Talk:Armenian hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Armenia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Armenian hypothesis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"undue weight"??[edit]

If anything is "undue" here, it is to mention Kavoukjian at all. The discussion of the role of the hypothesis in propaganda is perfectly valid and well sourced. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not. It is pov. Calling Kavoukjian a nationalist (which may be true) is also pov. This is your original research Db. You connecting that statement to Kavoukjian is your original research. Thus per your suggestion we will remove it altogether.--Eupator 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I don't mind the current version. Although how could Diakonoff in 84 reject Kavoukjian's thesis of 87? Diakonoff can manipulate the space/time continuum?--Eupator 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
sigh, that's why the article has "English 1987". I was unable to find the date of original publication. Kavoukjian is also just an example of what I assume are several authors. I am also only quoting a source referring to Diakonoff's refutation, that's it. If you have another source that says something different, feel free to quote it also. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, even if use of the hypo for propaganda is relevant, the way it's worded in the text is POV. "firmly rejected by Diakonoff" says "Dyakonoff was right, those Armenian nationalists were wrong"--i.e. it takes position, which we dont' do on Wiki. "Embraced by Patriotism" is too vague, and therefore too vulnerable to POV (like any other Weasel Word)--who are these "patriots?" Is there a procedure to label some as "patriots?" Who is the authority to make that decision? Are there non-patriot Armenians, and if so, what do they think? It's best to stick to specificity.--TigranTheGreat 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

paragraph deleted[edit]

I deleted this:

Many scholars place the Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highlands and the plateau of Asia Minor to the southwest.[1][2][3][4] Others believe that it was in Eastern Europe or southern Russia.[5][6]

This paragraph is misleading at best, more likely POV. It uses weasel words ("many scholars") to give the incorrect impression that the Armenian hypothesis is more than a fringe idea and that the Kurgan hypothesis is other than mainstream. It also lists some pro-Anatolian refs as if they support the Armenian hypothesis. (It should also be noted that Gray and Atkinson do *not* support the idea of an Anatolian origin; all they do is support the idea of a breakup farther back in time, similar to what the Anatolian hypothesis claims. Nothing in their paper says anything about locations.) Take out the Anatolian and Kurgan refs, and all you're left with is a reference from 1890, which is so early that it's basically worthless -- nobody considers homeland speculations from that era as having anything other than historical interest. Benwing (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, again one of these completely blue-eyed articles. HJJHolm (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)