Talk:Mount Ararat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalisme

Removed from article:

However, some pictures of Mount Ararat show the "Ararat anomaly" that some people believe to be Noah's Ark.

Mountains have all sorts of "anomalies"; that there is no reference to suggest why this one should be so bizarrely interpreted, it is irrelevant to the article. --Jerzy(t) 02:43, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Mount Ararat is significant to Turkish people (with this I mean all citizens of Turkey not only ethnic Turks) as well, especially the Turkish people of that region. I think it is hard to make a judgement for whom it is more significant.

On another note, could someone provide the a tranliteration of the Armenian and possibly other names. It is nice to have the original script but provides little information, if you cannot read that script.

ato 20:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please read thoroughly: it makes several points, and you won't deduce one from another.

I wince whenever i see an expression like "I mean all citizens of Turkey not only ethnic Turks", because i regard statements like that as complicity after the fact in the Armenian genocide, via the ignoring that state's Big Lie to the effect that "war is hell, but nobody set out to cause the deaths of all those Armenians". And i'd expect, if the question arose, to decide that Ato deserves to be disliked by me.

Nevertheless, IMO Ato has stated the situation very well. I don't like the tone, but the steps advocated are right on the money. Ararat is in Turkey, and in an English 'pedia, the Turkish name should come next after the English one; the reversions to accomplish that were good ones.

In a world where geopolitics was less important than in this one, i'd want to see parts of what is now the east of Turkey in Armenia and in a Kurdish state, and it might make sense for Ararat to end up in the Armenian part; in that case, the Armenian name will then belong before the Turkish in this article.

That does not denigrate the enormous justified resentment that ethnic Amenians are entitled to feel toward the Turkish state. (And it's futile and silly for outsiders to expect their opinions, about what's too much resentment for someone's own good, to be listened to.)

The basis for the resentment may not be ignored. But it is irrelevant to the order of the names.

--Jerzy(t) 05:21, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Re. a transliteration: Արարատ is transliterated precisely as 'Ararat'. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 14:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

James Irwin (astronaut)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin James Irwin, eight man on the moon, led several expeditions to actually find the remains of the ark on mount ararat, but failed. Should it not be included too here? It might show how much some people with scientific background believe in this.

• Listing expeditions is probably more appropriate to Noah's Ark than to the mtn.

But more importantly, don't confuse science and technology. His advanced training is in engineering, which makes him a consumer science but not a produce of results of the scientific method. Further, his training is unrelated to the areas of science that are relevant to determinations of whether trying to find an ark on Ararat is scientifically sound.
--Jerzy•t 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Climbing Ararat

There are not climbing info about Ararat (first climbers, easiest route etc). Ararat is a in important mountain, not only for religious reasons; most of mounts on wikipedia have this kind of info. I do not know about the subject, but please add this information. Gala.martin 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

fiery

(from the edit summary) "firey" *should* logically be the spelling, but only "fiery" is recognized)... you are right... sorry. gala.martin (what?) 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

For now I added another Ararat image taken by a German Wikipedian. I'll make some edits to this article in the future -when I have time- to reduce the Armenian POV in the Symbolism section. Also this piece of information is wrong:

"...but the Turkish government has closed off the northwestern area of the mountain since the early 1990s due to military conflicts with Kurdish rebels."

Climbing is allowed as long as you obtain permission.

Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The "other" Mt. Ararat

What we now call Mt. Ararat was named so only about 1,000 years ago. As far as Mt. Ararat and the Biblical tale of the Ark is concerned, it should be pointed out that the mountain that the Ark supposedly landed on is a different mountain altogether.

Can you provide any reference for this claim? Dmn € Դմն 19:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See the entry for Mountains of Ararat. --Ssilvers 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Both photos of Ararat from Yerevan have their merits. I am sorry that Adkagansu does not agree but I have done what he has told me to do.

I agree with keeping both photos. They don't retract from the article, only improves it. Hence they should stay. Dmn € Դմն 14:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I fixed the lighting on the second one, what does everyone think? --Khoikhoi 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have made it better. Thanks. Viewfinder 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the photos as well but the photos are almost the same; one is over the city, other looks like same view with the city edited out. The one without the city is a cake but the one with the city is cake with delicious fruits on it. If you have a very old photo, add it; if you have a photo from the mountain itself then add it otherwise I think 1 photo from Yerevan and 1 from the otherside Dogu Beyazıt is enough. --Kagan the Barbarian 07:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Viewfinder.--Moosh88 01:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Avitya photo shows the mountain significantly more clearly. That is what is good about it. But the other one, showing the city, should stay too. Perhaps if a photograph from over the city showing the mountain on a clearer day were found, then a case could be made for it replacing both. Viewfinder 10:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this [1]

Now that's what I call angle. But I couldn't add it here, it is from German Wikipedia, how can we put it here?--Kagan the Barbarian 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Add it if you like, but it's not a view from over the city or on a clearer day so it should not be a reason to delete the existing photographs. Viewfinder 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the mountain, not any city. It should definitely replace one of the ones from Yerevan. It is a beatiful photo. I couldn't figure out how to add it, it is from German Wikipedia and I don't have much time right now. If anybody knows, please do.--Kagan the Barbarian16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice, now the article looks like a photo gallery of Mt Ararat. So in case the reader doesn't quite get the idea in the first 4 photographs, he'll definitely get it on the 5th.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

History section

Instead of adding just Armenian POV information, as El_C suggested its history section should be expanded. And of course the information, not just Armenian perspective of things. I am asking this part to be written by a neutral user if possible.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this, which seems to me to be hard and neutral fact: In earlier times, Ararat was located in what is historically and geographically regarded as part of Armenia, but for several centuries it was included within the Turkish Ottoman empire. It was part of the Karse and Ardahan area occupied by Russia in 1878. In 1918, in the aftermath of World War One, the area became part of an independent Armenia, but this was short lived. Following the Treaty of Kars in 1923, the area was divided up between Turkey and the USSR, and the new border, which became internationally recognised, placed Ararat on the Turkish side. But the new independent Armenia that emerged following the breakup of the USSR in 1991 is not happy about the location of this border.

Let's have some comments on the above here before we edit the main article, where we do not need a new front in the edit war. Viewfinder 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The above text seems neutral enough for me, if there is no objections, then you, me or someone else can add it. Let's give people two days to respond, and if there is no major objections, it should be added to the article.--Moosh88 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not bad but requires re-wording in my opinion, some sentences are weak. Regards and thanks for the effort.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I might change "is not happy about" to "does not recognise" (as in Treaty of Kars). Otherwise I do not see how I can strengthen the wording, but then I am not a professional writer. Perhaps you or others can suggest some alternative wording. Still, we seem to have agreement about the general substance. Viewfinder 13:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There having been no further comment, I am proceeding to add the above to the Histoy section in the main article. Wording improvements and the addition of more fact or NPOV will be welcome. Viewfinder 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Google Maps

Can anyone put up a Google Maps link? Varun Rajendran

Done. [2]. --Khoikhoi 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Caucasus?

Is Ararat really in the Caucasus range? It looks a little far to the south to me. --345Kai 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient/Medieval History

Thanks Eupator. I think you have improved this a great deal, adding a lot of useful info to the ancient history. -- Ssilvers 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

View of Ararat

Someone removed the statement that read: "Ararat dominates the skyline of Armenia's capital Yerevan." Why? I think it is significant that the mountain is so visible from the nearest capital city. By the way, what is the exact distance from downtown Yerevan? Ssilvers 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the sentence was moved not deleted. It's in the symbolism section along with other text on Armenia. Cheers, --Plumbago 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Still, I left a few words in the intro about the view, which I think is pretty remarkable: Most mountains peak (no pun intended) out of a mountain range. But Masis and Sis rise majestically from the surrounding plain with nothing but sky behind them. Very impressive (and I'm a skiier). Too bad there's quite a bit of smog. I was in Yerevan 4 or 5 years ago. Ssilvers 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the move :) I don't think that sentence belongs to the description or etymology of Ararat. There's a whole section about it (how it can be seen from Yerevan and how it affected people etc.) I'm sure someone will try to add smth. like "it's all over Dogubeyazid" to it. I think it should go to Symbolism. Can you take care of it? DeliDumrul 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Ssilvers 05:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! DeliDumrul 05:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I noticed two pictures called "Ararat from Yerevan" in the article. Could someone remove one of them and put a picture taken in Turkey? I think one picture from Yerevan is more than enough. Two pictures make the article look biased. Thanks.

By all means add another from Turkey to redress the bias, but both the Yerevan photos have their merits and Yerevan is a well known viewpoint. Viewfinder 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

This is touched on in several places, but IMHO, this article is rather Armenian-centric (esp. for a mountain that is officially in Turkey). All of the historical and cultural references to the "Armenian Genocide" seem off-topic and a soapbox for making political statements about a sensitive issue that really has little to do with Mt. Ararat. Having been there, and having heard both Armenians and Turks discuss this dark period of history, there is no agreement about who committed genocide on who, so I'm sure were a Turk to edit this article, we'd see things named after Mt. Ararat that commemorate the "Turkish Genocide" that locals claim occurred at the hands of the Armenians. All of this is not the point of the article and such references should probably be relegated to places on Wikipedia dealing with those subjects. Also, this seems unbalanced because of all the references to Mt. Ararat from the Armenian perspective. The Turks look at Mt. Ararat from Doğubayazit just as much as the Armenians look at it from Yerevan. Probably these "localized" references should be removed to neutralize the article (this is not to say that the history section is bad).--Firewall 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The current article and revisions of revisions attempt to assert that the Turkish name for Mt. Ararat is derived from (first version) the Armenian, and later (in revision) from the Kurdish, however I see no references to the pronunciation of either the Armenian or Kurdish names being similar to the Turkish, and the fact that both have an "A" and an "R" contained in the names, in a different order from the Turkish at that, does not imply that the words are at all related (any more so than "RAIN" and "IRAN" are derivatives because they both have an "R" followed by an "A"). In the case of Ağrı and Agir, we clearly have false cognates. My proposed wording for the Etymology section was a compromise to acknowledge that some think (without citation) that there is relation between these two words when they are derived from completely different roots. (See below)

The name Ağrı in Turkish means "pain" (see meaning of Ağrı), so Ağrı Dağı is literally "painful mountian" although some have incorrectly attributed the word "Ağrı" to to be a cognate of Agir in Kurdish meaning fire , referring to Ararat being a volcano. (çîyayê agirî in Kurdish ). Besides this being a false cognate, Ağrı and Agir are not pronounced similarly, the letters "ğ" (unpronounced vowel extender) and "g", as well as "ı" and "i" being unrelated. --Firewall 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The area is inhabited by Kurds not Turks, and the name Agir refers to a volcano, while the Turkish word (pain) does not make sense as an adjective for a mountain.Heja Helweda 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No argument with the fact that Kurds are the predominant residents of the area, but all maps I've seen (civilian and military) and anyone I've ever talked to in Doğubayazit refer to the mountain as "Ağrı Dağı", not "Agir Dağı". Being a volcano, it would seem that a name with 'fire' in it would make sense, but there are lots of volcanos around the world that have names with nothing to do with 'fire' or vulcanism (in fact MOST are that way -- Mt. Etna, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, etc.). No one has been able to show me a single Turkish map or reference which indicates the name to be "Agir Dağı", much less a preponderance of references that outweigh all the references in maps and literature to "Ağrı Dağı". --Firewall 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

The aregument of comprasion of Iran with Rain does not make sense since these two names refer to two different things! but Kurdish (Aryan) Agri and Turkic (central Asian) Ağrı both refer to one thing, hence it is quite possible that one is derived from the other. Given the fact that Turks are a recent group in the region in contrast to the autochthonous Aryan Kurds, it is quite possible that turks barrowed that word from Kurds and later turkicized it, like they did with all other topynoms in Anatolia, such as Elaziz, Smyrna etc....

The Kurdish word is Agrî (fiery) not Agir (fire). The turkish Ağrı can be quite possibly turkicized form of Agrî; the only difference in pronaunciation is /G/ has turned to /ğ/ (or GH) the same as almost all other G's in turkish which when come after an /a/ become /ğ/, like Ağlamak, Bağli, Bağdat, etc... Heluken 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the elevation of Ararat? English version claims it to be 5137 meters, while German, French and Russian version agree about 5165 meters.

References

tectonics

We should list information on its tectonic or other ancient history. Deniz^T_C 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats misleading? --VartanM 09:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, just wanted to see such history. We are too focused on some details and can't see the forest. A mountain, a land may or may not mean much without humans, but it still has its own tectonic history. The eruptions are one thing that should have also affected humans, in fact greatly. We can talk about how this mountain came into being, which movements etc. The ref for the last eruption lists information about eruptions, hopefully we can find more sources. Deniz^T_C 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

something like nl:Ararat_(berg)#Geologie, I guess. Also I removed trivia, after incorporating some into text. Deniz^T_C 03:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian names

Would somebody be so kind as to include Romanisations of the Armenian names quoted in the lead? The Armenian alphabet is undecipherable for most readers. I figured out that Արարատ was literally Ararat, fine, but with the others further down I'm not certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. VartanM 15:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the name translation order and discuss the issue here. Imo both sides of this conflict have a case. Viewfinder 22:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

reverting a banned user who has used maybe 400 sockpuppets or more. Ignoring might be a better choice, but it might have some undesirable consequences. Deniz^T_C 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest AIV but his changing his IP so fast it wont be effective VartanM 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru already did that. Deniz^T_C 23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We have also semiprotection requests. I did it some time ago, but it is not taken care of yet (maybe because I chenged it regularly). Afterwards Gscshoyru did again, not noticing mine, in a better way. WP:RFPP#Ararat arev Deniz^T_C 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The word Ararat is the Hebrew rendition from the Old Testament of the Assyrian Urartu. This should be cited and mentioned.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. Deniz^T_C 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

I shortened the section on name down to the basics - transcriptions and transliterations in 3 languages. I think something more is needed for the Armenian - I believe there are actually two Armenian names for it, one a literal Ärarat"and the other "Masis", but someone who knows Armenian will have to fix that up. It also needs something abt the word Ararat, how this came to be the name in English - from the Hebrew, of course, but still it would be nice to have a brief overview. PiCo 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Same should be true for other languages (the previous version had alternate names, I don't think they are that alternate, Masis means mountain as far as I know), if necessary it can be put in section "Name" or "Symbolism for Armenians". Anyway simpler is usually better and more stable, and it seems you did not remove important info, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizz (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If noahsarksearch.com is reliable, we can use [3] for the Hebrew connection.Deniz^T_C 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and Ararat

I deleted all the in-text references to Ararat and Noah's Ark - Wiki has numerous articles on this subject, and the best approach is to use the See Also section to link them - otherwise the article will be gradually swallowed up by Arkeologists. PiCo 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to leave some (minimal) information in the article. Another option might to use a {{for}} on top of the article for eg. "Mountains of Ararat". Do you guys think that it would be better to have a short section for "mountains of Ararat" (Abrahamic one), and {{main}} it to mountains of Ararat? Deniz^T_C 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Netherlands#translation, as I had some difficulties translating, being not a Dutch speaker. Deniz^T_C 07:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew name

Ararat is Hebrew. In Hebrew it is rrt without vowels in the original text of Genesis. It's origin is the Assyrian name of Urartu.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The location is at: - 37°30′N 45°56′E.

Metaphor

I noticed this while editing on another mountain of Turkey; I will precise that the sources who translate Mount Ağrı as "Mountain of the Pain" do so metaphorically, since the Turkish name for the mountain refers to the city of Ağrı and the Ağrı Province, proper names. I do not see a translation for the sense his name could be interpreted as next to the header in the article for Maxim Gorky.

p.s. Speaking of Soviets, wasn't Kim Philby closely involved with the mountain? In several manners? I will see if I can access any sources reliable sources. Cretanforever (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that it is the other way around. The Province of Ağrı is named for Ağrı Dağı. It is a modern Turkish jurisdiction that was created much later than the mountain was named. In the Ottoman Empire era the area was called Şorbulak, not Ağrı.Firewall (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ararat Anomaly

This section seems to unbalance the article; it seems to be concerned more with the obsessions of the American public and the secrecy of its government than anything genuinely to do with this mountain. I'm popping this into a separate article and putting it into "See also". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I first thought about it before editing it but as I found there some initial info about the Anomaly (w/o explaining or defining it) I decided to edit it there. I agree with your comment. -- Svest 00:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I changed the date of which Ararat was lost to the Turks. It did not happen in 1915 but after the Soviet Union intervened in the Armenian-Turkish war of the 1920s. where Armenia was forced to cede the territories.--MarshallBagramyan 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to be deleting information regarding the historic relationship b/ the Kingdom of Urartu and its subsequent relation to the Armenians and inserting Kurdish history into it. Its obviously a very ethnocentric agenda. Please help stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.121 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Revelations - Site of Armageddon?

In addition to the Genesis reference, isn't there something in Revelations that is usually taken to refer to Ararat as the site for armageddon? --Ssilvers 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the Book of REVELATION (singular) does not make that claim - read it.  ⁃ Firewall 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism for Armenians

This article is not about Armenian history or culture, it is about a mountain in the Republic of Turkey. I dont think that it is necessary to have a whole section about this. It should be removed or moved to a seperate article. XmuratX (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The symbolism of this mountain shouldn't be a part of the article.

Considering the history involved with Mount Ararat, I see no reason why the information should not be allowed, since it is referenced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More on Pictures

I don't know how many different views of Mt. Ararat people can come up with. Maybe we should have a snap shot taken every 10° around the base of the mountain. Seems to me that this article has too many similar views and the national pride issue of showing Mt. Ararat from Türkiye with its neighboring cinder cone on the right, and then showing Mt. Ararat from Armenia with its neighboring cinder cone on the left is adding nothing of substance to the article. Then there is the really poor panorama of Mt. Ararat that is barely visible amid the haze in the distance as viewed from Armenia. The Google Earth view is much more descriptive. I am getting tired of reverting edits by 76.250.10.173 (who won't even sign up to Wikipedia to get an identifiable handle) in an effort to rid the article of that particularly poor photo. 76.250.10.173 says, "compare with other pages, the picture is just fine". Sorry, it is inferior to other panoramas that I've seen both on the web and on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to take anything away from the picture author's (Serouj) photo skills, but I know that there are better panoramas out there (I even have one I took myself, but I'm not inclined to release it into the Public Domain because it has been used on magazine covers by people who paid for the rights). SO, this is an appeal to anyone reading this who has a panorama of Mt. Ararat that is taken closer to the mountain than 3 parsecs, and not on an overcast day: please replace this one if you can release the photo or get permission to use it.  ⁃ Firewall 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

1. The claim that "Mount Ararat has always historically belonged to the Armenians" is unsubstantiated.
2. The claim that it is "dating its ownership back to Noah's Ark" is ludicrous as, even assuming the historical existence of the Ark and the Flood (which historical scholarship refutes), the Armenian (or any other modern) people did not come into existence until well after Noah & his immediate family.
3. "...and later the Kingdom of Urartu." The relationship between Urartu & the Armenians is debatable at best.

I am reporting this to WP:FRINGE/N. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Armenia Coat of Arms

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

Look at the Coat of Arms of Armenia sir. You see Noah's Ark on top of Mets Ararat, on Mount Ararat. Thank you. Im afraid its the truth sir. Thank you again. 76.238.247.73 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Has the Coat of Arms of Armenia existed since Noah's Ark? No. The article on the coat of arms only tracks the mountain's presense on them back to 1918. This is hardly proof that it has "always historically belonged to the Armenians"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone Keeps on Deleting Factual Information

Hello-

I've been watching this page and as a professor of middle eastern studies, I've noticed that some people are deleting factual information about the historic value of the Armenian with regards to the history of Mount Ararat. Why is this? We are in America!!! We should lean towards factual history not ethnocentric ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Tomson (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original) The "information about the historic value of the Armenian with regards to the history of Mount Ararat" is largely unsourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is a sock of banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs). Please do not encourage him, WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly call a bald statement of policy "recognition". I would be more than happy to see the socks/IPs/etc pushing this unsubstantiated POV blocked as sock-puppets. However until they are, WP:AGF requires me to provide at least some, minimalist, rebuttal of their arguments when reverting them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

well, not when dealing with banned users. But I admit that it sometimes takes a few edits before a sock is recognized, so of course your willingness to AGF does you honour. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If he really is a "professor of middle eastern studies" then it makes sense for him to have been banned from Wikipedia. We don't want people editing who might actually know what they are talking about! Meowy 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my interpretation of WP:AGF does not extend to accepting the self-description of banned sockpuppets at face value. I would expect a genuine "professor of middle eastern studies" would have better things to do than repeatedly trying to sneak back onto Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced historical POV pushing

1. Except for the statement that "Mount Ararat was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 100 lira banknotes of 1972-1986", the ENTIRE history section is unsourced.
2. Even if this information were' sourced, it appears to be largely WP:UNDUE & WP:COATRACK for those pushing the viewpoint of Armenian historic rights to the mountain. I doubt if any other major mountain has had its historic ownership tracked so assiduously.
3. The claim that it makes that "The Book of Genesis identifies this mountain as the resting place of Noah's Ark after the "great deluge" described there." is false. The Biblical resting place is in fact the mountains of Ararat not Mount Ararat itself.

I am therefore removing this material unless/until reliable sources that give it prominent (see WP:UNDUE) & direct (see WP:SYNTH) discussion can be found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Info

So if this mount is an Armenian heritage, shouldn't the article provide a little info on why the mount is in present day Turkey? With no POVs ofcourse. Also, why is the main name Ararat, since the mount is actually in Turkey, shouldn't be referred to by its official name?

Since this is the English Wikipedia, most English speakers would have been introduced to the mountain as "Ararat" from its Biblical reference. Ağrı Dağı (Türkçe) would not be recognizable to most, and the various other names for this volcano are discussed in the article. Perhaps if there were a "Significance to Turkey" section to balance the "Significance to Armenia" section, then the geographical boundary issues and who "owns" the mountain could be addressed there.  ⁃ Firewall 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent complaints by 81.164.64.55

• What about turkish lira? isn't it excessive tangential image ? 81.164.64.55 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• 208.79.239.160 stop your vandalism the part of Turkey is still Armenian highland 81.164.64.55 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. New threads belong at the bottom.
2. A single image is less likely to be "excessive" than a number of similar images.
3. Your accusation of WP:VANDALISM appears to have no basis in that policy, and is thus a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the claim that Mount Ararat is part of the Armenian highland:

1. Isn't referenced in that article; &
2. Should not be given WP:UNDUE emphasis as the primary location infor on the mountain (but should probably be mentioned in the same manner as Ararat plain is).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not undue weight because the Armenian Highland is the accepted geographical term for this region. It goes beyond borders of countries to include that region north of the Taurus Mountains and east of the Euphrates river, and as east as Nagorno-Karabakh and present-day Armenia. It is not out of the ordinary to mention the term in this article! Serouj (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Serouj, Armenian Highland is a common name for the plateau in Eastern Anatolia, connecting the Lesser Caucasus and the Zagros ranges. It cannot be reasonably disputed that Ararat is located in this plateau, and it would be the proper entry for the "range" parameter in the infobox. If there are alternative names for the plateau, let that be argued at Talk:Armenian Highland. --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. What "plateau"? M-W defines "plateau" as "a usually extensive land area having a relatively level surface raised sharply above adjacent land on at least one side : tableland b: a similar undersea feature". There is nothing remotely "relatively level" about the area, and a mountain certainly isn't "relatively level". EB describes it as "a segment of the Mediterranean alpine volcanic zone of folding" -- "folding" ≠ "plateau".
   • I am further confused how the AH can be both a "plateau" and a mountain "range". I would argue that it is neither -- it is a wide (and definitely not "relatively level") area comprising a large number of mountain ranges, and valleys, lakes, etc, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
2. At 400,000 km² the AH is about half the size of Turkey (783,562 km2) and ill-defined (what are its southern & western limits? -- the mountains run through most of eastern & central Turkey & western Iran).
3. 'Armenian Highland' is a term having little current usage (11k Google hits). Transcaucasia is only slightly larger, and has more prominence (495k Google hits).
4. It would offer greater precision to describe it as 'near Turkey's border with Iran and Armenia' (it is in fact closer to Iran -- File:Caucasus region 1994.jpg) -- which would at least allow a reader to find it easily on a map.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Armenian Highland" or "Armenian Plateau" is referred to as "Armenia" in short in most texts. That is why you see relatively few hits on Google for the former two terms. Serouj (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The southern limits are the Taurus Mountains (the "Kurdish" mountains as referred to some). The western limit is the Euphrates river (near Malatya). Serouj (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be referred to as the 'Armenian Plateau', but that does not make it a plateau in the formal sense. Reference.com describes it as "a mixture of lava plateaus, volcanic cones, and fault-fold ranges".[4] (Probably not a RS, but indicative.) Do you have RSs for its "limits"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can probably find them in Hewsen, Robert H. (2001). Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-33228-4.. It's a no-brainer as the geography is quite clear. Serouj (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also a map of it in Lynch, H F B (1901). Armenia, travels and studies. Vol. Volume II: The Turkish Provinces. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. OCLC 744928. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). It might be in volume 1 actually. I'll make an SVG of it at some point... Serouj (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you may wish to include/WP:CITE this information in Armenian Highland (Taurus Mts is uncited & Euphrates is not mentioned at all). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. When I get to it... Serouj (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a mountain?

• A "mountain" is a lifeless geological formation which has no ethnicity or religion.

• A "mountain" certainly doesn't feel "owned" by humans, other ape species, or other animals. This is also valid for other lifeless geological formations.

• We live in the year 2009, and in 2009, the mountain which we humanoid apes call "Ararat" (we could have called it "Hogobongo" instead, in the humanoid ape language called English) is within the borders of the Republic of Turkey.

Pantepoptes (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

it is certainly verifiable that the mountain plays an important role in Armenian nationalism, and the article can certainly state as much, giving proper references. This doesn't prejudice what a mountain "is", it is just a record of how H. sapiens can get worked up over owning mountains, and territory in general. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a section on "Symbolism for Armenians", and one that was laughably inaccurate at that. People should focus on fixing broken content like that instead of fighting over an infobox. It is undisputed that Ararat is part of the "Armenian Highland". This would be the physical range of which Ararat forms a part, viz. between the Lesser Caucasus and the Taurus range. It is also undisputed that Ararat is in Turkey, which is just where it happens to be located relative to current-day political boundaries. --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Name "Ararat"

The fact that "Ararat" is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that the term "Ararat" came from the Bible and from Hebrew! This part of the article needs to be rewritten as there are dubious assumptions there. Serouj (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Serouj. Can you please stop thinking about Armenia for five minutes when you are editing Wikipedia? It makes you look silly, and you waste people's time with this. --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Right and you need to stop thinking about Hebrew for a minute. Serouj (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann, not sure why you're deleting the following text:

"*Ararat (אררט) is the Hebrew equivalent of Urartu, which was the Assyrian name for Biainili or the Kingdom of Van, an Iron Age kingdom centered around Lake Van in the Armenian Highland. The mountain was under the jurisdiction of Biainili at the time of the writing of the Old Testament."

What is your issue with it? Serouj (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Masis is the original name of the mountain as used by the Urartians (per Moses of Khoren). (Not to mention that's what Armenians call the mountain, in addition to Ararat.) So it should at the least come second to Ararat. Serouj (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ararat is the English name. Its origin is ultimately אררט. I have tried to accommodate your phrasing, although you should forget about "the time of the writing of the Old Testament", this being a can of worms we do not want to open. It is a perfectly respectable academic position to assume that the Biblical Hebrew texts we have postdate the Persian conquest of the region.

As for Masis, I fail to follow your argument. You are just trying to turn this list into a patriotic pissing contest, and I dont' have any sympathies for that. Your claim that Moses of Khoren records authentic Urartian toponymy is laughable and you know it. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the mountain was within the borders of Urartu to make the connection between the country and the mountain. With regard to Masis, since it is the name used by the Urartians, it makes sense to appear #2. Serouj (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please present a reference that Masis was the name used by the Urartians, that would already be a valid addition. It still wouldn't explain why you insist on "#2". #1 is Ararat because this happens to be the English name, and incidentially also the Armenian name, see hy:Արարատ. I put the Persian name second because it is also connected to the flood story, but it would also be arguable to put Ağrı second, seeing that it is the name of the actual language of the country where the mountain is located, and also the name in Kurdish, the language of the local population. Masis is quite apparently just some obscure name found in some medieval sources without any wider relevance.

Look, I appreciate you are trying to collaborate, but you are just too hot-headed and too steeped in nationalist pseudohistory for this to work out unless you can agree to discuss your proposals with some patience. I realize that you probably just didn't know better, but אררט doesn't mean "the mountains of Ararat" in Hebrew, that's just a misunderstanding on your part based on the Mountains of Ararat article. The actual Hebrew for "the mountains of Ararat" would be הרי אררט, as you could have figured out online in like one minute, e.g. here if you actually cared about getting it right.--dab (𒁳) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

it is unacceptable that you switched "Armenian name" to "Urartian name" while still attributing the statement to the same source (Thomson), thus turning the reference into a bogus reference that did not substantiate the statement made. This is vandalism, and what's more vandalism of a type very difficult to catch and thus harmful to Wikipedia, and I sternly warn you against trying such stunts in the future. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please spare me the allegations of "vandalism." I am quite an established user of Wikipedia and have made valuable improvements to Wikipedia. Let me warn you against keeping your racially-motivated categorizations to yourself. Assume good faith and respect others. Serouj (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

wow, so this is about "race" now? Look, if you are "established" as a Wikipedian, you should know that you cannot alter "Armenian language" to "Urartian language" without changing the attribution.

And what's with the "Masis predates Ararat" now? You attribute this to Thomson. But Thomson dates Moses to the 8th century. Genesis is dated to before the 6th century BC. How on earth can you contrive to suggest that Thomson suggests that Masis predates Ararat? What is the verbatim reading of the passage you interpret to this effect? --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, look closely. You must've mistook the "6" for an "8". The source is the Jewish Virtual Library, not Thomson. (Although Amasya would predate the Genesis or be contemporaneous.) Serouj (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Being the great-grandson of Hayk (assuming 25 years per generation) this would place Amasya's birth around 75 years after Hayk's birth. Since Hayk lived in the mid-3rd millenium BC, this would place Amasya in the 3rd millenium BC, well before the completion of Genesis (5th century BC) and its earliest writing 950 BC to 500 BC. Serouj (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Ararat

Here is my proposal: Ararat, the current name in English, is derived from אררט, meaning "the mountains of Ararat." Here, "Ararat" is the Hebrew equivalent of Urartu, the Assyrian name for Biainili, the Iron Age kingdom centered around Lake Van. אררט did not refer to any specific mountain, but rather a mountain range. Nonetheless, one particular tradition identifies the mountain as Mount Masis, the highest peak in the Armenian Highland. Ararat is also used in many other languages influenced by Biblical tradition, including Armenian: Արարատ. The medieval History of Armenia gives an etiology for the name, connecting it to the plain directly north of the mountain called Ayrarat after King Ara the Handsome (the great grandson of Amasya). Here the Assyrian Queen Semiramis is said to have lingered for a few days after the death of Ara. In later times the mountain itself came to be called Ararat by confusion with Ayrarat, the name of the province.

1. According to the Wikipedia article אררט, this phrase translates as "Mountains of Ararat." It does not refer to a particular mountain.
2. According to Moses of Khoren, the single mountain south of the Araxes river and the Ayrarat plain was called Masis after Amasya who was the descendent of Hayk. Hayk (and therefore his descendants) are considered URARTIANS. There was no written Urartian until the 9th century BC. This does not mean that Urartian kingdom did not exist until then. Moses of Khoren writes the geneaology of the Urartian Kings to Tigran I.
3. The mountain Masis was only LATER associated with Ararat due to some particular interpretation. If you go to Armenia, you will STILL find people referring to the mountain as Masis. While true that Armenians (more so the Diaspora Armenians) might call it Ararat more often.
4. Most of the above is corroborated by the Jewish virtual library. I highly recommend you read it. Serouj (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some points from the Jewish Virtual Library:

1. Ararat is used as BOTH the name for a land and a mountain range: "ARARAT (Heb. אֲרָרָט; 1QIsa̮, hwrrṭ; Akk. Urarṭu), name of land and mountains mentioned in the Bible"
2. The "Land of Ararat" refers to Urartu: "The Land of Ararat is mentioned in II Kings 19:37 and Isaiah 37:38 as the land where the sons of Sennacherib fled after murdering their father. From the Bible one would scarcely sense the importance of this ancient nation centering around Lake Van, in Armenia. The major sources of information are the Assyrian records dealing with this kingdom, whose native name was Bia(i)nili though known to the Assyrians as Urarṭu, but a large body of independent data has been obtained from inscriptions found during excavations in Turkey, Iran, and Russia."
3. The inscription at Behistun corroborate that Armina in Persian, "Uraštu" in Akkadian, and אררט (in Aramaic) all refer to the SAME country: "In the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great (ca. 520), he refers to the territory as Armina (= Armenia), reflective of the newer "Arme" population, but as אררט in the Aramaic, and Uraštu in the Akkadian version."
4. The Bible did not refer to a SINGLE mountain, but a mountain RANGE. It was only later that Mount Masis was designated as Mount Ararat! "According to the story in Genesis 8:4 Noah's @ -->*ark@ --> came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Accordingly, the present form of the story cannot be earlier than the early first millennium B.C.E. when the form "Urarṭu" replaced the previous designations Uruaṭri and Nairi of the Assyrian sources. Although one frequently hears the designation "Mount Ararat," the Bible does not mention any specific mountain. Luther understood Ararat to be the name of the mountain range. Nonetheless, one tradition identifies the particular mountain as Mount Massis, at nearly 17,000 ft. (550 m) the highest peak of Armenia, which is therefore often called Mount Ararat."

Serouj (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source Bible.org:

"Ararat: sacred land or high land, the name of a country on one of the mountains of which the ark rested after the Flood subsided (Gen. 8:4). The "mountains" mentioned were probably the Kurdish range of South Armenia. In 2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38, the word is rendered "Armenia" in the Authorized Version, but in the Revised Version, "Land of Ararat." In Jer. 51:27, the name denotes the central or southern portion of Armenia. It is, however, generally applied to a high and almost inaccessible mountain which rises majestically from the plain of the Araxes. It has two conical peaks, about 7 miles apart, the one 14,300 feet and the other 10,300 feet above the level of the plain. Three thousand feet of the summit of the higher of these peaks is covered with perpetual snow. It is called Kuh-i-nuh, i.e., "Noah's mountain", by the Persians. This part of Armenia was inhabited by a people who spoke a language unlike any other now known, though it may have been related to the modern Georgian. About B.C. 900 they borrowed the cuneiform characters of Nineveh, and from this time we have inscriptions of a line of kings who at times contended with Assyria. At the close of the seventh century B.C. the kingdom of Ararat came to an end, and the country was occupied by a people who are ancestors of the Armenians of the present day."

Points:

1. Ararat refers to a high land (Plateau) and a country.
2. The Bible mentioned the "mountains" of Ararat (i.e. NOT a particular mountain).
3. "Armenia" and the "Land of Ararat" are synonymous in the Authorized Version of the Bible.
4. It is only now generally applied to the mountain described by this article.

Serouj (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Serouj, you make plain that you do not have the first clue on what you are talking about. Please leave this to editors who do. I also do not know why you are quoting the Bible dictionary at me, it doesn't contain anything I haven't granted from the beginning. Perhaps you would like to answer the actual question, which was, what is your reference establishing Masis as an Urartian name, or any evidence of Masis predating Moses of Khoren. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the Jewish Virtual Library source -- it is considered a reliable source by WP. Your suggestion of my uninvolvement is rude and not suitable to an administrator. Serouj (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you seem to be having trouble interpreting the following from the Jewish Virtual Library?

"Although one frequently hears the designation "Mount Ararat," the Bible does not mention any specific mountain. Luther understood Ararat to be the name of the mountain range. Nonetheless, one tradition identifies the particular mountain as Mount Massis, at nearly 17,000 ft. (550 m) the highest peak of Armenia, which is therefore often called Mount Ararat." - Jewish Virtual Library

Serouj (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

yes? and where in the above do you read the claim that the "one tradition" (Moses) predates anything? The point is that the name Ararat is in Genesis, while the name Masis is in Moses of Khoren. Yes, I know the biblical name refers to what probably amounts the entire massif, not one specific peak? I would assume that anyone throwing around their weight on this article would also be aware of that? Look, I cannot have a discussion with you if you refuse to accept the need for basic honesty or elementary logic. You claim that he Jewish Virtual Library CLEARLY says that the designation of the mountain as "Masis" predates its designation as "Ararat" very UNambiguously in your edit summary and then proceed to give a reference that literally says nothing of the kind. What can I say? Perhaps just that if you keep insisting on a false claim it will not make it any truer.

If this isn't clear to you perhaps you should confine yourself to reading a little more before you recommence editing, let alone edit warring. The fact of the matter is that Biblical Ararat is Urartu, and the "mountains of Ararat" is the mountainous Armenian Highland in general. After all, Genesis was compiled in the Levant in the Iron Age, and to anyone in the Levant, "mountains of Ararat" didn't have a very precise meaning other than "the mountains in the North". Because of the Biblical tradition, the highest peak of the Armenian Highland came to be known as "Mount Ararat" in English and in many other languages. The native Armenian name of the peak is Masis, a name that is apparently first recorded in Moses of Khoren (whom Thomson 1978, whom you keep quoting as if he was endorsing Moses' narrative as factual rather than just editing it, dates to the 8th century AD) although I will be perfetly happy to accept actual evidence that there are earlier sources. I do not expect such sources to predate Genesis though, which is the earliest attestation of the name Ararat, even though it referred to "mountains" and not to a specific peak. I hope this is sufficiently clear to you now, because I am going out of my way to educate you on matters that it would be your job to familiarize yourself before indulging in hysterical revert-warring. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The mountains of Ararat don't necessarily refer to the two peaks of Masis. This is clearly stated in Jewish Virtual Library:

"The Aramaic and Syriac translations of Genesis 8:4 mention Ture Kardu, "the mountains of Kurdistan [Jebel Judi]" southeast of Lake Van, whereas the Book of Jubilees (5:28; 7:1) speaks of Mount Lubar (unidentified). In the Babylonian tradition of the flood, the mountain on which the @ -->*ark@ --> came to rest is Mount Nimush (sometimes read Niṣir), east of Assyria, now identified as Pir Omar Gudrun."

These mountains "southeast of Lake Van" refer to the TAURUS mountains and in no way shape or form refer to Masis which is 150 km northeast. The other possible location places it even further away from Masis. Serouj (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further, Genesis refers to SOME group of mountains called "Ararat" -- the mountains OF Ararat. In no way shape or form does it designate that Masis is Mount Ararat. This tradition that MASIS is what the Bible refers to as "the mountains of Ararat" was attributed much later than the writing of Genesis!!! (Why don't you comprehend this?) Indeed, it is unclear WHEN this attribution was made! In other words, the NAME "Ararat" may predate the first recording of the NAME Masis, but the ATTRIBUTION of the "Mountains of Ararat" to Masis was made afterwards. Serouj (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Said in another way, the oldest DEFINITIVE name to this PARTICULAR mountain south of the Araxes river is "Masis". While "Ararat" may or may not be an older NAME is irrelevant. It was not used to name this PARTICULAR mountain at a much later time than the writing of Genesis. Hope this elaborate explanation is starting to make sense to you now. Serouj (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have patiently explained to you that you have no case, and still you insist in reverting[5]. Let me try again:

• yes, the entire point is that "the NAME "Ararat" predates the first recording of the NAME Masis", I am really glad you got that.
• what is your source that "the ATTRIBUTION of the "Mountains of Ararat" to Masis was made afterwards"? Nothing you have cited substantiates this claim. You are just pulling it out of thin air. To substantiate it, you would either cite a reference to the effect that the name "Mount Ararat" for the peak is only attested after the 8th century, or that the name Masis predates the 8th century. You have done neither.

--dab (𒁳) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the MOUNTAIN first, not the NAME. The Jewish Virtual Library that I quote above says that the "Mountains of Ararat" were only LATER attributed to Mount Masis. It doesn't get any clearer than this. Serouj (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A name of "Masis" needed to have existed before the designation of "Mountains of Ararat" could have been made to it, and indeed that is how the JVL describes it -- it doesn't say, "Mountains of Ararat" was attributed to the twin-peaked mountain south of the Araxes river. It gives a specific NAME. Serouj (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, so A name of "Masis" needed to have existed before the designation of "Mountains of Ararat" could have been made to it? Have you completely lost it now? You are saying it would have been impossible to name the mountains "Mountains of Ararat" if the peak had been called anything other than Masis? Was this revealed to you in a vision of Hayk last night or something? I really never stop marvelling at the stuff people will make you put up with on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since we neither know WHEN "Ararat" was attributed to the twin-peaked mountain south of the Araxes, but we know that "Masis" was attributed at least by the 5th or 8th century when History of Armenians was written, then this issue is at best at a stalemate, unless a definitive (SOURCED) reference can be made to when "Ararat" was first used to describe this particular mountain. Serouj (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you may find the following quote of interest:

"Against the Armenian (and European) tradition that makes Masis the landing place of Noah, the Semitic tradition associated this landing with the mountain called Judi Dagh (earlier called Ararad or Sararad) located in Kurdistan northeast of Mosul." - Hewsen, Robert H. (2001). Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-33228-4.

Serouj (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is Judi Dagh ("Mount Ararat"?) -- that mountain northeast of Mosul, Kurdistan: 36.501203°N 43.433006°E / 36.501203; 43.433006 -- a mountain with a prominence of 700 meters. Serouj (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

no, it is not a "stalemate". It would be a stalemate if you were making an unreferenced claim, and I was making an unreferecned counter-claim. As it stands, you are making an unreferenced claim, and I am telling you not to do that. If you have even a cursory understanding of WP:CITE you will agree that this puts me in the right. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

"Mount Ararat" vs. "Mountains of Ararat"

Dear Serouj. You seem to believe that the name Masis of the peak predates the name Ararat applied to the peak, although you admit, of course, that the name Ararat applied to the entire landscape is older. Now at Wikipedia you would usually be expected to present a source to back up your opinion. This is described in WP:CITE. You have so far failed to present any source to the effect, other than the undisputed fact that Masis, the Armenian name of the peak, is mentioned in Moses of Chorene's History.

You are thus looking for a source saying that the peak has never been identified as "Ararat" prior to the compilation of the History. I hope you understand that finding such a source is your job as the editor wishing to include the claim in the article, and not the jonb of editors challenging your claim.

However, because I am an extremely patient and extremely charitable Wikipedian, I have done your job for you. I have found a monographic treatment of the question, albeit one dating to 1900.

• Friedrich Murat, Ararat und Masis, Studien zur armenischen Altertumskunde und Litteratur, Heidelberg, 1900.

Here we find what we already know, that the Biblical Ararat refers to a landscape, not a specific peak, and that the Armenian name for the highest peak of Ararat is Masis. Of course we still find no claim of Masis predating anything, because of the very late (8th century) attestation of the Armenian name. It is very well possible that the name is ancient. It isn't known, so it is pointless to throw around claims to the effect.

We do have a passage in Faustus of Byzantium, a 5th century historian, who says that the ark landed on the "mountain of Ararat", which would give us at least a 5th century date for the transferral of the name of the plateau to the peak, but Murat thinks that this passage is a later interpolation, so we cannot be sure.

Murat also assures us that the Armenians never identified the resting-place of the ark with their Masis before the 11th century. Before the 11th century, as reported in e.g. Josephus, the Armenians identified Noah's landing site as the "Place of Descent", some 60 miles southeast of the peak, viz. in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Murat further implies that, unlike the pre-11th-century Armenians, both Josephus and Jerome did identify the peak as the landing site of Noah.

I hope this is enough to do away with your childish "Masis predates Ararat" meme, and we can now proceed to cover the name of both massif and peak encyclopedically.

I have not, so far, made the claim that the identification in European tradition of "Mount Ararat" as the peak where Noah landed, identified as the highest peak of the region "predates" any specific date. Based on what I see in Murat, it would seem to be the case that this tradition is based on Jerome and Josephus, viz. developed in the Early Christian period (1st to 4th century). This of course predates the attestation of Masis, but I would never claim that the toponym Masis is "younger" than this tradition. It is just the local name of the peak, and can be shown to date to the 8th century, but there is nothing to preclude it originating centuries earlier, nor is there anything to substantiate this, so it is best to leave it alone. This is what I was doing before you started edit-warring over your "predates" idea. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dab. Interesting research you present. I think we need to look more detail into Judi Dagh (see above, Hewsen). This was considered to be Mount Ararat by non-Armenians and non-Europeans... (I am assuming you are doing this out of curiosity and interest; please assume the same on my side: if I was defending the Armenian "nationalist" viewpoint, then I would be defending the traditional Armenian position that the mountain south of the Araxes river is the Biblical Mount Ararat...) Please see the following article: http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/sep2001/benson2.pdf

Some quotes from it:

"Both Josephus and the Koran say that the Ark came to rest on Mount Judi."

I previously gave an incorrect location of Mount Judi. Indeed, it would lie on the Southern border of Urartu, the Armenian Highland, just south of the Taurus Mountains. The more correct area of the mountain is: 37.136077°N 43.528910°E / 37.136077; 43.528910. It has a height of around 2,000 meters according to the article.

"The coming to rest of the Ark on a mountain just above the Tigris/Euphrates valley is, of course, consistent with the account in Genesis of the first cities after the Flood being founded in that valley."

As such, "Mount Ararat" for Masis may indeed be a misnomer, and is at least one particular tradition that has stuck, as corroborated by the Jewish Virtual Library. Serouj (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to believe that the name Masis of the peak predates the name Ararat applied to the peak"... No. My claim is that we don't know WHICH predates which. (Although common sense would hold that locals who lived right NEXT to the mountain would hold a more ancient name than people who lived 700 miles away from it and who had never seen it...) Indeed, if Judi Dagh is the "true" mountain where "Noah's Ark" landed, then it would not contradict the term "Mountains of Ararat (Urartu)" as those lands would have likely formed a part of Urartu -- at least its southern-most regions. Serouj (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see you showing signs of a collaborative spirit. Seriously, why does this have to be so difficult?

Yes, it will be very interesting to look into this apobaterion thing in Josephus. The proper place for this will be Mountains of Ararat. This article is on the actual mountain (the entire mountain, not just the peak or summit) known in English as "Mount Ararat", and at least according to hy-wiki even as Արարատ in contemporary Armenian. Masis is the Armenian name for the 5,165 m peak specifically. I have no problem with stating as much, just as long as this doesn't trigger yet another round of antiquity frenzy.

For the purposes of the "names" section, can we now please agree that the situation presents itself as follows:

• Ararat is the common name of the mountain in English, as well as many other languages, including modern Armenian, based on the Biblical Hebrew reference to the "mountains of Ararat". This tradition can be traced back to the Early Christian period, perhaps (with caveats) to Josephus.
• "Mount Ağrı" is the name in Turkish, i.e. the official language of the country the mountain happens to be located in currently. Also in Kurdish. No claim of antiquity is made for that name, Ağrı is just some town. The "pain" is probably a folk etymology, although we would need to look for references for that.
• Mas(s)is is the name of the peak in Armenian, attested in Moses of Khoren. The Armenians did not associate Masis with the Noah story prior to the 11th century (and consequently the modern Armenian name of the mountain, Արարատ must post-date the 11th century).
• Koh-i-Nuh is the Persian name. We haven't yet looked into the history of this one.

Thank you for your attention. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't remove any existing text. Particularly significant is Ayrarat -- the name of the valley. According to Thomson, "Ayrarat" was confused with "Ararat" and hence "Mount Ararat" was attributed to this mountain. This is quite significant and may have been one of those historical coincidences... Reading this article helped to clarify this point... RRT refered to URARTU in the Bible and not AYRARAT. But as certain influences and misunderstandings had it, RRT (no vowels in Hebrew as you know) as interpreted as ARARAT. I think this is partly the point that Thomson was making in his footnotes to History...Serouj (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Ayrarat is just an aitiology taken from Moses. You need to stop taking Moses' History as a secondary source. It is a primary source of 8th century Armenian tradition, not a secondary source discussing viable historical hypotheses. I have kept the Ayrarat passage for the moment, but could you please tell me what it is that Thomson actually says? Like, quote from his edition? It is quite unambiguous that Armenians today assume that Mount Ararat is associated with Noah. I have seen patriotic claims of how Ararat is the place where Noah's ark landed many many times on Wikipedia and off (e.g. [6]. Let's not even begin to collect these). The Armenians in Moses' time, according to Murat at least, had not made this association and continued to assume that Noah landed on Judi Dagh, in what is today Iraqi Kurdistan. The association of the name Ararat with their Masis peak, be it by "confusion" as you assume, or by simple adoption of wider Christian tradition, can only have occurred after the location of Noahs landing site had shifted, in popular Armenian imagination, from Judi Dagh to Masis. Murat says this happened after 1000 AD.

Also, you seriously need to stop making assertions about Hebrew before you have done some more study. The Hebrew does in fact read 'rrt, not rrt, and contrary to what you claim, Hebrew orthography does in fact have notation of some vowels, just not of all vowels. This isn't the proper place for you to study ancient languages, so just take my word for it, ok? We also have the Septuagint which faithfully preserves the vocalization of Old Testament toponyms as they were pronounced around 200 BC, in this case τὰ ὄρη τὰ αραρατ. Your claim that the Hebrew should actually read Urartu is just an idea pulled out of thin air. You need to stop making assumptions on points where you do not have any background knowledge. In fact, it would be best if you just stopped making any assumptions at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here is Thomson's translation of the relevant line by Moses:

"But Amasya called the mountain Masis after his own name."

Thomson has a footnote on "Masis":

"Masis:' the Armenian name for the mountain south of the Araxes now called Ararat (by confusion with Ayrarat, the name of the province). (The Primary History, Sebeos, p. 10, offers a different etymology, from the personal name Marseak.) This is perhaps the mountain known to Strabo (Geography, XI 5.6) as Madios (?? Greek alphabet here), but there may be confusion with Mekh-Masis (Sipan dag) to the south: see Markwart, Sudarmenien, pp. 10-11, 15. See furthere I 30 n. 24"

Moses of Khoren; Thomson, Robert W. (1978). History of the Armenians. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 90–91. ISBN 0-674-39571-9.

Serouj (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point in including "Ayrarat." It is to show the similarity between 'RRT (as you write) and Ayrarat, and how conceivably the two may have been associated together to give rise to the claim that Masis is 'RRT. (It's not to say that "Ararat" derives from "Ayrarat" -- just that the two may have been confused to form one, as suggested by Thomson.) Serouj (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ok. it is fair to state, then, that Thomson thinks that Armenian Ararat for earlier Masis is "by confusion with Ayrarat") Please also see Mount Judi. It turns out that the very name of Nakhchivan is apobaterion, suggesting that the "Mount Judi" of Armenian tradition, as reported by Josephus, would have been located near 38°56′N 45°20′E. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow dab... the location you give is incorrect. If Nakhichevan is 60 miles southeast of "Ararat" then Masis would be the location of Mount Judi... (as Masis is 60 miles NORTHWEST of Nakhijevan). You bring up an interesting point, though: if we establish the first use of Նախիջեւան then we establish also the first Armenian attribution of Ararat to Masis... Serouj (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If Jusephus's statement is correct, then Armenians attributed Ararat to Masis as early as the 1st century... Hard to believe though, per Moses of Khoren (no mention of "Ararat" other than the Ayrarat plain)... And Thomson seems to contradict this, saying that Ararat came to use by Armenians only later (than the time Moses wrote History)... Serouj (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

why? Josephus is saying the Armenians show the remains of the ark in a place called apobaterion. This doesn't mean that apopaterion was on top of Masis. Indeed it would have been very bad for tourism if it had been on top of Masis, since people in the 1st century didn't exactly have the equipment or know-how to climb 5000ers very easily. I understand that it was the reading of Josephus' account by Christian writers such as Jerome that turned the "mountain in Armenia" into the "hightest mountain in Armenia". --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Can we talk more plainly? What is "apobaterion" in simple English? Which came first: the Armenian word Նախիջեւան or apobaterion? I modified the location to 39.07°N 45.07°E / 39.07; 45.07. So by this account when is the attribution of "Mount Ararat" to this area? 1st century or 5th century? Serouj (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"apobaterion" is Josephus' Greek term for what is translated as the "Place of Descent". That the name of Nakhchivan is originally the Armenian equivalent of this is a hypothesis we found in 19th century scholarship, I do not know how valid this is still considered. You should stop asking "which name came first" because this cannot be answered. Instead you should ask, which name is attested earlier. In this case, it is certainly apobaterion, but the hypothesis is that this is ultimately a Greek translation of the local Armenian term, but we don't know. You also need to ask "when is the attribution of 'Mount Ararat' to this peak" (Masis), not "this area". A valid question would be, which is the first unambiguous equation of "Ararat" with Mount Masis. I don't know the answer, why don't you begin helping figuring out this stuff? From what we have said above, I assume it must be near the 4th or 5th century, but feel free to do the research yourself. I hope we are clear that this is a philological question. You need to go and check the writings of Eusebius, Jerome and other early Christian authors. --dab (𒁳) 06:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stabilizing & balancing the article

I recently came across this article and was amazed at the rate of edits and reverts. Just my $.02, people are reading this page expecting encyclopedic information. It seems unfortunate to me that it even needs to be said in an article about a mountain, but this article shouldn't be a political forum or an essay on etymology. I suggest that the etymology portion of this article be edited down to at most 3 sentences and the rest of the article be high-level edited to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Structure. The political regions surrounding Ararat clearly have a more eventful history than those surrounding many mountains, and we should include a (brief) summary of this with links to the the appropriate full articles. I hope I'm not pouring gas on the fire here; I just hoped a fresh perspective might be helpful. Jminthorne (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have the most complete Etymology of Ararat on the web today. I don't think we should reduce its size, but perhaps spread it out into sections to make it more legible. Serouj (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you; my concern is that a long etymology of Ararat is out of place in an encyclopedic article about the mountain itself. Unfortunately I doubt a standalone article "the etymology of the word Ararat" would meet the notability requirement (though I could easily be mistaken in that opinion). As a side note, I see that the article was semi-protected so a registered user changed it back to the previous version; can we please use the talk page rather than vandalizing the article? Jminthorne (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Mount Ararat" is that it is only hypothesized to be Mount Masis (the subject this article is about). It is an attribution given to a mountain which had a different name before... So I think the etymology (and the history of that etymology) is quite pertinent and relevant... We shouldn't remove explanations for the sake of having a shorter article. Serouj (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got to say I disagree with you if I'm understanding you correctly... the article should be about the mountain that is referred to in modern times as Mt. Ararat even if the application of the name "Ararat" was only applied to it recently. Is it currently called Mount Masis in a country where English is the primary language? The problem is that in my opinion the etymology section dominates the article, while it should be a very minor portion. That being said I assume you had a significant part in creating the etymology and I can understand you not wanting it to be trashed. Jminthorne (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the Mountain. As you can see, it has at least 4 names and all should be included in the article as it is about the same mountain -- the article shouldn't include only its English names -- that is nonsense. Yes, as you can see above, I along with dab significantly contributed to the etymology section. There are really no grounds to delete any of the text. It is well referenced from reliable sources and quite relevant. Serouj (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Serouj we have been making good progress. This is Wikipedia, articles are under construction. I expect the article to be rather stable already, barring the occasional troll, which cannot be avoided in articles touching on post-Ottoman ethnic nationalisms. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenian name

I see we have have all Araratologists gathered here. Hopefully you can answer my questions:

1. I created an Old Armenian entry Արարատ (Ararat) at Wiktionary and need to know to what exactly did Old Armenians refer when they used "Ararat"? If I understand correctly from pedia's article they did not refer to this 5165m mountain, right? Was then "Ararat" merely the translation of the Greek word in the Bible whithout any particlural attachment to a known location?

2. Does anyone know where exactly the plural Masikʿ for Masis is used? I want to add a declension table and all I can find at Titus is undeclined Masis. I don’t think Masikʿ was used in Old Armenian. Perhaps some time later Masis was interpreted as an accusative plural with Masikʿ being nominative plural.--Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vahagn,

For #1, according to Robert W. Thomson (who translated Moses of Khoren's History of Armenians) Armenians began to call Mount Masis as "Mount Ararat" by confusion with the plain of Ayrarat, which was so called as reference to Ara Geghetsik (Ara the Handsome). As you know, another mountain that faces Masis ("Arayiler" -- Mountain of Ara) which is just above the Ayrarat plan, is named after him, too. Here is the quote from Thomson:

1. "Masis:' the Armenian name for the mountain south of the Araxes now called Ararat (by confusion with Ayrarat, the name of the province). (The Primary History, Sebeos, p. 10, offers a different etymology, from the personal name Marseak.)". Footnote in Moses of Khoren; Thomson, Robert W. (1978). History of the Armenians. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 91. ISBN 0-674-39571-9.

For #2, here is what Robert Hewsen has to say:

"In speaking of the mountains of Armenia, a special place must be set aside for a description of Mt. Ararat, which Armenians call Masik’ (a plural form probably referring to its two closely connected peaks) or Masis -- the latter being the accusative plural but now the common Armenian appellation for both mountains, the greater and the less. The Persians, aware of the biblical associations of the mountain, call it Kuh-i-Nuh 'Mountain of Noah'; th Turks, more prosaically, 'Ağri-Daği' 'Painful Mountain' -- owing to the difficulty of its ascent. Only Europeans call it Ararat. Armenians often refer to the main peak as Mec (Mets) Masik’ 'Greater Masis,' and in the past they called it Azat Masik’. The latter form is often translated 'free' or 'noble' Masis, but the invariable term P’ok’r 'Small' Masik’ for the lower peak makes it clear that her azat must be translated 'high', another meaning of azat, the nobles being the 'high' one rather than the 'free'." See Hewsen, Robert H. (2001). Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-33228-4..

Serouj (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I should also point out that what Thomson refers to as "confusion with Ayrarat" also probably involves confusion of "Ayrarat" with the Biblical Ararat.Serouj (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Biblical "Mountains of Ararat" are nowhere near Mount Masis. Rather, they are the southern Taurus mountains which were part of the Kingdom of Ararat / Urartu / Van / Biainili. (Closer to Judi Dagh). This only makes sense, as there is no story of Noah going from Nakhichevan back to Mesopotamia... (But there is a story of Hayk -- descendant of Noah -- going from Mesopotamia to Hayots Dzor. Serouj (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses all. I will admit after looking at the article again that I agree the etymology is important to understanding the political and cultural significance of the mountain and shouldn't be trashed. What do you think of moving it below the location, geology, and climbing history sections? In addition, maybe we can change "political boundaries" to a more general term like "political landscape" and move the Armenian Nationalism under it as well? As for user:Monlonet, has anyone managed to get him to talk anywhere other than the edit summaries? It seems a shame to have to revert this article three times a day, and we could probably actually incorporate some of his edits it he wasn't just overwriting decent stuff every time. Jminthorne (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

as Monlonet does not choose to participate in the discussion, let alone participate constructively with informed suggestions, there is no other way but to revert their edits. WP:3RR takes care of this. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, Serouj. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In spite of what you see on the internets, I know of no indication that Ararat has any Armenian etymology. The "Old Armenians" did not have the toponym Ararat before they took it from Genesis.

"Hari Ararat" in the book of Genesis translates simply "in the mountains of Armenia", Ararat being the name of Armenian plateau in the 6th century BC, before it became known as Armenia. The Septuagint should have rendered Ararat as Armenia to avoid confusion (epi ta ore tas Armenias), but it retained the Hebrew name, apparently because there was already some uncertainty on what "Ararat" meant in the 3rd century BC. The LXX, at least in some versions, has ta ore ta Ararat "the Ararat mountains", suggesting that Ararat is the name of a mountain chain, but the original reading would have been ta ore tou Ararat, "the mountains of Ararat, i.e. Armenia".

I would like to see some better references on the Ayrarat toponym. Especially documenting that it is a genuinely Armenian toponym, not just a corruption of Ararat. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Serouj, the name "Ararat" is not only explained on the internet. Armenians have books and on Armenian TV channels, they explain the root "AR-AR" , with our other words AR-AR-ICH, AR-AR-ATZ, AR-AR-OGH, AR-AR-EL , etc etc. You do know Armenian correct? Its in our daily language, we dont notice we say "ayd banen "ARAR", yes "ARAM", ed banen "ARA" you see? Monlonet (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We also use 2 names referring to ourselves: "Hay", and "Armenian", just as "Masis" and "Ararat". 2 names are used for both. Monlonet (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Monlonet, thanks for responding! I think we all can agree that it would be preferable to work out editorial decisions here on the talk page rather than edit warring. The reason I have reverted some of your edits was because you overwrote a well-sourced portion of the article with material that was sourced only by a .com travel site (and left a broken source behind in the process). It looks like other editors independently came to the same conclusion as well. If you have access to the same information from a more authoritative resource, post it so we can discuss! I think ending an endless stream of edits and reverts would be a goal we all would like to see happen. Jminthorne (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Monlonet, so you saw some "AR-AR" type pseudo-patriotic pseudo-Armenian pseudo-etymological pseudo-scholarship on TV. If this is your current level of knowledge, you could profit greatly from just reading Wikipedia articles for a while. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Wikipedia has standards. We are not a blog, and we are not Usenet. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so harsh on some of these findings. While they are not necessarily published in Western "reliable sources" it may be argued that there simply hasn't been enough research into this matter at all by such sources. The word "Ararat" that is used to name this region of the world could be -- by no surprise -- the name given by the area by locals, even though it may (or may not) first appear in external sources. Hence, the name may stem from definite root words in the language -- whether proto-Armenian, Armenian, or appearing in both. You shouldn't dismiss every "Armenian" explanation as "pseudo"-this or "pseudo"-that... More research into this matter is certainly warranted, though. Serouj (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If there hasn't been any research, Wikipedia will not carry it, per WP:NOR. "Hey look, some Armenian words begin in AR- or AR-AR-" is not "research". Also, you should not underestimate the research done in philology. It is immensely more likely that you just haven't managed to find the relevant literature. People do not usually assume they can go and edit articles on abstract algebra without any mathematical background, but apparently anyone feels qualified to comment on philology, beacuse hey, we all use words, so we're all philologists. That's much like going over to molecular biology and do some random changes based on, hey, I'm a biological organism made from molecules, so I obviously am a qualified molecular biologist.

If Ararat and Urartu is based on some ancient endonym, it would be a prehistoric Hurro-Urartian endonym, not an Armenian one, and it sure as hell wouldn't sound anything like Ararat today if it had been preserved natively from proto-Armenian. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather grand assumptions you make... Philology doesn't require anywhere near the amount of training as a molecular biologist! Don't be ridiculous. Serouj (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

now this is just ludicrous. Of course you can be a crappy philologist with a Bachelor degree, but then you can be a crappy molecular biologist with a Bachelor degree. Nobody ever became a great philologist without some 40 years of experience. That is, if you are really good, you can just about hope to begin to compete with the cream of the field at a time your average biologist is beginning to feel outdated and ousted by the youngsters wielding all the new tools and bleeding edge paradigms.

this isn't the place to argue this, but your reply exhibits exactly the kind of ignorant arrogance, or arrogant ignorance, of disrespecting a venerable and extremely erudite field that I was complaining about. Ignorance that when it finally seeps into the nethermost underbellies of pop culture ends up spawning statements like Armenians have books and on Armenian TV channels, they explain the root "AR-AR" , with our other words AR-AR-ICH, AR-AR-ATZ, AR-AR-OGH, AR-AR-EL , etc etc.

--dab (𒁳) 10:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The root AR- monlonet is talking about does indeed exist in Armenian: that’s ար- (ar-) and is of Proto-Indo-European origin. However, the connection with Ra, Ararat, Aragats, Armenia, Arax, Aratsani, Arame, and Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed by Armenian books and Armenian TV channels seems a little dubious to me. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"a little dubious"? Probably more than 90% of the world's languages could be argued to have "a root ar-". This is very close to the null statement. If Akkadian Urartu had been a loan from Urartian, and the Urartian had also been loaned into proto-Armenian, and had survived until today (as is implied by these suggestians that "Ararat is a native Armenian word"), we should expect to find something like urt or art in Armenian, but certainly not full-fledged Ararat. The Armenian name Ararat is simply taken from the Bible. I love the Arnie etymology though. Let's settle for this, Ararat is about as likely a derivation from Armenian ար- as is the expression "my ar**!". --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point, dab, is where did the Bible get the name from? They certainly did not invent a name called "Ararat" out of thin air. Indeed, it is related to the Assyrian name "Urartu," both of which could well come from an endonym that is nearly "Ararat" -- for example, "Ayrarat" which is actually the Armenian name for the plain directly north of the mountain that Armenians have called "Massis" since time immemorial. There seems to be a strong anti-Armenian undercurrent in your writings, as well as a strong pro-Jewish one. I suggest you be a little more objective and considerate of alternative possibilities. Let me say clearly that the Bible isn't the first book ever printed, and certainly not the first place where Armenia or Urartu is mentioned. Serouj (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone cares to revert Monlonet’s theory? I'm too lazy to dig the history... --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah... I think Monlonet is right. Serouj (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

sigh, Serouj, we have been over this. Armenian toponymy does not have any verifiable history before the 5th century. "Time immemorial" for the purposes of Armenia means "before the 5th century AD", not "before Genesis". I have no idea what etymology the toponym "Ayrarat" may have, why don't you produce some sources on this point? Really, I am agnostic there, convince me by showing us some WP:RS. You might generally improve your editing by sticking to WP:CITE a little more, and waving your hands about Moses of Chorene a bit less. I fail to see how it is "anti-Armenian" to point out the fact that there is no record of Armenian history predating the 5th century. I'm sorry, I would certainly be delighted to see records in proto-Armenain, but there aren't any.

Your "pro-Jewish" accusation is a joke. There weren't even any "Jews" at the time the Pentateuch was compiled. Urartu is indeed a name attested before "the Bible" was "printed", i.e. in Assyrian sources, from about the 13th century BC. Get it? It's an Assyrian term, taken from Marduk knows where. I do not know its origin, nor do I know how the U became an A in Biblical Herbrew. Again, why don't you save your breath and present some actual reference on this. If you added a quotable reference to the article every time you call somebody "anti-Armenian" or "pro-Jewish", I daresay the article would be in fine shape by now. Wikipedia isn't a forum, ok? Present your sources or let others do the job.

Serouj, Monlonet (talk · contribs) doesn't have the first idea what he is even talking about. You have shown some goodwill and readiness to base this on encyclopedic good faith and quotable sources above. Please do not relapse into an "us vs. them" reflex just because you feel sympathy for Monlonet (talk · contribs) blissful state of ethnic fantasy unchecked by rationality or reading --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection Template Problem

The protection template on this article says it expires in the past. I wasn't sure how to fix it since the article appears to be indefinitely semi-protected. Jminthorne (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Elevation and coordinates

I have restored these to more accurate figures. Checking through the history, I noted that the older and less accurate 5165m was imposed in June 2009 by an unregistered user 83.220.144.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading a block. Viewfinder (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately even "reliable" sources often copy elevations from old sources, which are often not updated with new, more accurate information. I have supplied two primary sources based on SRTM and GPS data captured in 2000 and 2007 respectively. I hope they will not be challenged. Viewfinder (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)