one. I do have some initial concerns about prose quality which I'll discuss in detail below.

  • "Armenians in the United States form the second largest Armenian community of the Armenian diaspora after Russia" -- this fact needs a source
Yes check.svg Done
  • "Because many find these numbers underestimated," -- Two problems here.
    • First, this is phrased in a somewhat POV way to make the census data sound inaccurate (is there any source for the "many" here? has a similar count been made of the sources that agree with the census or accept its figures?), and also relies on some weak sources along with stronger ones. Sources include an essay on a congressman's website, a speech by another congressman, Armenian National Committee of America... I think a better way to put this would be to simply say that estimates vary: the US Census gives one number, source B gives another number, The Los Angeles Times gives another number, etc.
Yes check.svg Done
    • Second, as an important fact of the article, this should be discussed in detail in the body of the article, and only summarized in the lead, per WP:LEAD.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Proofreading appears to be a problem in this article. Looking only at one paragraph of the lead, I see several minor errors:
X mark.svg Not done yet
    • "First major wave of the Armenian immigration " -- should be "The first major wave..."
Yes check.svg Done
    • "where hundreds of thousands Armenians Genocide survivors have settled earlier" -- should be "of Armenian Genocide" and "had settled"
Yes check.svg Done
    • "appeared in the country" -- in what country?
Yes check.svg Done fixed
    • " Energetic crisis soon took over Armenia and many Armenians found their new homes in America." -- I understand the sense of this, but the phrasing is nonstandard, and should be rewritten as something like "Many Armenians escaped the crisis by moving to the U.S."
Yes check.svg Done fixed

To summarize the two biggest issues I see for now:

  • First, the article needs to a top-to-bottom copyedit to bring it up to Good Article requirements for grammatical correctness (GA criterion 1a). I don't mind doing some copyediting myself (and in fact have already done some), but I'm concerned that this article needs more than I should personally do as a GA reviewer. This diff shows the sort of copyediting I mean: plurals, verb tense, etc. . If you're not comfortable doing this copyediting yourself, you might recruit another editor or put in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors.
Yes check.svg Done
  • The lead needs to be reworked to meet the guidelines of WP:LEAD (GA criterion 1b). The lead should briefly summarize all major aspects of the article--language, politics, the Armenian lobby, religion, politicians, etc. It also should not contain major information that's not elsewhere in the article (such as the census data and authors who disagree with it).

I'll put this on hold for a week to give you a chance to address these issues. I do think there's enough quality material here for a Good Article--it's just a question of reworking it to meet the above criteria. Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spending your time to review. --Երևանցի talk 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. Keep me updated, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing readthrough[edit]

For convenience, I'm inserting an arbitrary break here.

  • "From 1653 to 1654" -- this is a slightly confusing way to put this. Does it mean that inviting these men was a two-year process? Or simply that they were invited in 1653 or 1654?
Yes check.svg Done
  • "For Italians, this practice became known as campanilismo and almost disappeared after World War II" -- is this sentence needed? It seems like a tangent to document the Italian practice here, instead of saying what happened with Armenians.
Yes check.svg Done it disappeared for both Armenians and Italians
  • "and more easily handled multilingualism and Armenian culture, while retaining aspects of traditional Armenian culture" -- what does it mean that they more easily handled Armenian culture, while retaining Armenian culture? Seems a bit redundant.
Yes check.svg Done
  • "Acculturation to Soviet norms was not easy for many Armenian repatriates, and the aspiration of leaving the USSR began to grow among repatriates and their children. " -- suddenly we jump backwards in time and place here; the paragraph above already discussed that repatriated Armenians hadn't acculturated well to Soviet norms, and wished to emigrate.
  • "On average 2,000 people from Armenia migrated to the US since 1994" -- should this be per year? Or have there only been 2000 total emigrants?
Yes check.svg Done
  • "claim"--most or all uses of this should be removed per WP:WTA.
  • " Joe Baca (D, CA-43)" -- including his estimate seems really trivial to me here, given the number of secondary sources that give the same number; you might cut him from the list. Not a GA point, though.
Yes check.svg Done
  • "Fresno and the Central Valley in general were the center of California Armenians" -- It would be better to say something like "the center of the California Armenian community" here; these places weren't the center of California Armenians themselves.
Yes check.svg Done
  • "but by the time Southern California attracted more and more Armenians" -- by what time?
Yes check.svg Done
  • "the most important Armenian community in the US" -- is it important in any sense besides being the most populous? It would be good to include a source for this judgement.
Yes check.svg Done
  • "250,000,[76] 350,000,[75] 400,000,[60] 450,000,[77] 500,000,[5] 800,000,[77] and even 1,000,000" -- Various problems here. First, this seems to include three sources that I'm not sure qualify as reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. Are these publications known for their fact-checking and reliability? At first glance, they look shady.
Yes check.svg Done
    • Where is the quotation in this article [4] that supports the 250,000 figure?
Yes check.svg Done
    • The 800,000 figure does not appear to be supported by the given source, which states "as primate of his church's Western Diocese, encompassing 14 states, he leads a flock of 800,000" -- 14 states is obviously very different than "Southern California".
Yes check.svg Done
  • "The official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US federal government is seen one of the most vital steps in international and full recognition of the 1915–1923 events. Many Armenians think that the US has the ability to force Turkey to recognize the past and pay Armenians and Armenia their reparations, that includes (for some) the return of the so-called Wilsonian Armenia to the Republic of Armenia." -- needs sourcing
  • The clarification needed tag should be addressed.
Yes check.svg Done

Closing review[edit]

Though I think this article is improving, I'm continuing to find a serious number of grammatical and spelling issues in the prose: sentence fragments; misused colons and semicolons; problems with plurals; and wrong, misused, or missing words. This diff shows examples of the kind of issues I'm finding,[5] and some issues I wasn't able to fix myself are list above. There are also some smaller issues with sourcing and with WP:WTA.

Since the issues seem extensive, I'm closing this review for now with the recommendation that this be resubmitted once it's had a thorough copyedit from someone at the Guild of Copyeditors or another source. (The reliable source issues need to be addressed, too, but seem much more manageable.) I made it about a third of the way through the article, which will hopefully reduce the workload for the next editor to tackle this. This article's clearly on its way to becoming a Good Article, even if it's not quite there yet. Thanks for all your work on it, and good luck with the next round, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


The source is available here. The quote stating that the Armenian immigration was a result of instability in those countries:

--Երևանցի talk 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian American/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review on this article. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion[edit]

This one has been a bit slower going than usual for me. It has an immense amount of work and good material, very well sourced. My first gut feel is to wodner / ask whether there could be a bit more coverage on cultural / cultural traditions. I really didn't notice such but will need to read it a couple more times to be sure. Also I was thinking that the wording could use a bit of wikifying in a few places, but I'd be happy to help there. In any case, neither is serious enough to non-pass GA, but they may be good to discuss. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to do some research on traditions to better my knowledge on the topic. While working on this article last November, I considered adding a section on Armenian American dance groups, but for some reason I didn't. Maybe I should also write a paragraph on cuisine? --Երևանցի talk 23:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that anything culturally related (cuisine, dance, traditions, music, social structure) would shore up an area that I think is light in coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Under "Northeast" the last phrase of the sentence seems to be missing something: "In the early period, New York and Boston were the largest centers of Armenian Americans, but by the time Los Angeles took that title." Could you check that? North8000 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the sentence. --Երևանցի talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Under "Early History" the following sentence seems to be missing something and thus not really saying anything , not saying anything: "In 1854, the existence about 20 Armenians was documented by American demographers, and by the 1870s, the number reached 70" I'm guessing that it meant to say those numbers of Armenian Americans, but I was afraid to change it as I could not confirm with the sources because it is off-line. Could you check that? North8000 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
fixed--Երևանցի talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I gotta admit, one area where I'm tougher than others is in empathy for the reader. Without doing a lot of research, I couldn't tell what the following sentence was saying: "Emigrants from the Russian Empire were underrepresented in emigration from Armenian lands across the Atlantic (about 2,500 came in 1898–1914), because persecution of Armenians was more intense in Western (Ottoman) Armenia." My first guess was that you are saying that the Russian Empire area was underrepresented because it was a non-persecuted area. I see 1 1/2 issues with this. First you didn't say/explain it. The second "1/2" is that just mentioning a particularly well-represented area is generally not considered an explanation for an underrepresented area. Could you clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed! Before the Armenian Genocide of 1915, most Armenians lived in the Ottoman and Russian empires. What that sentence meant is that more Armenian came to the US from the Ottoman Empire than Russia, because Armenian were, relatively, more safe inside the Russian borders than in Turkey. Also, just so you know, the article was copy edited by User:Khazar2 and User:Shrigley during my first GA nomination. Apparently, this wording belongs to one of them, because I had hard time figuring it out too. --Երևանցի talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Under "Second wave..." could you clarify whether the following sentence is referring to in Lebanon, Iran or the USA? "These communities were well established and integrated, but not assimilated into local populations." North8000 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Երևանցի talk 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The statement: "rate of Armenians committing crimes in Glendale in 2000 was about twice as low as the total number of Armenians in the city, at 17% and 27% respectively." really doesn't say what is being compared. (what is 17% of what, what is 27% of what) Also, once it is clarified, make sure that it is a valid/useful comparison reathen than an "apples and oranges" one. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, so 27 is the percentage of Armenians in the city of Glendale. 17% is the portion of crimes in the same city done by Armenians.
Maybe this version will make more sense. "Armenians compose 27% of Glendale's population, but only 17% of the crime in the city were perpetrated by Armenians" --Երևանցի talk 03:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That clarifies it. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent to my "first impression" comments, I now believe that it covers a bit more in those areas than my first impression. To the point where I think that while those additions would certainly fill a "weak spot" they are not necessary to pass GA. There is one other thing that I noticed in several places (in a minor way) that could use a little work, but not necessary to pass GA. I'm noto sure whetehr it is a matter of language fluency or careful extraction from the source, but it seems to make a lot of statements in a brief categorical way where such makes them a bit of a reach. On the ones where I noticed this, the sources were off line so I couldn't readily go there. But again, these are too minor to affect GA passage. So, after fixing that one specific open item,, I could pass this as a GA, or else, if you prefer, could bring up / work with you on those other areas after which it would pass a "tougher level" of GA review. Thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have the last say. --Երևանցի talk 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll go with the former, and just add suggestions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist[edit]


  • Meets this criteria. It could use more "smoothing" in the presentation of the large amount of factual material presented, but that is just a suggestion for future development. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

  • Meets this criteria. Could use a little more in the cultural area, but this is more a mater for future growth. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Meets this criteria. Has approximately 30 images (15 are in one collage) All are free so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Congratulations. This passes as a Wikipedia good article. I have left a few suggestion is the review checklist. What a large amount of excellent work! North8000 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer.

Congratulations. This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(this is "repeated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations! This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article! What a large amount of excellent work! North8000 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Thank you very much! I'll fix the minor problems present in the article soon. --Երևանցի talk 03:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Collage in template[edit]

I reverted your edit in American Armenian tempale, because Kim was one of the most famous persons and the fact what her figure is some controversial, she is still very very popular and famous, much more poplural than everyone in that list.

It also seems that this collage form is not preferable as you said, because you changing it as you want, by your own preferences. Maybe youre not Kardhashians fan, but we cant ingnor fact that she is most popular armenian name outside. --Δαβίδ (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Justin Bieber is also popular, so what? And why would I be a "Kardhashians fan"? Do I really look like a teenage girl who watches reality shows? --Երևանցի talk 18:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not Bieber's fan, but if Justin Bieber would have been Armenian I will incude him in that list.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
My point is that popularity is not something that makes people notable. I don't think there is anyone in this world who has never heard of Psy. And how come I don't see him in the Koreans collage? Just because Kim Kardashian is famous for her reality show doesn't make her notable. For comparison, Kim Kashkashian won the Grammy award for for Best Classical Instrumental Solo. That is what I call notable. And if you wanted to readd Kim Kardashian to the collage why did you revert it? Couldn't you replace her with Kim Kashkashian? How about Monte Melkonian? Oh, my mistake. He's not even popular. --Երևանցի talk 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, because current form of colleage can be changed only by reverting. I dont want to compare Kim with anybody in that list, I've only added her due to her popularity and fame.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not really. It is always possible to upload your own version. And you don't think that a classical Grammy-winning violist is more notable (i.e. "unusual and worth noticing", "very successful or respected") than a reality show star? And really? What makes her so popular? The reality show? The sex tape? The 70-day marriage? Or what? What makes her more "unusual and worth noticing", "very successful or respected" than anybody in the list? --Երևանցի talk 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yerevanci, all that (show, tape an so on) makes her very very popular. You can add Kim Kashkashian in this list too, I dont want to compare them.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It is Yerevantsi now. And you still didn't answer to my question. What makes her "unusual and worth noticing" and "very successful or respected"? If you insist her to be in the collage you need to give at least a somewhat of a reasonable argument. I can explain why I included those people in the collage. And if any of my arguments is not reasonable to you we can discuss it. --Երևանցի talk 19:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Only fame and popularity.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
And you call that a reasonable argument? --Երևանցի talk 19:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course, because there is no any certain criterias for inclusion in that list besides your own.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Read my comments over. Maybe, just maybe you will find my arguments. All I have heard from you is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Երևանցի talk 19:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No....its you just don't like Kardashian....
What arguments Yerevantsi? You want to include Kashkashian here, OK, but why remove Kardashian?--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me repeat my arguments.
1) Popularity and fame is not a reason (e.g. Psy-Koreans, Hitler-Germans/Austrians, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Al Capone, Nicolas Cage, John Travolta-Italian Americans, Justin Bieber-Canadians, etc.)
2) A reality show star is not "unusual and worth noticing" and "very successful or respected"
3) You reverted the last version of the collage because I don't "like" Kim Kardashian and thus removing people like Monte Melkonian and James Bagian claiming the "colleage can be changed only by reverting". --Երևանցի talk 19:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yerevantsi, there is no such criteria in wp, that the persons who included in that list must be respected or unusual. It's only your opinion. If you think that John Travolta must be in italian-Americans list you can discuss it at talk page, it is not valid argument.
And how can I change only one person in that list without reverting? If that infobox form would be similar to Italian American infobox form, I will change only one person. Image array template usage is more preferable than collage. We can replace Tankyan, because he isn't American Armneian, he works in USA, but he is from Lebanon or R.Hovhannisyan (called "U.S. agent", "agent", "false opposition", is not controversial person you think?). Or we can simply enlarge this list.
Besides, the source that you mentioned, is also good argumnet for her inclusion.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I find your editing highly disruptive. All your edits on Wikipedia are either reverts or talk page discussions where you are pushing your personal POV. Why don't you actually contribute to Wikipedia articles?
My examples are there to prove that popularity is not something that makes people notable or guarantees them a place in the infobox collage.
Is it that hard? You can use Paint to replace one image of the collage with another.
Tankian is an American citizen. So what he was born in Lebanon?
Hmm. Who calls Raffi Hovannisian a "U.S. agent", "agent", "false opposition"? I'd like to see sources. Before becoming a opposition political he was Armenia's first foreign minister. --Երևանցի talk 18:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
OK Yerevantsi, in my last edit I'm not remove any of your,e added persons. So that is your problem? Now youre oppose to enlarge this list? Yes I think that Image arrow template is more preferible, because collage can be changed only in Wiki Coomons without discussion, and that is real problem for other wikis. Or you want this collage changed only by yourself? --Δαβίδ (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Do I really need to point out the bad sides of the image arrow template? OK. 1) Images are not all of the same ratio. These creates unnecessary white space in the infobox. 2) Some images have more than one person in them (e.g. Alex Manoogian). 3) Several images show more than needed (e.g. most of George Deukmejian's body, and Andre Agassi's entire body).
Alright. Here's my proposal. If you truly think that Kim Kardashian should be in the infobox collage then let's have a poll/survey here in the talk page. Us two will make brief comments why she should be or should not be included. Let's have a one-week or a two-week period on voting. No canvassing allowed. If there's a consensus (simple majority = 50%+) that Kim Kardashian should be in the infobox collage then I will include her in the collage. Deal? --Երևանցի talk 02:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
But this collage version is uneditable for other users. Besides, I think that good quality of foto is also can be one of criterias for inclusion.
But why Yerevantsi why should vote if Polling is not a substitute for discussion? And of course, Wikipedia is not democracy.
Kim Kardashian is one of the most famous Armenians outside, she has 15 million likes on Facebook, 18 mln followers on Twitter, one of the most viewed show star, publications on most famous magazines, tabloids, newspapers makes her most famous. Why and how he became such a popular and famous is not our problem. There is no any problem for her inclusion, besides your preferences.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No, there is. Kim Kardashyan is not a notable person. Wiki is an enclyclopedia, and not a magazine or blog. If this would be a facebook page about famous Armenians, one could mention her, but here it's not just famous Armenians who are mentioned, but notable ones, the persons who characterize the Armenian people, their culture and their contribution to the world civilization. Having millions of 'likes' on facebook does not make someone worthful for anything. Хаченци (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Δαβίδ: Hmm. Uneditable? Who said it should be editable? You are free to make a new collage. This discussion can last forever. And the only way I see reaching a consensus is a poll. If you don't see polling a good option then I don't know what to say.

Again, being famous doesn't not make one a notable and guarantee them a place in the infobox collage. So what she has likes on Facebook and followers on Twitter? I can give you examples of fake accounts on Twitter that have millions of followers. Should we make articles on them? Popularity in the 21st century means nothing. I can do something crazy, record it, upload it to YouTube and become famous. Do I become a notable? No. And thank you Хаченци. Exactly what I wanted to say. --Երևանցի talk 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to take the time to figure this a case of needing to bump other people to put her in, or just of the addition? North8000 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I know is that Δαβίδ wants to include her in the collage. He says we can expand the list, but that's a different issue. I think we should first discuss how suitable Kim Kardashian is and then decide what changed we should make or not make any changes at all. --Երևանցի talk 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Хаченци but its just your opinion, there is no such critarias in WP, that the peoples who included in that list must represent culture and so on. Is there such criterias? No. If there is article in Wiki about person, it already means that he is enciclpedicly notable. Thats all that we need.
Yerevantsi, and how many Armenians do you know who has such a big army of followers or fans? Polls can only find out just how many users "like" and how many users "don't like" Kardashian.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I asked was to see if the specific proposed or tried change involved bumping somebody else off the collage. If it did not involve bumping someone else, them my opinion would be to include her. She is VERY famous, even if for dumb and superficial reasons and IMHO "very famous" is a good criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And why do you think, that being VERY famous means she is notable? Хаченци (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Хаченци, being such a famous is enough to be in this list. i think we must put there widely known peoples, not only notable. Notability is not the only criteria. She is Famous for being famous.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If we include people for their fame, their should be only stars and sporters in the list. Is Arshil Gorky famous among non-Armenians? Or William Saroyan? If Famous for being famous is enough, not only Kardashyan, the enitre list must be changed. I oppose it. Хаченци (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Хаченци, and how many armenian stars do you know who has such popularity or fame? There must not be only notable writers, or only celebrities. That is not contradict to each other. --Δαβίδ (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Хаченци, my comment was based on my own opinion. I tend to go by a combination of the way you think plus giving some weight to simple famousness. So if I had to pick between a "famous for being famous" bimbo and a high quality author, if the bimbo was only 10 times more famous than the author, I'd put in the author. If the bimbo were 100 times more famous than the author, I'd put in the bimbo. That's just me, but I think that it acknowledges that some weight / consideration / allowance must be given to objective famousness without going by just that one criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's my "algorithm" as well. The coefficient of fame should be combined with the coefficient of significance (measured by contribution to the Armenian and/or World culture, e.g. sciene, art, literature, music etc.). Now, the second coefficient for Kim is absolute zero (IMHO), so I think her popularity does not compensate such a lack of significance criteria. Хаченци (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Хаченци, there is more than enough sources which proved the fact of her great popularity and fame. There is also sources which proved that her Armenian origin is also widely known to Armenian and to American public. Thats enoght to be in this list.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Kardashian is a on of the most famous stars, who is proud of her Armenian roots ([6])--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. It is clear that we have worldview differences. Δαβίδ and North8000 say Kim Kardashian is very famous, therefore she should be included in the collage. Хаченци and I think that popularity is not a good criteria and as Хаченци pointed out Famous for being famous is not enough for her inclusion. --Երևանցի talk 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I would call it articleview differences, not worldview differences. My worldview is that people, media, and sources give her too much attention. My article view is that it needs to follow that, not people with my worldview. Either way, it's just my opinion in case it is useful. I just had the article watched because I did the GA review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand and respect your opinion. I think we need to find a way of getting more people engaged in this discussion. I wish Wiki had some kind of an instrument for resolving this kind of disputes. Polling is the only possible solution I see. We could set a time limit (a week, two weeks or even a month) and during that period everyone interested could vote. Δαβίδ claims Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Երևանցի talk 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Երևանցի, during the similar discussion about Armenians collage you have added one candidate then the other users opposed to that, but you said that they have no any antiarguments for that. So, the same is here. I gave you enough arguments which are proved the fact of her popularity, fame and more. And I think that you and user Хаченци, didn't bring any real antiarguments, only personal opinion about thatperson.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • And of course beside fame and popularity, she has countribution in televison, reality-show industry. She received awards for that (Teen Choice, People's Choice). And being best reality show star is also good argumnet. --Δαβίδ (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I want to nominate her for Armenians collage too, but I need to translate my arguments to English.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, you see, we can't bring antiarguments because we don't think what you say is an argument. Just being famous is not a good criteria for collage pic. Having the title of "the best ass of Hollywood" could be one of other your "arguments" like "reality-show star", but we simply don't think its an argument at all. Хаченци (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Realy? Maybe you just dont want to read them, and that the problem. I have bring many other arguments besides "most famous Armenian name" here and at too, but that can I do if you just dont want to read that, ignoring that, or simply rejecting my all arguments. But rejecting of all arguments is not argument itself. --Δαβίδ (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering the question above, the most common way to get broader input is via a wp:RFC. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do an RFC, I can help. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
User:North8000, Kardahsian has been in that collage before he was removed without certain reasons.--Δαβίδ (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want from me. My opinion is whether she is in our out is a matter of opinion, not policy. (although you might argue that the version in just before this dustup was the last stable version which does carry some weight). And I expressed that my opinion would be to include her. And I offered to orchestrate an RFC if y'all wish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, maybe RFC is right decision.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The question in the RFC should be clear, neutrally worded, and deal with the debate at hand. Does anybody have any issues with a question worded as follows: "Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox?" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, there is the question of whether it should be posted anywhere (besides the posts that the bot generates). As a starting point, I'd suggest (only) the Armenia project page. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is good enough, although I think it would be a good idea asking whether popularity should be given more weight than talent and actual worth and notability in the decision making process. --Երևանցի talk 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
My own opinion is that that additional question has a few problems (clarity.....what does "give more weight" mean operatively, neutrality of wording, and exactly how the finding would be used for questions at hand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Երևանցի, I've asked you correct question about this issue, but you have ignored that. How many armenians dou you know who are such a famous and popular as Kardashian? If you can call some other names, then we can discuss question you mentioned - who must be in this list, widely known celebrities or nearly unkown notables. But now we dont have celebrities, we have only one celebrity, and she is Kardahsian. --Δαβίδ (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read my comments over. I'm not here to repeat myself. Being famous doesn't mean anything. In the 21st century, anybody can be famous. --Երևանցի talk 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox?[edit]

There is a rough consensus to include Kim Kardashian in the collage image of the infobox. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox? North8000 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is accepted / taken as a given by the parties in the discussion that she is Armenian, and that the addition would be an expansion rather than removing another image to put her's in. I posted a notice at the Project:Armenia talk page North8000 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


  • Suggest including I waited 6 days before weighing in hoping others would respond first. I tend to weigh "doing significant useful things" more than "degree of famous-ness" but she is so immensely famous that even with that weighting, it would still come out with recommending to include her picture in the collage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest including,--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Against including When thinking on including or not a person I take into account two coeffients - popularity and notabilty. The second one is zero for Kim, since she has no contribution to world/Armenian culture, hasn't done anything valueable for humanity, civilization, Armenian people, etc. Hence, she cannot be included. --Хаченци (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that you and I think similarly except that you multiply those two numbers (0 x 100 = 0) and I add them (plus I weight usefulness of contributions by 5.) So my "equation" for her is (0 x 5) + 100 = 100. For me typical person now in the collage might be (10 x 5) + 20 = 70. But that's just me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • include Unfortunately, she is one of the most well-known Armenian Americans. Celebrity does not equal impact, but in today's world, celebrity still counts for something. I wouldn't put her as the only image, but within a collage I think it's fair.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - I see no harm in it as part of a collage, per above. A famous person in the category adds to an article about said category. GRUcrule (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Against inclusion I thought only non-involved users were to vote here. I'll just summarize my rationale. Popularity in the 21st century isn't something to be proud of, In my opinion. Kim Kardashian is simply a useless, trashy (I apologize for using this kind of words) and untalented "celebrity" who has no place in an [online] encyclopedia about Armenian American people. All she is known for is the sex tape, the 70-day wedding and her idiotic show. If you guys consider her a "notable", then why don't we include people like Lil Wayne in the African American infobox? He is also very famous and he even "passed Elvis Presley as the male with the most entries on the Billboard Hot 100 chart with 109 songs". --Երևանցի talk 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
All are welcome to weigh in. And it's not just a vote.....persons should express their arguments as you did. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest As stated above, the image should be included but it shouldn't be the only image on the page. With a variety of different images in a collage, there will be a broader visual perspective on Armenian Americans, rather than just simply Kim Kardashian. Meatsgains (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on the text I read this one post as "suggest inclusion". If anybody feels otherwise, please say so soon and we can go ask the poster. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't include. I don't really care very much about this, but I guess I'm on the elitist side, which demands some kind of notability beyond simple notoriety. If she had worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the Armenian genocide, for example, then I could see including her. I associate Bono with Ireland, Irish issues, and the culture of Ireland. I don't associate Kim Kardashian with much of anything, except maybe reality television. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussions[edit]


(BTW I had planned to just facilitate the RFC without actually commenting. But when it went 6 days with no respondents, I commented to try to start the process, which is what happened.)

The RFC has run for 30 days and the bot just removed the template. Regarding arguments/points made, no policy / guideline aspects were discussed and I believe that they are not in play here. So this is a generally matter of editorial discretion. Many of the arguments emphasized that she has not done significant things, and that she is very famous, (and those two statements were not contested.) So it became a matter of editor discretion and editor values on whether or not to include someone which is very famous but who has not done significant useful things.

5 persons supported inclusion of her image in the collage and 3 persons supported exclusion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Armenian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct archived captures. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How Little Armenia in New York City became Curry Hill[edit]

The neighbourhood around Kalustyan's in New York City has become "Curry Hill". Kalustyan's, the famous spice store, still exists. It is well recorded by multiple sources, books and newspapers, as you can see in the article Kalustyan's. I can add

See for example:

Incidentally I have personally observed the neighborhood getting transformed since 1970s.

Malaiya (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armenian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)