From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why my edit that added "Shuri"--which was Igor Dianokoff's claim for what the Urartian people referred to themselves as, deleted? It was claimed by a respected scholar and cited by another respected scholar in an academic journal that I sourced.--Preservedmoose (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts/in use[edit]

EtienneDolet I am working on a major edit and adding sources and well as making sure content that has been added to the sections is actually in the right section. You can not continue to "restore previous article state" because you object to one or two edits. Please clearly explain what content what removed and what the sources supporting it are. The content I removed was added to another article because it was not about Urartu. The content has to be both reliably sourced and about the article topic. Seraphim System (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You are removing vital information about the Armenian relevance of Urartu. Please, explain your edits one by one and we can sift through them and decide through consensus building measures what should or should not be in this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but no. You don't WP:OWN the article. What justification do you have to revert an edit that cleans up duplicate links, or adds sourced content to Oxford encylopedias, and while the in use template is up? The fact that you don't feel like reviewing the edits is absolutely not a justification to revert. You have to provide a justification for these reverts. There's no rule that you have some special authority to review edits to the article one by one. This isn't the first article this has happened on, and in my opinion it is really holding up improvement of important articles. If you contine to do this I'm going straight to ANI. Seraphim System (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, half the content in this article is unsourced, the other half is barely coherent, there must be some way you can contribute to the project other then stalking an editor who is actually working on the article.Seraphim System (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Just because you placed a "major edit" tag on top of this article doesn't mean you should do whatever you feel like and not expect any one to critique these edits. That's not how it works and as a matter of fact, that's actually the definition of WP:OWN. Per WP:BRD, you need to explain why you're making such drastic and contentious changes to this highly sensitive article. You are removing vital long-standing material concerning the relevancy of Armenians when it comes to Urartu. Why are you doing this? You are claiming that they're unsourced, but that's not true either. You removed a massive chunk of material concerning Urartu and Armenians saying it was irrelevant when it clearly wasn't. Please, explain that for us. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You mean by removing unsourced imformation and cleaning up the duplicate links that plague not only this article but many other articles in this topic areas? Please, the content I removed was not about Urartu and if you hadn't charged in and started edit warring I would have replaced it with something better and actually relevant to this article. I intend to restore this and continue editing tomorrow. the relevancy of Armenians when it comes to Urartu doesn't even make sense, if you can't explain what you are talking about with reference to actual reliable sources then you should stop reverting other editors who are trying to reference improve a poorly organized article with vast swathes of unsourced content.Seraphim System (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
As in, removing Armenian Highlands as a region claiming that it was unsourced when it was clearly sourced for starts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the content by the way, for those who are curious:

As the Armenian identity developed in the region, the memory of Urartu faded and disappeared.[62] Parts of its history passed down as popular stories and were preserved in Armenia, as written by Movses Khorenatsi in the form of garbled legends[63][64] in his 5th century book History of Armenia, where he speaks of a first Armenian Kingdom in Van which fought wars against the Assyrians. It is worth noting that no kingdom called "Armenia" existed during the time that Assyria did, but Urartu (which was also known as "Van") did. Khorenatsi's stories of these wars with Assyria would help in the rediscovery of Urartu.[65]

Rather then delete sourced content, I moved it to Ancient Armenia, though it could be added to several other articles also. However, the reason I removed it was that it was added to this article as though someone had mistaken Wikipedia for a blog where it is ok to post lengthy, disorganized prose. Here is the full passage:

The most widely accepted theory about the emergence of Indo-European in the region is that settlers related to Phrygians (the Mushki and/or the retroactively named Armeno-Phrygians), who had already settled in the western parts of the region prior to the establishment of Urartu,[57] had become the ruling elite under the Median Empire, followed by the Achaemenid Empire.[58] Some have argued that the Urartian language wasn't spoken at all (see Language). The Kingdom of Urartu, during its dominance, had united disparate tribes, each of which had its own culture and traditions. Thus, when the political structure was destroyed, little remained that could be identified as one unified Urartian culture.[59] With the region reunified again under Armenia, the disparate peoples of the region mixed and became more homogenous and a unified sense of identity developed. The Indo-European language became the predominant language, and eventually become known as "Armenian". Some Urartians might have kept their former identity. According to Herodotus, the Alarodians (Alarodioi)—believed to be Urartian remnants—were part of the 18th Satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire and formed a special contingent in the grand army of Xerxes I.[60] The Urartians who were in the satrapy were then part of the amalgamation of the peoples, becoming part of the Armenian ethnogenesis.[61]

Urartian royal tomb. Van citadel, 1973

As the Armenian identity developed in the region, the memory of Urartu faded and disappeared.[62] Parts of its history passed down as popular stories and were preserved in Armenia, as written by Movses Khorenatsi in the form of garbled legends[63][64] in his 5th century book History of Armenia, where he speaks of a first Armenian Kingdom in Van which fought wars against the Assyrians. It is worth noting that no kingdom called "Armenia" existed during the time that Assyria did, but Urartu (which was also known as "Van") did. Khorenatsi's stories of these wars with Assyria would help in the rediscovery of Urartu.[65]

No topic sentences, loosely connected ideas, I don't want to be too hard on anyone because I know everyone works hard but this is written more in an essay style then an enyclopedia article and it's pretty frustrating to have editors edit warring over bullshit when you're trying to work on an article that is badly in need of improvement. Are you actually planning on improving the referencing in this article or no? Whoever had previously worked on it doesn't seem to have known the difference between Lake Urmia and the Caspian Sea, or the Zagros Mountains and the Taurus Mountains. Lake Van is in eastern Anatolia btw, that is sourced in the article, Armenian highland as a general region is not. The infobox region should be changed to Lake Van. If you provide authoritative sources for Armenian highland, I'm willing to find a place for it. Seraphim System (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources are in the article already. See Samuelian, Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, and others. The sources clearly use the term Armenian Highlands. And let's not forgot the term "Eastern Anatolia" is a recent makeshift name for a geographical region that was created to conceal the fact that Armenians have once lived on those lands before the Armenian Genocide. We've talked about this on another article.
Also, you claim that this paragraph is "in an essay style then an enyclopedia article" but you copied and pasted it to another article?
And no one but you thinks this article is in badly need of improvement, and yet some can argue that every article on Wikipedia can be viewed that way. There's no "perfect" article. But you're not improving it to Wikipedia standards here. You're merely deleting relevant material that highlights the Armenian relevancy to Urartu (i.e. removing the Khorenatsi bit, removing Armenian Highlands, removing the Ayrarat information) and etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Arguing that Lake Van is not in eastern Anatolia in the present day is only going to end up on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. But I didn't add eastern Anatolia—What I did, out of respect for all parties, was change the LEDE to say Urartu was centered around the Lake Van region without specifying the present day location. The use of Armenian highland would have to be balanced. It doesn't seem necessary or an improvement to use these terms here.Seraphim System (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
So the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia and this inaccessible source published by Iravunq Pub. House [1]. I don't think we can give these equal weight with Oxford Encylopedias. Without more, Samuelian's opinion will have to be attributed. You said there were "other" sources, can you tell us what they are? Seraphim System (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The "(present day eastern Anatolia)" text in the lead (that links to an Eastern Anatolia region article) needs to be reworded, at a minimum, to something more textually accurate like "mostly located in Turkey's present-day Eastern Anatolia region". Or better still, delete it because "centered around Lake Van" is sufficient if it is only concerning where it was centered, or if it is concerning the location of the whole iron age kingdom then as well as EAR all of present-day Armenia and parts of Iran and Georgia also need to be added.

I'm fine with only "centered around Lake Van", but I support the unsigned above ip editors proposal to remove both descriptors (if I am understanding correctly) because the boundaries of Urartu extend beyond the Armenian highland area deep into Iran and south into the Zagros. Seraphim System (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is one option that I was thinking. The borders don't extend much beyond the Armenian highlands, but removing both (Armenian Highlands / eastern Anatolia in its post-1940s meaning) geographical terms from the lead seems OK to me since neither the terms or their concepts existed when Urartu existed. Lake Van is wikilinked so its location is easy for a reader to find, and there is a more specific and detailed listing of Urartu's location in relation to present-day territories later in the article, so I think no content would be lost. (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please delete this content, it is all original research, the cited source just says it is a city in Nairi and nothing more: "The presence of Armenian speakers in the Armenian Highlands prior to the formation of the Kingdom of Urartu is supported by a reference to "the king of Uiram" in an 11th-century BCE list of lands conquered by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I." (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Encylopaedia Iranica Source Questionable[edit]

The source/text under the Legacy heading deriving from Encyclopaeda Iranica is questionable considering that the name Tigra most likely comes from the same root as Iranian تیر [1]. The name of multiple Armenian kings, Tigran, derives from this [2]. This includes the 6th century BCE king Tigran Orontes [3], which suggests that the Iranian word/name had already penetrated Armenia within decades of the fall of Urartu. Additionally, the name Araxa is most likely related, at least etymologically, to either Old Armenian արքայ (Arka'y)[4] or Արաքս (Arax) (which ultimately comes from Iranian [5]). Additionally, Encylopaedia Iranica page seems to contradict itself and suggests that Dādṛšiš is an Iranian (possibly Old Persian) name on its page for the name Dādṛšiš [6].Preservedmoose (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I would strongly suggest not removing referenced information under the guise of "Edited out repeated/unsourced information". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
But to say that most of the names in question are Urartian etymologically is disingenuous at best, especially considering that the source (Enclopaedia Iranica) also suggests that at least some of these names are of Iranian origin (as my sources above suggest). Wikipedia should have a duty to provide unbiased information, so if the information in question must be included, perhaps an addendum can be added stating that alternate (Iranian, Armenian) etymologies have also been postulated as opposed to stating, misleadingly, that Urartian etymologies (or at least non-Iranian, non-Armenian etymologies) are certain. Thanks. Preservedmoose (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If your "sources" presented above are from Wiktionary, you should know Wiktionary is not a reliable source.
  • "Wikipedia should have a duty to provide unbiased information..."
Are you insinuating Encyclopaedia Iranica is biased?
You appear to be the biased one here;
  • "Removed Encyclopaeda Iranica reference. Source is questionable..."
  • "Edited out repeated/unsourced information"(false edit summary, since a reference(Iranica) and referenced information was removed)
  • "Edited out Encylopaedia Iranica. Bad source"

      • Copied from my talk page
  • "The reason I made my edit in the Urartu page (removing the supposed etymological Urartian names, as sourced from Enclopaedia Iranica) is because a) this information is provided previously on the Urartu page, so this is repeated information, almost verbatim and b) this information may not be (even according to other Enclopaedia Iranica pages) correct (i.e. many of these names are Iranian etymologically, such as Didarsis and Tigra, and some of them are either Iranian or Armenian, such as Araxa/Arakha)."

A. Where is this information provided previously on the Urartu page? Since your edit summary clearly makes no such indication.
B. It appears Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Jan Tavernier, page 95, disagrees with your assessment.

I strongly suggest you refrain from false edit summaries and labeling an encyclopaedia written by academics as questionable. If you wish to refute what Encyclopaedia Iranica states, bring reliable sources to do so.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A) I never refuted IE as being unreliable. I said THAT particular information was questionable considering that another page ON Enclopaedia Iranica states that the name is of Iranian origins.

B) The only bias that I have is that Wikipedia should be unbiased. I even suggested that we resolve this by adding an addendum that there are alternate (i.e. Iranian, Armenian, Semitic) etymologies for many of these names. Wikipedia has a duty to be objective as possible. Selectively choosing information/theories to include while ignoring other legitimate theories is neither unbiased nor objective.

If Wiktionary is problematic, here are some other sources:


See page 40:

Araxa (Arakha) has been identified as an Armenian name meaning “crown prince”. It’s also been identified as an Armenian name with a Hurrio-Urartian suffix (-kha) or a Scythian suffix (-kha) (I didn’t include this source because it’s from the 19th century):

This source (in Armenian) states it’s an Armenian version of an Iranian name/word. By renowned Armenian linguist Hrachya Ajarian:


Here Tigra is theorized as being either Armenian or Urartian:

Here Tigra is identified as the Iranian name for the Tigris River, which would suggest an Elamite/Sumerian etymology originally:éva+ptolemy&source=bl&ots=zuRvD05EGy&sig=ACfU3U2WKiVRr9vHexfjqVuP03uaNxtxjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyx_P53-fgAhW8IDQIHb1QAgcQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Trypéva%20ptolemy&f=false

If you want more sources, I can find more.

All I am arguing is that we don’t say that these names are Urartian with certainty. We can say that the names are possibly Urartian (except for Haldita, which is clearly Urartian). I think that this would be more appropriate.

The reason why Wiktionary is unreliable is because anybody can edit it and selectively control what information people see.

FYI, the passage was double posted. I rewrote the first one and provided a new source the other day so the same copy/paste wasn’t plastered multiple times on the same page. See the Legacy section.

I’d like for you to explain for me how I am pushing a bias. Preservedmoose (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So you are unable to present differing viewpoints(EI) written by two different academics?
Your three excuses to removed EI seem disingenuous at best. Even the Encyclopaedia of Islam has differing, even to the point of conflicting, information considering it is written by different academics.
  • "Selectively choosing information/theories to include while ignoring other legitimate theories is neither unbiased nor objective."
Which is what you have done each time you have tried to remove EI either through calling it a bad source, an unreliable source, or repeated information.
So you condemn M. A. Dandamaev on one hand(EI) then use him on the other?
Also, your The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 11, appears to be from 1849. Clearly outdated. AND, nothing you have presented is any different than what Schmitt (EI) wrote:
  • "The ethnonym itself and all other names attested with reference to the rebellions against Darius in Armina (the proper names Araxa, Haldita, and Dādṛšiš, the toponyms Zūzahya, Tigra, and Uyamā, and the district name Autiyāra) are not connected with Armenian linguistic and onomastic material attested later in native Armenian sources. They are also not Iranian, but seem related to Urartean (see Schmitt, “"Armenische" Namen in altpersischen Quellen”)."
FYI, the Tavernier source, uses Schmitt which is who wrote the paragraph above.
  • "I’d like for you to explain for me how I am pushing a bias."
Using three different, clearly incorrect reasons to remove a reliable source. What do you call that? Bad? Unreliable? Repeated? So the sources you have presented are by academics that you do not want used(Schmitt(via Tavernier), Dandamayev) in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Sure that makes sense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Because the Dadarsis being of Iranian origin is mentioned by numerous sources, same as the others.
You didn’t even address the edit in the Legacy section or the rational for that—which was that the same quote was posted twice! I wrote the new section in the Legacy section which clearly states that SOME of the names were Urartian. I removed this long section from EI because it just repeated aforementioned information.
People get so salty on here. Leave the quote for all I care. Post the same information 100 times. But at least include an addendum that there are alternate possible etymologies. Problem solved.
Also, at least the most of the sources I provided (such as Dadarshish) provide explanations for the meaning of the names. Such as Dadarshish meaning “daring.” Seems compelling enough.
So what do you suggest my rational is for removing this particular passage that you love so much?
I don’t care about the Enclopaedia of Islam. This is not the Enclopaedia of Islam we are talking about and that’s irrelevant to this page anyhow. Most enclopaedias try to be consistent OR they provide alternate theories/viewpoints. WHICH I DID.
Apparently I am biased against EI or something even though I USED IT AS A SOURCE REPEATEDLY.
Go ahead. Rewrite the section however you want.
I’m not even sure where I condemned M. A. Dandamaev considering that I PROVIDED YOU with his write up on the name Dadarshish from EI AND ALSO PROVIDED YOU with his Political History of the Achaemenid Empire book AS TWO SOURCES TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT. I’m unsure what you are so confused about. BOTH OF THOSE LINKS WERE USED AS SOURCES TO BACK UP MY ARGUMENT. I didn’t condemn EITHER ONE OF THEM.
Are you suggesting that I have it out for Schmitt or something??? I don’t even know what you’re arguing.
I called THAT PARTIUCLAR EI Page “questionable” because it contradicted other sources that provided actual etymologies for some of these names. And yes, it was repeated as well. Preservedmoose (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "So what do you suggest my rational is for removing this particular passage that you love so much?"
I have no feelings about this or anything else. I am only interested in reliable sources and their usage. Your excuse for removal of said reliable source?
  • "But at least include an addendum that there are alternate possible etymologies."
And removal of Iranica solved all that? Clearly not. Nothing stops you from adding an addendum or showing differing viewpoints. Yet again, your disingenuous actions can not be covered by all the filibustering or listing of sources(2 of which wrote the articles on Iranica!).
  • "Most enclopaedias try to be consistent OR they provide alternate theories/viewpoints. WHICH I DID"
And again, removal of Iranica did not provide an alternate theory or viewpoint. Simply silenced that one. I am done with you. Continue your "providing alternate theories" while removing referenced information. I have dealt with your kind before.
  • "I called THAT PARTIUCLAR EI Page “questionable” because it contradicted other sources that provided actual etymologies for some of these names. And yes, it was repeated as well."
That was M. A. Dandamaev. Learn to read. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
There are two different EI pages in question. The one was intitially posted on this page. The second was the Dandamaev page that I provided you as a source. Dandamaev is not listed on the initial EI page, only on the one that I provided you, dude, which incidentally is the same one that you linked back to me 2 comments ago in an effort to try to prove my stupidity.
As stated, I removed the source because a) the information was already stated previously and b) the information’s credibility was called into question by numerous other sources.
Additionally, I added the addendum previously, to the legacy section, which I rewrote for clarity/readability.
I’m sorry to have pissed you off so much, Almighty Kansas God of Wikipedia! I shall flagellate myself as thy bid!
...or maybe I just removed it because I hate Based Schmitt and am part of a secret, anti-Schmitt society which is trying to erase and deface Schmitt whenever the opportunity arises...!
You can’t even tell who wrote what source. Maybe you shouldn’t be advising others to learn to read. Preservedmoose (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Urartian Origins in Northern Mesopotamia[edit]

Multiple Urartologists, such as Paul Zimansky, speculate that the Urartians originated in what is now northern Iraq, close to the modern city of Rawandiz, to the southwest of Lake Urmia. They theorize this due to the location of Ardini/Musasir in the region, as well as a Urartian text under Ishupuini (or possibly Sarduri I) saying (I'm paraphrasing) "We returned to Ardini." Additionally, Haldi seems to originally have been worshipped by Akkadian-speakers in Assyria. Evidence for this not only being the location of Haldi's main temple in Musasir, but also pre-Urartian Akkadian names incorporating the name Haldi dating to the middle of the 2nd century BCE.

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the Urartu page? There are numerous articles where this connection is mentioned. Here is one: Preservedmoose (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

bet Kardu and ture-Kardu need to be removed[edit]

Mentions of "bet Kardu" and "ture-Kardu" come from centuries after the fall of Urartu (ture-Kardu's reference is from nearly 800-900 years after the fall of Urartu, once Armenia was already well established). There is also no concrete evidence linking "Kardu" (or Xenofon's Carduchoi, for that matter) with the Kurds, nor is there any evidence of Kurdish-speakers in the region during the time of Urartu). There is no good reason for any of this information to be included.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


I removed the following: "About one century after the fall of the Kingdom of Urartu, the 5th century BC Greek historian Xenophon claims that Armenian villagers spoke a language that sounded similar to Persian" which was from a self-published source ( This claim is not actually in Anabasis (the entire text of Anabasis is easy to find online). In fact, what is in Anabasis is the following:

After the first formalities, when Cheirisophus and Xenophon had greeted one another like bosom friends, they interrogated the headman in common by means of the Persian-speaking interpreter. "What was the country?" they asked: he replied, "Armenia." And again, "For whom are the horses being bred?" "They are tribute for the king," he replied. "And the neighbouring country?" "Is the land of the Chalybes," he said; and he described the road which led to it.

Nowhere did he say that Armenian sounded like Persian, but rather that the Greeks (Xenophon and Cheirisophus) relied on a Persian-speaking interpreter to converse with the Armenian villagers. All that this implies is that Persian was understood widely enough in Armenia that villagers could speak it. Xenophon does not comment on the Armenian language.

Clearly the information I removed misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, what Xenophon actually wrote.Preservedmoose (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)