Talk:Armenia/Archive 5

In the first paragraph of the middle ages, it says, "lasted till 884" This should say "lasted until 884" Again in the second paragraph of that section, it says, "lasted till 1045" "Till" is not synonymous with "until". It is a slang abbreviation that should not be used in an article.

Bluefishe (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymologically, 'till' and 'until' have different originas. Both are valid words, neitehr is slang, and neither is an abbreviation of teh other. I am too lazy to revert your change, however. Rhialto (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Aram Khachaturian.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The copyright Wiki policy needs to be reviewed.Sound information is going far ahead now

Dears,Let this discussion contain 2 parts:

1) Previously, when this article included much more of the history of Armenia including Urartu etc, I had noticed this term more often in it. Now I see it only in one place. Since when the Farsi language is called "Iranian"?In the chapter "Etymology of name" (though I think it has to be "The Etymology of the Name") we have "The native Armenian name for the country is Hayk‘. The name in the Middle Ages was extended to Hayastan, by addition of the Iranian suffix -stan (land)." So should not it be changed?

2) And the second part is, that the suffix "stan" (or better to call it a root) is not coming from Farsi but Sanskrit, the forefather of Indo-European languages. Do we need proves for this or we know the Indo-Aryan origin of the root? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khald Eloh (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Farsi= Persian is just one Iranian language. The suffix -stan is an Iranian suffix and in this case comes from Pahlevi (particularly Parthian pahlevi has influenced Armenian).--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some people include Armenia as a part of southeastern Europe is really annoying. Armenia is not, nor it ever was and never will be a part of Europe. SE Europe is Greece, Bulgaria and Albania, but definitely not Armenia.

Have a look at these maps and see for yourself: http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/3600/3640/3640.htm and http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/1400/1412/1412.htm . It shows Armenia as always being located in Asia.The Caucasus Mtns have been a traditional border between Europe and Asia, but all the countries there, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are located south of it, therefore are not European countries.You people make fools of yourself even thinking Armenia is in Europe. Norum (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of where Armenia lies relative to the historical boundary of the Caucasus Mountains, but whether the Trans-Caucasus states (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) identify themselves as European or Asian. Arguing over physical location as the absolute does not address the issue or how to handle it appropriately in the article, that is, in relationship to what has been dubbed a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Caspian. The question is not: is Armenia in Europe? The questions are: What is Europe today? What will Europe be tomorrow? The significance of the Caucasus Mountains as the overriding physical determinant of a boundary of Europe is increasingly irrelevant. PetersV       TALK 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would consider themselves to be European countries just for the fact they have more in common with Muslim countries than with European ones. I think someone has mentioned this before that the fact of these countries being ruled by Soviet Union does not make them European.You said the issue is whether the people there identify themselves as European or Asian,right? So tell me, should people of India identify themselves as Europeans just because India was a British colony at one time? Or people of Indochina because it used to be a French colony? There are so many examples similar to this one. Or maybe people in both Americas should consider their respective countries to be European because they used to be either under British, French, Spanish or Portuguese (plus, to a lesser extend, a few other ones) rule? Why not make Canada an European country? I mean, they are mostly of British and French origin? Plus, UN classifies the Caucasus countries as being located in Asia, not Europe. Norum (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. In any case the country is Eurasian, probably transcontinental along with Azerbaijan. I don't think some double standarts are helpful here. brandспойт 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So why not count Iceland or Great Britain as Eurasian countries? If people go by these standards then every country in Europe and Asia would be an Eurasian country. They are as much Eurasian as Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan. The only 3 true Eurasian countries are Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan (I think about 2% of its land is actually located in Europe). Plus Eurasia is not really an official continent. If we go by these standards, then perhaps instead of "Eurasia" it should say that the Caucasus countries are part of Afroeurasia? PS. I'm being sarcastic at this point. Norum (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever came up with the idea of trying to make two continents out of one landmass blew it big-time, but we're stuck with it now. All the other continents have very convenient water to help draw the line. For Eurasia, we have a combination of water and mountain ranges. From my own purely original research standpoint, I have previously observed the "Trans-Caucasian" bit as putting Armenia in Asia. However, I can equally see that rather than draw a line at the "top of the peaks", one could also draw the line at "where the foothills end". In geographical terms, the physical distinction could be considered blurry, but country borders also provide a convenient delineation.

Moving on to "political" distinctions as in what the polis (people) consider themselves to be, it seems clear that Armenia considers itself part of the European identity, and participates in the various political structures of Europe. The fact that Armenia is largely Christian doubtless contributes to this sentiment, however the general outlook and orientation has some sway.

Looking at the sources given in reference #6: The BBC ref lists only "Indo-European", so nothing there; Oxford Reference Online is a pay site; M-W doesn't mention Europe at all; the worldatlas.com source however is compelling and goes to some length to explain the "modern" definition of Europe (see the "Please note:" section).

On balance of the geographical and political considerations, I find that the current article wording of "...the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Situated at the juncture of Western Asia and Eastern Europe..." is indeed correct and gives the most neutral weighting. Of course, that's just my opinion. :) Franamax (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact of having two different continents on one land mass is a pain in the rear end, but personally, I prefer to have two different continents, just for the fact that the cultures and the people of the two continents are too different to be classified as a part of the same continent. You said that Armenia is predominantly a Christian country...so is Ethiopia, but people don't refer to it as "Afro-Eurasian", just an African country.Besides being a part of the Russian Empire from 1829 until 1918 and then of the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1991, and of course except of the time when it was an independent country in the Middle Ages and in the ancient times, it was either a state under a Mongol, Persian or Turkish control. So you see, it has more connections with the Asian world.You said that people in Armenia identify themselves with Europe, but do Europeans think of Armenia the same way?But we don't have to look far...UN classifies those countries as being Asian and I think we should follow the UN guidelines. I think it would be a better choice to use something like "....a transcontinental country in South-West Asia". Norum (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the current wording, "Situated at the juncture of Western Asia and Eastern Europe," is just fine, per Franmax. Some of the comparisons above are a bit over the top, comparing to countries clearly not connected or adjacent to Europe or in Africa. The bottom line is there is only one Trans-Caucasus region, there are only three countries involved. The quote about a united Europe from the Atlantic to Caspian is not my personal characterization. The current wording is neutral enough without needing to rely on the additional element of geopolitical aspirations. BTW, if we say trans-continental we need to mention both continents, no? And that's what the current wording does. PetersV       TALK 02:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Right at the start we have Norum claiming "It shows Armenia as always being located in Asia. The Caucasus Mtns have been a traditional border between Europe and Asia, but all the countries there, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are located south of it, therefore are not European countries". Astonishing! He gets it 180 degrees wrong! It is countries NORTH of the Caucasus mountains that are traditionally outside of Europe. I've seen the same Norum nonsense repeated a number of times before by other editors. Does it originate in America where persons of Russian descent don't like to be reminded that their lands NORTH of the Caucasus were the traditional home of Gog and Magog, held in check behind the Gates of Alexander but still waiting to break through to the SOUTH, to Europe, and bring about the end of the world. Meowy 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, did you get your directions all mixed up?....lol. You have to think before you post anything.North of Caucasus we have Russia, south of it we have Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and then Iran and Turkey. Stop saying I write nonsense if it is really you who writes it. Countries north of Caucasus are traditionally outside of Europe...lol..haven't heard this much nonsense and had this much fun in a very long time....lol...oh yeah...let me guess, according to you, everything on the southern coast of the Mediterranean is Europe and everything on the northern coast is Africa..lol...go home and stop making an ass of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus_region_1994.jpg

Norum (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Traditionally north of the Caucasus mountains is Asia, south of it is Europe. Buy a compass to tell the difference, or give us all a break and stop posting. You are the ass - seems you can take an ass to water but can't make it drink from the fountain of knowledge, it prefers the muddy pool of ignorance. Meowy 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Youch! Hope this is all tongue in cheek. (!) Since the Trans-Caucasus countries are on the Armenian and Transcaucasus (Lesser Caucasus Mountains) Highlands, they truly are on the geological boundary--as already described. PetersV       TALK 17:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Meowy... Lol....go to school...according to your statement, Iran and Turkey are in Europe. Man, you are funny....look at the atlas first before you start making any dumb comments saying that everything north of Caucasus is Asian and south is European. Look at the map again and stop writing nonsense. N stands for the north and thats the Russian part which is European, S is for the south which is the three small countries and that's Asia.@ PetersV the point is that this guy (Meowy) is making some idiotic statements that the part of Russia which is located along the Caucasus Mts and is on its northern side, is actually Asia. Norum (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, explain this to me, wiseguy, unless I am missing here something.....how can northern part be Asian if the borderuns along the Caucasus Mts and north is European. Maybe you are right, maybe I don't get it or missing the point here. Norum (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to feed it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OK. Of course, the general view of what "Europe" and "European" means has varied over time (few would have called Lithuania or Estonia part of "Europe" during the Cold War, for example). Armenia and Georgia were traditionally considered to be European culturally, and a part of Christendom (which essentially meant the same as Europe). What they (along with Azerbaijan) were never traditionally considered to be, was part of Asia. Asia began on the other side of the Caucasus - what we would now call the Russian side. It's just a case of finding the proper wording to express that in the article. Meowy 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Though what I've just said is not correct either. Before people knew about "proper" Asia - such as Central Asia beyond the Caucasus - all of the Middle East was called Asia, including of course Armenia. But that "Asia" is not the same as today's understanding of what is meant by "Asia" - for example, nobody today would call Israel an Asian country. Meowy 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you make it clear. Thanks for explaining this to me. It would have been different if it was all expressed better in the article, as you said it. I just go by the general view where the border runs along Caucasus and the Russian side is Europe and everything south of it is Asia.As you mentioned, I have mo prior edits about this region and still, have hard times considering Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (and Cyprus to add to this mix...lol) to be part of Europe.My apology for calling you names. Norum (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll delete part of my posts in return. Meowy 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, WP:DOMESTICBLISS returns. Yes, what we are agreeing is that Europe traditionally, i.e., first, ended at the base of the northern Caucasus foothills/highlands, and that is where Asia then began. Over time that demarcation has moved southward and blurred to where the entire highlands are now the area separating Europe and Asia. I do have to comment the Baltics have always been part of Europe as has the western part of Russia (west of the Urals), whether as Russia or the USSR (for anyone familiar with the Baltics). That said, with Western Europe and the USSR separated by the Eastern bloc, I would agree that for those 50 years Eastern Europe was popularly taken as equivalent to the Eastern bloc, up to but not including territory past the Soviet frontier (making the distinction as opposed to de jure borders). PetersV       TALK 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don;'tthink what you are saying is what I am saying. I'm saying that there is a difference in what we now think of as "Asia", and what the word once meant. For the early medieval world, all of the middle east was "Asia", North of the Caucasus were completely unknown lands, not Asia. But later, Asia was not just not Europe, it was not the Middle East, and Asia as a geographical concept was pushed northwards and eastwards, over to the north side of the Caucasus. And things got mixed up even more when the northern side became part of Russia. Meowy 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I also deleted the comment I left on your page. But going back to the point. This situation could be also applied to Poland or Finland (or for that matter, any country) that Russia/Soviet Union) has taken any land from. Karelia used to be Finnish, but SU too it from them. Same goes to what are now parts of Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. It used to belong to Poland up until 1939, but the Soviets took it away from from them. Or Germany and Alsace. So it is similar in a way....

Norum (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Finland got shafted and Poland as far as I can tell completely shifts back and forth every century or two. ;) However, since our aim is to be descriptive, we can only report on the current situation and how it was different in the past. Similarly in this instance, we can't make such a simple statement as "Armenia is and has always been in Asia" (and/or Europe). Definitions change with time. This to me is the compelling argument for using the "at the juncture of" wording. Georgia and Armenia at least clearly self-identify as European countries (not sure about Azerbaijan) and the geography is a little ambiguous (unless you want to say that the line must be drawn at the highest ground). "Juncture" really captures it well, and the sources back it up, since they disagree. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Equus mortuus est. :-) If I have my Latin right. PetersV       TALK 00:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Semper ubi sub ubi - although I think my Mom told me to semper ubi purus sub ubi (if I have my Latin right). :) Franamax (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read that section and it is written relatively neutral. However the title "Foreign rule" is very biased. Yerevan and in general the territory of the contemporary Republic of Armenia has been part of subsequent Iranian empires. So its possession by Safavids cannot be considered as foreign rule, especially when their Armenian and Muslim inhabitants were considered as Iranian subjects. The same can be said about Russia but the difference is that Russia fought a war with Qajar Iran and conquered the area while the (Muslim) subjects resisted. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering it encompasses Mongol, Ottoman, Russian and Safavid Empires, it does give the proper perspective. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry I did not get your point--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What else would you call an area that has endured Mongol, Ottoman, Russian and Safavid rule, when it was neither Mongol, Ottoman, Russian or Safavid? Foreign rule. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The territory has been in a way or another part f subsequent Iranian empires. Therefore I do not think the Safavid-Afshar-Zand-Qajar should have the same status as the Mongol, Ottoman or Russian. Armenian parts of Anatolia id another stry. there you can call Iran a foreign ruler but at the same time you can not say under foreign Ottoman rule. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they were part of the domains of the Iranian empire. Obviously Iran expanded into those realms and foisted its laws and culture against the Armenians.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true, because in the Prechristian times Armenians were zoroastrians. Only it came into a clash with the Zoroastrian clergy during the Sasanid era, but it was decided that Christians have freedom of religion, iun the islamic times Christians were better off than zoroastrians. Moreover most people silamized. Armenians became other ethnicity after being conveerted into islam, most other ethnicities didnt. After a long time when there was not a unified Iranian kingdom, the Safavid empire restored the Iranian realm amongst which the territory of contemporary republic of Armenia. A lot of Armenians were displaced to central Iran. Unlike what Armenian nationalists claim this was not a bad period for Armenians. Armenians prosperred in esfahan and there are documents which Shah of Iran guaranteed their religious freedom and even has exempted them from taxes. A privilage which moslems didn't have. So those laws were not very bad for Armenians. But yes, nowadays it is a bad thing being associated with mUslims, so understandably Armenians keep distance from the Iranian civilization and Iran.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And before being zoroastrians, what do you think they were? Persian culture certainly influenced Armenians a lot, but there was something before, and it survived. Sardur (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course everywhere were something before somethig. The argument is however that Iranian rule cannot be seen as an occupation. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell them that Sardur (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Armenian nationalists and their Western allies try to insinuiate each Moslem state and victimize Armenians, disregarding the facts. Good victimized Christians, bad bad Moslems. A very well known cliche.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed foreign rule to early modern era, because it is neutral and in line with the rest of content which is chronological. Similar formula is applied in article Iran for roughly the same period (Safavid to 1920s) I hope that everyone is OK with this.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the nationalistic fervor to devolve this into some nonsensical merde. Regardless of the numerous accusations of Armenian(or other) nationality directed against me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

thats OK because the formula sugested by me is the least nationalistic (of any sort) of all possible formulas--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Baba, anytime someone enters a discussion claiming others have an attitude of "Christians good, Muslims bad", that to me indicates a battlefield mentality which seldom turns out well here on the wiki. And I don't buy for one second your assertion that Iranians/Persians/Safavids are the "natural" rulers of Armenia. Perhaps you have some neutral and reliable sources attesting to that, beyond your own certainty?

That said, I'm OK with your change to the section heading, it fits in well with the tenor of the other section headings. Not so with your change at the Yerevan article, but that's a story for another talk page. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many studies have shown that the orientalistic sttitude does exist in Scholarship. But that was not the reason that I had proposed to change the title. Actually for the sake of consistency the Iranian, Armenian, Rep. Azerbaijani historiography should come together in articles that are relevant. It is difficult in the case of Aremnia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, but it is relatively easier in those about Iran with either Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia. A good departing point is to eliminate or at least marginalize ethnic nationalism in the edits.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Babakexorramdin that "foreign rule" is a problematic term, implying an ethnocentric point of view. If Texas was to become independent next year, it would be possible to claim Texas had been under "foreign rule" from 1519 to 2009. But it would hardly be neutral or undisputed to state that Texas is under "foreign rule" today. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are Armenians Iranians? No. So they're foreigners. Many (most?) Armenians in the 19th century welcomed Russian rule (at least until Alexander III started his Russification campaign), but Russian rule was still foreign rule. See the very title of the second volume of Richard Hovanissian (ed.) The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) --Folantin (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

all I am saying is that the term isn't neutral. I am sure it is easy to find literature that discusses Russian and even Persian rule of the Armenian highlands as "foreign". The question is, for how much time does such a rule remain foreign. The Seljuks invaded Anatolia around the 11th century. Is Turkey under "foreign rule" because of that? The Alamanni entered Gallo-Roman Switzerland around the 6th century. Is Switzerland under "foreign rule"? If you throw around the term "foreign rule" too lightly, you will end up supporting all sorts of irredentism. Obviously, Russian rule was comparatively brief, and Armenia wasn't significantly "Russified", so it is comparatively straightforward to call the Russian empire period "foreign rule". But is the Soviet period to be included? After all, the Soviet Union was officially based on a "brotherhood of nations", and not on Russian hegemony. I simply recommend that all usage of "foreign rule" should be attributed. Instances of "foreign rule" used in Wikipedia's voice will be intrinsically problematic. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Soviets invaded the Democratic Republic of Armenia, so it was under foreign rule. Babak simply wants to exclude Safavid Iran from "foreign rule". The Safavids came to power around 1501 (before that, Iran itself had been more or less under foreign rule since about 650). In the 16th century, Armenia wasn't under Safavid dominion - it was a war zone between the Ottomans and Safavids and the area was subject to massive devastation and famine. Shah Abbas couldn't hold Armenia so he turned most of the place into a cordon sanitaire, scorched the earth and deported hundreds of thousands of the population elsewhere. The true period of Safavid rule in Armenia starts some time in the middle of the 17th century, but the Safavids only lasted until 1736. After that, various Iranian rulers held Armenia (or part of it) until the early 19th century. The title of the book I cited, "From Foreign Dominion to Statehood", is pretty accurate. --Folantin (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice of reason. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I think where this went south was from the very start, that is, "possession" of a territory makes the possessor no longer "foreign." This is a common, yet utterly false, mischaracterization. PetersV       TALK 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Armenia is 100% located in Asia. If Armenia is an Eurasian country, so is Iran. Yes, Armenia has some historical and cultural relations with Europe, but this is very normal. Morocco also has relationships with its European neighbors, but this makes Morocco not European. See maps of Europe , and Asia . Armenia is not a transcontinetal country, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey is. El-instein (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, the expansion of what is for self-identification and political purposes considered the "juncture" of Europe and Asia in the Transcaucasus is at the heart of the current description, reflecting current sources. Comparisons with Morocco are interesting, but don't really address the subject, being that Morocco is separated from Europe by a major body of water. PetersV       TALK 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Please forgive me if I am not doing this properly, it is my first time.

Original text:These events are traditionally commemorated yearly on April 24, the Armenian Martyr Day, or the Day of the Armenian Genocide.

Suggested replaced:These events are traditionally commemorated yearly on April 24, the Armenian Commemoration Day, or the Day of the Armenian Genocide.

In the page for Armenia under the Genocide section, why is April 24th called Armenian Martyr Day and not Armenian Commemoration Day? Although the word martyr means 'a person who is killed for their religious beliefs', today it is often used surrounding negatives circumstances such as terrorist dying for their cause. In a web forum recently a Turk used the phrase 'Armenian Martyr Day' with a negative connotation suggesting that Armenians empower themselves from the memories of those who died to contrive against the Turks. Whether this is right or wrong depends on which side of the fence you stand, all Armenians are infidels in their eyes. But instead of fueling their fire would you consider changing the wording to Armenian Commemoration Day as used in many parts of the world?

Shahane (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan is of Armenian descent. (Source: Charlie Rose episode on The Sweet Hereafter (film) DVD)

Persian Armenian culture of Armenia is the strongest force for the econmy as in education,athleics, and as far as the countries economy and military power has to deal with.We love the Iranian Armenians of Armenia and around the worls and we needto thank them ever day for the improvements they have made and contributed to the country of Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.127.110 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD, pressed return before I could complete edit summary. Nowhere in the citations does it says Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity, either change the claim or find sources that say this.This smacks a bit of OR.

1. ^ "The conversion of Armenia to Christianity was probably the most crucial step in its history. It turned Armenia sharply away from its Iranian past and stamped it for centuries with an intrinsic character as clear to the native population as to those outside its borders, who identified Armenia almost at once as the first state to adopt Christianity". (Garsoïan, Nina (1997). ed. R.G. Hovannisian. ed. Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. Volume 1, p.81. ).
2. ^ Grousset, René (1947). Histoire de l'Arménie (1984 ed.). Payot. pp. 122. . Estimated dates vary from 284 to 314. Garsoïan (op.cit. p.82), following the research of Ananian, favours the latter.

San Marino, traditionally, admittedly, was founded in 301 by Saint Marinus making it by default a Christian country. We cannot be sure of the exact date of the founding of San Marino, the same that the source given here isn't sure about the date of Armenia's conversion. I challenge the claim that "The Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its religion". I also notice that the claim is about a country that isn't the one being covered by the article, this even before the history part of the lead begins, a case of WP:UNDUE? This is akin to the lead for Germany claiming Prussia was a great warring nation in the first few lines, not the way to write an article about a country, imo. I'm removing the claim, and it's up to whoever disagrees to reinstate it, this time with a proper citation. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The king's conversion was followed by that of the whole kingdom, making Armenia

the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion..., Readings in World Christian History: Earliest Christianity to 1453, p122.

During their four-century rule, Armenia became the first state to adopt

Christianity..., An Ethnohistorical dictionary of the Russian and Soviet empires‎ , p42

In 301 CE St Gregory the Illuminator converted the Armenian king, making Armenia

the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion, Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples‎, p215

The Armenian nation was the first to adopt Christianity as the national religion., Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states‎, p 6

The ancient kingdom of Armenia, located in the same area, was the first state to

adopt Christianity as its official religion., Middle East patterns: places, peoples, and politics‎, p120

And the list continues[1] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2004‎ - Page 76by AUTOR NAO LOCALIZADO, Taylor & Francis Group - Reference - 2003 - 680 pagesIn circa AD 314 Armenia became the first state to adopt Christianity. About onecentury later it developed a distinct alphabet and literary language, ...

Circa AD 314, 11 years after the founding of San Marino... and we are talking about a state that isn't even modern Armenia, if it should be included at all, it should not be in the lead. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that San Marino was not a country in 301 AD, but merely part of the Roman Empire? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"According to tradition, Saint Marinus left the island of Rab in Croatia with his lifelong friend Leo and went to the city of Rimini as a mason. After persecution because of his Christian sermons, he escaped to the nearby Monte Titano, where he built a small church and thus founded what is now the city and the state of San Marino. The official date of foundation of the Republic is 3 September 301... By the mid-5th century, a community was formed; because of its relatively inaccessible location and its poverty, it has succeeded, with a few brief interruptions, in maintaining its independence. In 1631 its independence was recognized by the Papacy." - San Marino article

From what I gather, San Marinus founded a church. And a "community" developed only in the mid-5th century. Hardly even a "country" by the mid-5th century... Serouj (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the link in the San Marino article claiming "301" seems to be dubious, as that date does not even appear on that website... Serouj (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. San Marino became a comune in the XI Century and a Republic in 1253. As far as I know it has been independent since its founding day. In any case it is the same entity as when it was founded. San Marino's founding date is as uncertain as the date of Armenian conversion.

San Marino's government uses the date 3 September 301 in official papers. Serouj, can you at least use a source that clearly supports the claim? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I need to find a good source for that. Shouldn't take me too long; it's just that the books aren't in front of me right now... Serouj (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of population of Armenia is controversial, official estimates are around the 3,2 million while according to scholars its around the 2,5 million. The estimate by the scholars has been added to the infobox aswell, for more on the talk regarding this change see here. Neftchi (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenia does not have to equalize Georgia generally, yes indeed but in this particular case the sitionation is somewhat similar, I think. Under cultural Europe many people understand Western Europe, its history and culture. Armenia is not universally considered to be part of Europe. Many editors are uncomfortable with the current formulation. In fact it does nothing but serve as a source of continuous edit warring. The change of wording might have helped. Tamokk 12:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen. In the archives you will find all the discussion needed to put this issue to rest alon with two passed rfc's for that specific paragraph. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check. Archive number which? Tamokk 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're so interested in Armenia, why don't you read all the archives?

Can I demand another rfc? Tamokk 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A third one on the same topic? A little redundant no?

And a question. Do you consider that that statement is correct. Is Armenia considered culturally and historically to be in Europe? Tamokk 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

Some of the editors clearly do not consider Armenia to be in Europe, and they point to sources. So I would recommend you to change the wording. Tamokk 15:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, like who? User Caligvla? lol Do you want his backstory?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... I, for one, never considered Armenia to be a part of Europe, as I mentioned in the "To Europe" section above. I don't think the question is worth all the ink, or bytes, spilled on it, though. Let me ask a somewhat different question of all sides: In your opinion, why is the question, along with the minutiae of its phrasing in the article, so terribly important? Why is it such a great honor to "be in" Europe? Why would it be such a great shame to "be in" Asia? And vice-versa? Why, exactly, is the phrasing of this issue of such importance? Perhaps if each side could articulate, honestly and candidly, why this issue is so important, some better consensus or compromise could be reached. Xenophon777 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you are sharing your thoughts but personal opinions are pretty much irrelevant here (you could consider the earth is flat for example), so how about we stop flooding the page with this nonsense? Lets not beat a dead horse anymore. As a result of the rfc's there is a community consensus for that paragraph. That's it. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Xenophon777 many whys is simple: some edditors want these countries (Georgia and Armenia)) to be in Europe. It is less interesting why do they want so. Maybe they just want, and that's ok. But when these people write that Armenia is considered Europe, it is nothing but pushing POV. And who considers? Is that rfc? Then you should indicate in the article that rfc considers and not generally considered. Not everybody considers Armenia in Europe, so the statement is factually inccorect. Tamokk 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaced Armenia is considered part of Europe with Armenia is part of Europe. This way we do make a controversial claim that Armenia is in Europe. But at least we do not say that Armenia is

You keep pushing your own pov without providing any sources to back up your claims, WHO doesn't consider Armenia or Georgia or Cyprus for that matter to be "culturally, politically and historically" European. Show me one reliable source! We are not talking about arbitraty and ambiguous geographic borders but what that line states!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamokk the sentence you changed was sourced and by changing it the source became useless. --VartanM 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That source is quite a long pdf. What does it say, that Armenia is considered part of Europe? Upon what ground is that claim made there? Tamokk 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamokk, by saying that the source is quite long, and you don't intend to read it, completely disqualifies you from editing this article. What you're actually saying is that you've been edit waring without the full knowledge of the article and its sources. My suggestion to you would be to read the pdf, the full 18 pages of it, and then we can discuss it here, or if you have no intention of reading it please leave this article alone. --VartanM 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know many people do not consider Armenia to be in Europe. Tamokk 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, nore than is required. Lastly, nobody is interested in what you think you know or what you've heard. This is not a discussion forum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from incivility. I think our discussion is highly relevant to the article. Tamokk 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being prudent not uncivil if you think otherwise I suggest you report it! For the billionth time, this space is for discussing the sources, not your or my opinions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another RfC is in order -- enough argumentation is presented to substantiate a number of viewpoints regarding Armenia's nature, and I refuse to cow-tow to editors who continue to push a point of view at the exclusion of others. And editors do not 'need to know' about an article's history to edit it -- anyone is free to edit as they choose. And if assertions regarding consensual content herein were so clear, consensus should not be difficult to point out or it should be self-evident. Really, why all the pretense? And if/when an RfC is posted, trust me that it will be posted broadly to garner the widest possible feedback. Corticopia 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Corticopia's last edit. Let's keep it like that until this dispute is resolved. -- Aivazovsky 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Until a consensus can be demonstrated for the prior version,and this is not the case currently, why should we 'keep it like that'? Corticopia 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

...because that was how it was before you changed it. We should discuss any major revisions to the present [my last] version before going forward. -- Aivazovsky 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how the changes are major? It's all there, but phrased differently. The fact that it a version lingered beforehand means little, since editors implicated in recent ArbCom dickery are culprits herein -- this is the web, after all, so change is the norm. As well, this is being discussed, and reverting toa stale-dated editions is anything but moving forward. Corticopia 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you leaving? I guess you missed edit warring too much. The burden of proof sits on you! You are removing a heavily sourced, neutral paragraph that has been here for over a year, you are also going against consensus. If that wasn't enough you are also edit warring! Reverting more than once by a single user is just that. Why don't we file a user rfc on your conduct intsead?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did -- particularly with your ilk. Any more ArbCom decisions against you lately? Feel free to initiate your spats of wikiprocess -- like it'll do any good. And I'll reciprocate in kind and see where that leads.

And you have not provided any proof here to support your argument, so you're the one that's being burdensome. Anyhow, I will devote my time hereafter to more useful pursuits instead of conversing with limited editors who fester on mediocrity. A bientot. Corticopia 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you can be blocked just for the above comment right? I think i'll save it just in case you continue disrupting the article. How have I not provied any proof if all the references for the paragraph have been added by me and I have at least three pages of other relevant written material (with sources) in the archives? You don't know what you're talking about.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your threats: you seem to have a penchant for ad hominen arguments, and feel free to try to initiate something -- it will only escalate things for all parties unnecessarily. And making obtuse references to two prior RfCs (still not provided) and reaffirming your position without specificity further deprecates it. Why should your sources usurp others that have also been added? I can provide a wealth more. This is a classic breach of neutrality guidelines regarding content in Wikipedia.

How many people must you refer to as 'not knowing what they are talking about' before acknowledging and admitting your own errors? After all, I have not been sanctioned by the ArbCom. Corticopia 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have rved Corticopia for the following reason: Corticopia please watch out that other content is unchanged when rving. Tamokk 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop pushing rvs now and discuss. Tamokk 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Like what content? How much discussion needs to occur? Anyhow, for now, I will leave these articles to the morass of editors currently editing them. Corticopia 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why do some want to keep clumsy formulations. Georgian version is good in my opinion. At least two other editors share my point of view. Tamokk 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to express opinions, and the two editors you mentioned have a long history of POV pushing in this and other Armenia-Europe related articles. VartanM 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have heard plenty of criticism of the current version. Maybe opponents would like to criticize the suggested one? Otherwise you will be constantly reverted. Tamokk 04:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trying to change the article. Please tell us how is your version better then the current one. VartanM 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to change the article -- I as much as any editor can change the article as needed.

Anyhow, my version is better for a few reasons: (1) logical flow of information, which notes its location first (as do most country articles), then country details; (2) better syntax -- even Tamokk indicates the prior introduction is clumsy; (3) importantly, information is presented equitably -- numerous sources indicate Armenia (and other Caucasian countries) to be of Europe and/or Asia (online, just about as many for each); the prior version skews content in favour of its inclusion in Europe. My edits are far from biased: e.g., Cyprus is similar. If you read carefully, you will note that nothing has been removed, but merely restructured and tweaked. And, as of yet, no one has demonstrated why this introduction is in invalid. Lastly, if I am one of the two editors you're referring to in terms of pushing a POV of view at Europe, think again -- this has been thoroughly discussed, and I am not the one who continues to readd entries to the table against consensus. Corticopia 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: 1) Armenia is not universally considered to be European, thus more moderate language of new version is recommended. 2) Stylistically the new version is better. E.g. it avoids putting that boundaries of Europe and Asia are arbitrary. Tamokk 06:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the information, suggested formulation comes from user:kober, from the article about Georgia, if I am not mistaken. Tamokk 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Every credible reference book on earth places Armenia in Asia, Asia Minor or Middle East. Don't believe go grab a reference book from your bookshelf right now and look. The only sources that counter that view are from obscure websites who primary purpose is something other than disturbing factual geographical information. There is no need for an RfC because there is no debate to be had here. This article has been hijacked by editors with a POV that doesn't stand up to the facts. I would suggest correctly removing all unsubstantiated claims that Armenia is European in anyway and locking the Article for 1 year. --Caligvla 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Caligvula, I do agree that this and related articles have been hijacked -- some of the involved editors have been sanctioned as the result of a recent case brought to the Arbitration Committee, and yet other involved editors have been implicated. Anyhow, none have yet critically disputed the revised introduction, because they can't or won't, so it shall stay. Apropos, sources may indicate that Armenia is in Europe and/or Asia -- the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, for instance, indicates both: that the current country is in Southeastern Europe, but the former kingdom is of Western Asia. Remember: our goal is to present information equitably, and cite along the way. :) Corticopia 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Webster issue is very controversial. They recently changed it under pressure and fear of litigation from radical Armenian political groups. --Caligvla 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cm'on ... Corticopia 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caliglava too. Georgia and Armenia are in Asia, but some editors are uncomfortable with this for political reasons. Although some definitions may place these countries in Europe too. Let us retain the current wording. It does not say that Armenia is in Europe anyway. Tamokk

I would suggest to remove the transcontinental country. Tamokk

Why? VartanM 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Litigation notwithstanding, even I would not remove this notion, but wouldn't resist refactoring it (e.g., physiographically wholly/partially in Asia, strong sociopolitical/cultural connections to Europe): the notion that Armenia is of Europe is in enough reputable publications that this viewpoint cannot be ignored. I suppose this will always be the case with countries such as those in the Caucasus which straddle the border of two continents, hence them being transcontinental countries. If the main crest of the Caucasus Mountains is a determinant of the border between Europe and Asia, I believe all of Armenia would be in Asia but portions of Georgia would be in both. Corticopia 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Let's just keep it as it is. Tamokk 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a Russian-Armenian, however I would like Armenia to be considered part of the Middle East. It is embarassing and shameful at what level the Armenian editors here have lowered themselves to. You guys are begging Armenia to be considered part of Europe. Politically Armenia may resemble a European country. But culturally we don't have that much in commonwith the Europeans (only that were Christians). However, on the other hand, we have a great deal of things in common with the Middle Easterners. Historically, culturally, and politically all throughout Armenia's history we have been considered to be Middle Eastern, lets keep it that way. If you look at the Europe article, you can see they have no regards for Armenians, they included Turks as Europeans, and Azeri's in some parts, but they did not mention anything about Armenia, except that it was an indo-European language. I want to know why so many editors here are against Armenia for being part of the Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.202.139 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia is not in Europe, by no stretch of the term. At some point it is useful to remember that words have meanings, and you can't just wave your hands and wait until the meanings are gone so you can claim whatever the hell you like. Well, you can, but this ins't what Wikipedia is here for. It isn't even clear why it should be "desirable" to anyone for Armenia to be in Europe. Armenia is a unique country with a unique heritage, situated in Transcaucasia. What is the point of creating a warped notion of "Europe" just so Armenia can be named with Belgium and Portugal and Denmark? This isn't doing anything for anybody. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

false map of Armenia:

http://img33.imageshack.us/i/ggggggggggggggggggggggg.png/

http://img27.imageshack.us/i/drgmapn.png/

Map of the Democratic Republic of Georgia from November 1918 to May 1920:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/DRGMap.png--იბერია (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it really neccesary to mention in the opening text that Armenia is a member of UEFA and the IIHF? Almost every sovereign nation is member of one regional football association, it's nothing special. The same goes for Ice Hockey. They compete on an international level, that's it. --85.183.213.124 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)this information really would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.222.100 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Its really sad that Armenians are resorting to make laws to make it illegal to even talk about the fact that there was no genocide. Keeping to their communist and nazi roots they hope one day to see that the truth was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.69.17 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the sentence in the Wedding Ceremony section, "To celebrate the mutual family agreement, the woman's family opens a bottle of Armenian cognac," read as such? I'm thinking that since Cognac has to contain 90% Cognaçais grapes, the typical Armenian beverage wouldn't qualify as Cognac, just brandy. Just tossing it out there, get back to me if you think it's correct. Thanks! Bblakeney (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}On October 4th, of 2009, "ArmenianKing" added an image of a Slavic-looking girl to the Culture section. In addition, the comment to the image states: "An Armenian girl holding a baby, Armenians are Aryan caucasian people with blonde/red hair with blue/green eyes. Most Armenians have brown/black hair with dark brown/hazel eyes due to the diaspora.[75]" All three (the image, the comment, and its reference) are inapproriate and/or false.

Let me start by saying that the girl on the image does not look as ethnic Armenian at all. Anyone who has seen Armenians and any Slavic peoples, will tell you this. If this picture was taken in Armenia, then she must be a Molokan Russian. Molokan Russians who live in Armenia moved there in 19th century and constitute less than 1% of Armenia's population. While they are full citizens of the Republic of Armenia like everyone else living there, passing this picture as an image of an "Armenian" girl is clearly misleading.

Second, the claim that Armenians are an "Aryan Caucasian people" again should be removed as it is not even clear what "Aryan" means today. Since the world war 2, this is considered a racially and politically charged term and no social scientists (linguists, etc) use it for any scientific purpose.

Finally, the reference of the comment leads to the web site http://www.armenianaryans.com/AC/index.php5 which is some discussion board can can't be used as a reference.

Given that the whole thing (the image, comment, and the reference) is a troll post, I suggest to remove the image from the article. In fact, I also suggest to revert ALL of ArmenianKing's changes since this person clearly is not acting in good faith.

Urchalka2000 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the image and caption are not backed up by any appropriate reliable source, therefore I have removed it.

I am not knowledgable about the subject, so please would others look at the other additions - this diff should help - and, if necessary, make further requests. When requesting an edit using {{editsemiprotected}}, please be specific, and give references for any additions. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

The HDI in 2009 is 0.799, therefore Armenia belongs (almost) to high developped countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.55.122.6 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the page has been protected, we can't make minor (or any) edits, so here's the beginning of a list of problems:

• The link from "Van" points incorrectly to Van rather than Van,_Turkey

Where is the link. Using find in Firefox, I couldn't find it.Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops: I actually saw the mistake on Armenian Genocide, another protected page. Can you change that one, Harryboyles?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.231.67 (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

• (As stated above) The lock image in the upper right corner of the article is a semi-protection lock, but this page is protected completely.Yaanch^Speak! 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• (As stated above) The prime minister of Armenia died so we need to put under Prime minister (on the Armenia template) "vacant" to match the Politics of Armenia template.Yaanch^Speak! 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the page for us. Yaanch^Speak! 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence about Judaism is grammatically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.1.132 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• The section "Etymology of name" from the article "Armenia" says: "The name has traditionally been derived from Hayk (Հայկ), the legendary patriarch of the Armenians and a great-great-grandson of Noah,...", however the article "Hayk" says: "Moses gives Hayk's genealogy as: Japhet, Gomer, Tiras, Torgom, and his descendants as Armaneak, Aramais, Amasya, Gegham, Harma, Aram, Ara Keghetzig.", making him a great-great-great-grandson of Noah, according to this account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.243.23 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How about adding the name of Marshal Hovhannes Bagramyan to the list of famous Armenians? For your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.76.45 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For all those who enjoy Armenian tea (Mint, Thyme, Hawthorn or Rose Hip). I just found the most pleasent product sold on ebay. Just type in Armenian Tea and you'll be directed to the page. It took me back to the homeland when I tried it. You won't be disappointed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.146.148 (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed with a file that considers Armenia in its relationship to the world at large. I would like to put it here in this discussion page should it ever be needed.Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As part of the doughnut project it's crticial that tukalik and chickies are covered. Can anyone help? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The specified area of about 42.000 kilometers ² is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.32.208 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on traditional Armenian wedding customs is very cute, but does it have a place in this article? I think it should be deleted. Skyduster (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the listing of notable Armenians the absence of Komitas, the great musician and musicologist stood out like a sore thumb. He should have been at or near the top of the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.13.111 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All bull... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.145.77 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

i found this article on a website and wanted to know if it is ok to update the armenian army's military equipment numbers. the website is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/armenia/army.htm. thanks (68.120.91.179 (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

i found this article about the Armenian Air Force that in 2007 they had bought 18 MIG29's from Russia. just want to make sure the air force page was updated. here is the link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/armenia/af.htm (68.120.91.179 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)) if this first website doesnt work try this other one http://www.search.com/reference/Armenian_Air_Force (68.120.91.179 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

It is OK to update whatever you wish if there are references on reliable sources. You should always put the references. I'd suggest reading WP:RS first, if you are not familiar, and then make any non-controversial changes. Aregakn (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article declares as a "fact" that Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain near Armenia. While this may or not be true, it is not an objective fact, but a religious certitude. As such it does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Landroo (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Might be, but Noah's Ark is a religious term and story and everybody knows it (whoever doesn't will understand by mentioning of Bible beside it and if they don't know what Bible is, they can read in WIki). And that it "landed" on Ararat is also part of it. When talking about it and quoting is count to be not a fact, then I think all the quotations from the Bible should be deleted. Otherwise, we can leave the story based on the Bible remain as a religious story. It is written exactly, that this tells the Bible and that it is not a fact.

In addition, and just BTW, there've been several expeditions conducted by different parties, suggesting the Ark was found. Aregakn (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If so, where is the evidence?Landroo (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think these questions are to those, who wrote the Bible.... God? Aregakn (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the Armenian genocide is put forward as the reason of the poor diplomatic relations with the Republic of Turkey? Yes, there is a dispute about the genocide between Armenia and Turkey, but what is the direct link between the genocide and the diplomatic relations? In my opinion there is no link, because if the Karabakh conflict didn't happened, the Armenian-Turkish borders would probably still be open today. Randam (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? see Germany and Israel. Sardur (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Germany and Israel? I don't see the parallels regarding the Karabakh War. In 1991, Armenia started diplomatic and economic relations with Turkey, dispite the genocide dispute. In 1993, the diplomatic relations ended. So the 'obstacle' in the diplomatic relations is the Karabakh conflict, not the genocide. Randam (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an educated view on the issue... Sardur (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When are you going to strengthen your words with arguments? Just answer this question: Would the Armenian-Turkish border still be open, if the Karabakh conflict did not happened? Randam (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What an amazing question. May I remind you that WP is not a forum?

Based on reliable sources, Turkey said the border won't be opened without a significant progress on the NK issue. Full stop.

Sardur (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For a note: there were no established diplomatic relationships between Armenia and Turkey even before the 1993. Aregakn (talk)

Technically Armenia is South of the Caucus Mountains central ridge, meaning it is Geographically in Asia. Also Eastern Europe is no where near Armenia (author probably meant eastern part of Europe). Armenia has strong social-political (one of the few Asian countries on the council of Europe) ties with Europe, but is by no means considered a "European Nation". Armenia is NOT a transcontinental country under current international definitions, saying its in Eurasia is a little miss leading. - American Dood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.94.131 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

According to IMF site, gdp figures for Armenia, for the year 2009, are 8.714 billion $ GDP nominal and per capita for (PPP) is 4.977 $. Now, ArmOvak constantly changes gpd nominal to gdp (ppp) and rounds up numbers such as total area of the country and per capita for (ppp). And he does that without giving a reason, even if he did, i doubt it would be reliable than IMF.--Cerian (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he claims the area that he wrote is right and takes 2010 gdp (ppp) projections of IMF. All the country pages that I have seen in Wikipedia are 2009 figures. You shouldn't be able to write in main page's infobox before something really happened. You can write it in "Economy" section, but that is it. CIA - Armenia Physical and Socio-economic Description of Armenia. CIA source should be enough i guess.. --Cerian (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let him stay in 2009, but in case of a change, does not conform to the IMF, which is given the reference, I again made an edit on 2010.ArmOvak (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created this template containing the 20 largest cities in Armenia by population. I took the population information from List of municipalities of Armenia.

As well, I would like, if agreed to keep the template, to discuss the pictures in it. I chose the pictures of Yerevan, Gyumri, Vanadzor (which I think are relevant) and Hrazdan, Kapan and Dilijan. I don't know if others will agree with my decision, so I would like to discuss the inclusion or change of pictures, yet again, if others consider the inclusion of the template a good inclusion.VartanMarkaryan (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of BCE ( before the common era) and CE (common era) are now widely being used instead of the Christian specific BC (before Christ) and AD (anno domini). This articles should be updated using BCE and CE.

It is argued that the use of BCE/CE shows sensitivity to those who use the same year numbering system as the one that originated with and is currently used by Christians, but who are not themselves Christian. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued, "[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures - different civilizations, if you like - that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.234.139 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ERA.That the use of BCE/CE "shows sensitivity" for anything is a misconception at best, and pointless political-correctness mongering at worst. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The human development index states Armenia is "84rd", not "84th".75.185.152.151 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Stickee (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any takers, seeing as how article writing is not my strong suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe Strummer's article lists him as having an Armenian maternal Grandfather, should he be placed under artists, or does he not fit the criteria for that? 137.52.113.207 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)LNA-Big_D

Dear Editor,you may feel like adding content from this page. It has writeup and a photo.http://suratmunicipal.org/content/city/heritage/armenian_cemeteries_main.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.181.163 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}Instruments like the duduk, the dhol, the zurna and the kanun are commonly found in Armenian folk music. Oud with link to wikipedia page should be added. Also replace href to kanun as it is incorrect.

69.120.203.68 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is Russian put as "other language"? Nowhere in Armenian constitution does it give Russian an official status in Armenia. Armenian is the sole official language of Armenia. Many people speak English in Netherlands (probably more than people speaking russian in armenia), but in their page English is not listed as an "other language". What is the justification for having such a category?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosMusy (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask again, what is justification for putting Russian as other language? Does it say anywhere in Armenian constitution that Russian is a second or other language? I will keep deleting that until someone gives me legitimate proof for this. MosMusy (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not make a point of disagreeing with you. But after looking into the matter, I think you are wrong here. The template being used is Template:Infobox country. This template has an "official_languages" parameter and in addition a "languages" parameter which can be used together with the "languages_type" parameter. The editor who added Russian added it not as an official language, but as an "other language", likely because it is de facto an important language in Armenia. I think this is the correct way to use the various parameters offered by Template:Infobox country to make that point. Your pointing out that Russian has no official status in Armenia, completely ignores that fact. Debresser (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So with that logic, countries such as Netherlands, Germany, Denmark should all have English listed as other language as pretty much all people in those countries are fluent in English. But they don't place it on their page, then why should Armenia? I stand for consistency here. MosMusy (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That already is a completely different argument. I think that Russian, which was once the official language in Armenia, merits to be mentioned. Perhaps the "languages_type" parameter should be changed from "Other language" to "Previous official language"? Just a suggestion. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So now we write all the languages that were official in that territory? I don't see any other country's page doing that. Soviet Armenia does not equal Republic of Armenia. Official language of Armenia is Armenian, Russian has no legal status. The whole way I see Russian being included if there was a category of which languages are spoken in that country the most, but that's in my opinion a ridiculous category and I see no country page doing that. MosMusy (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I am not talking about the legal status of Russian. But I do see that Russian is de facto an important language for Armenia and Armenians, as stated in the article as well. I think this could be reflected in the way I suggested in my previous post. Anyway, our respective points of view are clear. I hope we will get some input from other editors as well. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian, is for all intents and purposes, the second language of Armenia and will remain to be so for a long while. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge it has no official status in the country, I'm not sure if the infobox is a suitable location for this piece of information.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If a language is not official in any way then it's not infobox material. As to the European or not, I recall our having that debate at least a year and a half ago or two. Looks like it's time to dust that one off again with a new round of editors. ("Israel" wasn't a good example, as it clearly is not contiguous with Europe in any way shape or form. If we are to use comparisons, let's use ones to make a point, not a WP:POINT.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we get the flag to show up? This is pretty embarrassing. MosMusy (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been some technical problems with the Wikimedia image servers of late. Must be a problem with creating the thumbnails. I'll see if I can find a way to fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in this article there's a very long list of "famous Armenians". I really think this list is too long, and unnecessary for a main country page. Should just have its own article "Famous Armenians". Also, more images are needed for the Geography section of this article. Mov25 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article is almost unreadable. "Armenia" and "is a landlocked mountainous country in the South Caucasus region of Southwestern Asia" are separated by so many official titles in various alphabets and corresponding pronunciation guides that it is difficult to pick out what is actually being said. I'm not saying the various parenthetical information should be removed in the article, but surely it can be done in a way that doesn't make the body text unreadable. Icalanise (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can we stop constantly changing the map? The reason I put forth my map, because it shows Armenia in context of Europe, which is very appropriate as Armenia is politically Europe (Council of Europe, EU Partnership, etc) - plus the added initiative of Armenia's integration with EU. The orthographic map is to zoomed out also. Check the maps for Georgia and Azerbaijan, similar sized Caucasian states and you will see the same type of map also.

MosMusy (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This map doesn't show Armenia in the context of Europe. Even if you used this style: File:EU-France.svg, it wouldn't show Armenia in the context of Europe, it would show it outside Europe, because the truth is that Armenia is not in the context of Europe right now. I also don't understand how showing a map of Armenia "in the context of Europe" on Wikipedia will help Armenia's politics. If anything, this map looks like Armenian users on Wikipedia don't care enough to upgrade the map of Armenia to the same standard as other more advanced countries (like, Europe, USA, Russia, Turkey, etc.). The orthographic projection is the standard map on Wikipedia for any country (see Dominican Republic for your "zoomed out" arugment), including Europe. Armenia is not a state of Europe, therefore, it is useless to pretend it is (like Azerbaijan is trying). It only makes the article on Armenia look behind other countries' article.Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Armenia is politically Europe, that is fact. It's not trying to pretend, it is politically part of Europe and is moving towards EU. You can't argue against this. Both Georgia and Azerbaijan which are considered politically Europe like Armenia have such maps, and so should Armenia. If this particular map doesn't suit you, fine, but there must be a map that shows Armenia in context of Europe just like for the other Caucasian states, and yes were are not in the middle of Europe so obviously the map will not be perfectly centered.MosMusy (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Armenia is not in the European continent, nor is it part of the European Union. It doesn't even have a strip of land in the continent of Europe (Georgia and Azerbaijan do). Turkey and Israel are also considered politically Europe (in fact, Turkey has Thrace in Europe), but their maps don't represent their country in the sphere of Europe. The Turkish government has shown a realistic interest in joining the EU, while the government of Armenia made it clear that Armenia has no intentions of joining the EU, so it is not moving toward EU. It does however have good diplomatic relations with it, which it plans on improving. This doesn't mean we have to jump to conclusions and include Armenia in the sphere of Europe. Armenia is in the Russian sphere (it is a member of the CIS), not the EU. Finally, not all Armenians agree that the EU is the best option for Armenia, so please don't impose your political position on the article. The orthographic projection is a standard on Wikipedia. It is a politically neutral map. Therefore, it is the right choice. (For the record, I do agree EU is the right direction for Armenia, but this is not a fact right now. Armenia is far closer to Russia (and Russian organizations) to be anywhere near an EU integration). Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you are confusing political organizations with strategic alliances. Armenia is strategically (militarily) aligned with Russia (CIS), however, politically it is reforming by EU standards and by the careful advise of EU. This is all part of Armenia's membership in Council of Europe and it's role in EU's Eastern Partnership. I can show you several speeches by the President and Foreign Minister that clearly show Armenia's intentions to integrate with Europe and the opinion that Armenia is an European country. No one is talking about EU membership yet because it's way to soon, however Armenia will become associate member very soon and that is a step on a very long journey to such membership. Armenia's political contacts with EU are intense and every few weeks there are meetings. Even Russia is edging closer to EU. Again, Armenia political alignment with EU is fact not opinion, yes it has strategic relations with Russia but that's different from political relations. Is Armenia adopting Russian laws? Is it integrating its structures to meet Russian standards? No. It is being done with Europe. The map is very important and it fails to show this clear fact of Armenia's political alignment. MosMusy (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can't barge in on an article about a country, and replace an image which follows the standards of Wikipedia and that was used and accepted for almost a year. Please come to an understanding with other users before making such changes.

Once again, whatever you said applies more to Israel and Turkey than Armenia, yet none of them have a map that includes their country in the territorial sphere of Europe. In fact, Turkey should have such a map, because it has part of its territory in Europe, and has concrete, official, recognized interests in becoming an EU member. Armenia has none of this, and it doesn't have an inch of land in Europe. Strengthening strategic political ties with Europe is not a reason to be considered in the territorial sphere of Europe. It is territorially in Asia, South-West Asia to be precise, as recognized by the UN. Besides, changing the map this way makes no difference for the politics of Armenia. Your map won't help Armenia become an EU member in any way, and once again, not all Armenians agree with EU integration. You can't impose your political views in the name of all Armenians. The orthographic projection map is neutral, and it is a standard for all countries on Wikipedia (including the EU). This is final. This discussion won't go any further, repeating will be inevitable, therefore invite a third person to review our arguments, and see which of us makes the most objective choices. Until then, don't change a map that follows the standards of Wikipedia and that was accepted and used for almost a year. My discussion ends here. Any more edits will result in an edit war.Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My image follows Wikipedia standards, I actually got it from the Wikipedia archive of maps of Armenia. Second, I am not imposing my political beliefs here; please read carefully. Armenian Government has stated numerous times, the president, foreign minister, etc. that European integration is a foreign policy priority, and that Armenia's future lies with EU. Armenia's political leanings are clear. Yes strategic relations are with Russia but again strategic is different from political, EU is not a strategic entity (NATO is). And Israel is not a member of Council of Europe while Armenia is; Council of Europe has been very influential on the reforms and laws that have been happening in Armenia. A political map must show a country's political leanings, for Armenian and the Caucasian countries that political entity is EU. I do not believe your map is valid for a political one, and am willing to further this issue until it is properly resolved.

And actually most Armenian support EU membership, and have positive view on EU. But this is still not important as the populace is not making the political decisions but the government. The opinion of the Armenian public is irrelevant here.

MosMusy (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I can only repeat. Turkey is in a much more appropriate position to have a map in the territorial sphere of Europe: 1. It has a large chunk of land in Europe (Thrace), 2. It has realistic aspirations to become a full member. Yet, it has an orthographic projection as a map instead because 1. It's the standard on Wikipedia for country maps, except for those countries that are part of the EU, or have land in EU, (and even then, there are exceptions: see Romania). Armenia does not have territory in Europe, nor is it anywhere near becoming a full member. The orthographic projection is a standard on Wikipedia, and it is neutral (yes, there are Armenians who disagree with EU integration). So far, you have failed to prove that most Wikipedia users would agree with you, since you're the only one defending your view. The orthographic projection is accepted by everyone thus far, and not a single complaint was brought up (except by you). We are not obliged to follow your view. Unless you prove that other Wikipedia users will agree with you, I will continue to undo your edits. Otherwise, I will gladly make an svg map of Armenia in the territorial sphere of Europe, following the standards of Wikipedia for maps. Final words: Do not start an edit war until you have proven to me, through other users, that the map must be changed to include Armenia in the territorial sphere of Europe.Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You must understand that this is a political map (not Geographic!). A political map shows with what part of the world the country in question belongs to, with what part of the world it identifies with politically. For Armenia, that region is Europe, and that is fact, government and foreign minister numerous times has said that Armenia's foreign policy priority is European integration. There's nothing to argue here, Armenia is politically Europe, end of story. It doesn't matter what the public thinks, it matters what the government's policies are, and politically it is pro-EU. Don't compare Armenia to countries like Turkey or Romania, compare it to similarly sized and located countries next to us which use a pro Europe map, as they similarly are striving European integration, especially Georgia. Why should Armenia be any different? The political leaning of the Caucasus is towards Europe, and it has always been like that. I will not rest until this is properly resolved, and will do anything for a truthful map to be put up that represents my country. I can gather allies, but I don't want to turn this rather small issue into a huge edit war. And again my image is from the wiki database of maps of Armenia.MosMusy (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MosMosy's map has my vote.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan's map is the logical one. My vote is on his map.--Cerian (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's nice of you, care to elaborate why? If this revert warring continues I'm gonna request page protection. I suggest Kentronhayastan creates an RFC if he wishes to continue this debate without edit warring. I'm reverting back to the original map that had a wide concensus for a very long time, along with the Georgian version.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not right of Caucasus countries to portray themselves as part of Europe even if they are an Euro-Asian country. Just because you're politically leaned to Europe doesn't mean you have to portray your country in Europe's continental shelf. If you become an EU member that's a different story, but until then...--Cerian (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neither map shows the whole world, right? One shows it in the hemisphere, the other closer in. Since Armenia is so tiny, and is part of (in my mind) Europe and/or the Middle East, it should be presented on such a map. Also, quite a few small countries are given closer in, Djibouti for example. Abductive (reasoning) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"I suggest Kentronhayastan creates an RFC if he wishes to continue this debate without edit warring. I'm reverting back to the original map that had a wide concensus for a very long time," Eupator, I suggest you check the history of this article. For almost a year, it was the orthographic projection that was the original map that has a wide consensus for a very long time. MosMosy must create an RFC if he wishes to continue editing this article to his desire, not me.

And about Armenia being tiny, if you look at Dominican Republic, it is also a tiny country, yet they have an orthographic projection, with a zoomed layer, just like the map of the orthographic projection I am using for Armenia. Also, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenia is a South Caucasian country. All the South Caucasian countries are politically Europe (Georgia, Azerbaijan) as they are full members of Council of Europe and all governments express their priority in integration with EU structures. That is fact. The map that is shown is a political map, not Geographic!! That is key to understand, we here show a political map, and thus must show Armenia in context of Europe. In addition to that, all the maps for the two other South Caucasian countries show their countries in context of Europe, why should Armenia be any different? It's in the same political context as those two other countries thus it deserves the same political map. MosMusy (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can return that Argument by stating that Turkey uses an orthographic projection for its article, and unlike Armenia, it actually has territory in Europe, and unlike the rest of the Caucasus states, it actually has realistic aspirations of becoming a full member of the EU.

In addition, I'd like to add that all other language Wikipedias use the Orthographic projection, so there is no debate whether this map was accepted my the majority for a long time.Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot. Do not compare Armenia with Turkey, for the last time! You have to compare Armenia with its South Causasian neighbours (Azerbaijan and Georgia) all of them have maps that contain them in Europe, and so should Armenia. I don't care how long ago it was "accepted" people make mistakes, and many people don't understand the purpose of maps very well. I really have to repeat this everytime, and it falls on deaf ears. This is a political map! Not geographic! A political map shows with what political body that country is with. For Armenia and all the South Caucasus countries that is Europe. Why should Azerbaijan and Georgia have politically Europe maps and not Armenia? Answer me that question. I will put all the power I have to fight this, because it is truly disgusting that we have people here trying to twist facts and portray something Armenia is not. This map is very important for many people, and I suggest you do not ruin this good page on Armenia with an inaccurate map. I will use your map, so we're on the same page. MosMusy (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if we all decide to include Armenia within the territorial/political sphere of Europe, I have uploaded a map that follows the standards of Wikipedia ala non-EU European states (Serbia, Albania, etc.). Here it is: commons:File:Europe-Armenia.svg Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe my map (which I got from wikimedia source of Armenian maps and follows wikipedia guidelines) is better, as it shows armenia more clearly.MosMusy (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear from the lead of this article that Armenia is best considered a European state, rather than an Asian. In any case, the Europe map shows Armenia more clearly than the world map, obviously. Therefore I would prefer the Europe map here, agreeing in this with User:MosMusy. I would like to stress that the reverts here have to stop, or some editors will find themselves blocked. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I propose this map, as it shows Armenia more clearly: File:795px-Europe map armenia.png but that can be put up to a vote, the important thing is the map shows Armenia in a European context.MosMusy (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this map? File:LocationArmenia.svg It shows context and Armenia is bigger :). The one you propose has better contrast, though. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? We have already agreed for Armenia to be displayed in context of Europe, that map is horrible. The choice is between: File:795px-Europe map armenia.png and File:Europe-Armenia.svg. MosMusy (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

All right, since we have all come to a consensus, let's use the Europe map. However, I'd like to warn the users here to read through the argument before accusing others of edit warring. The original map was the orthographic projection, in use for almost a year, and MosMusy changed it for the Europe map without a discussion, and I told him to discuss before changing, and returned it to the original. Yet he continuously changed it back to his map until he finally began to discuss. However, even during the discussion, he continuously changed the map without coming to a consensus. I don't understand how I became the "edit warrer" when I was simply defending the original map that is accepted and used throughout all language Wikipedia articles of Armenia, and he tried to impose his map without a mutual understanding with third person support. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. That is why both of you were warned. Not nice, shaking your fist after the fight is over. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I thought it was only aimed at me, but I see you have also warned MosMusy. I apologize for my recklessness. However, I still consider it unfair to risk myself getting blocked because a user was trying to impose his change without a universal consensus. I told him to not edit the original article until the debate is over, but he continued to revert without a consensus. I wasn't against his view, but I know there is an opposing view, and since Wikipedia should be neutral, I took the side of the opposing view in order to get justification for the change. The orthographic projection is not a "false representation" as it shows Armenia in the context of the world, rather than limit it to Europe. And for the recored, these maps are both political and geographic (do I really have to specify this?), and although Armenia is politically European, it is geographically Asian. A discussion requiring more than a one-on-one debate was required. So far, I have seen that most users prefer the European map, therefore, I will accept it as such until/if the debate is revived. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was merely making a change to a blatant mistake. Why does that constitute as an edit war? Please tell me this. So on Wikipedia if you change something to the right thing, you get punished for that? That is truly ridiculous. Again, it's not your choice to make if the map on the main page of a country map is political or geographical - it's political, all country's main maps are, unless you've seen a country page with a geographic map, which you haven't. Given that it's political, and Armenia is politically Europe (which is again factually widely understood), then it should be a no brainier that the map should be in a European context, but instead of looking at this logical procession and accepting my correct changes, Kentronhayastan proceeded to begin an edit war, putting the false map over and over. And with that I am ridiculously warned for trying to prevent false information - please provide a substantial rationale for that please, as I will appeal this warning as it makes no sense at all to punish me. Second, as I have said numerous times the maps of the 3 South Caucasian nations need to follow the same format as we are all geographically and politically in the same group. Given, both Georgia and Azerbaijan used pro-Europe map, this is yet another justification for this. It's not about preference, it's about what is factually correct and that is the Europe map. I hope this ridiculous event will not repeat again and there will be more sanity here. MosMusy (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

look, for years there have been attempts to show that "some sources place Armenia in Europe". Some people apparently wish to maintain this out of pure personal preference, never mind reality.They have even gone as far as citing the Oxford Reference page on Georgia to claim this source places Armenia in Europe. While, of course, it places Georgia in Europe and Armenia in SW Asia. This thing has been tagged with {{verify credibility}} since 2009.

Nobody has bothered to adduce any actual references other than worldatlas.com; worldatlas.com is not a quotable source. It is a commercial website trying to make some dollars by feeding online ads to people googling for maps.

I grant you that worldatlas.com states that "Historically Armenia and Azerbaijan have been long associated with Asia and the Middle East. In recent years some sources now consider them to be more closely aligned with Europe based on their modern economic and political trends."They do not name these "sources". Presumably they mean Wikipedia. I.e. the people trying to claim there are sources claiming what they want are actually citing themselves. Nor do they explain how "modern trends" make a country part of Europe. Since China and India are now industrialized, an idea they clearly adopted from Europeans, presumably these are now also considered European countries by "some sources"? And conversely, failed economies like Greece or Portugal are now presumably part of Asia? The bottom line being that "Europe" really means "good" or "successful" and "Asia" means "bad" or "backward"? I am sure that most Asians will be thrilled to hear about this interesting proposition.

This is just dodgy. Not worthy of an encyclopedia.

On the encyclopedic side, we have the UN, the CIA Factbook and Oxford Reference Online all unambiguously placing Armenia in Asia.So, it's worldatlas.com vs the UN, the CIA and Oxford. I'll leave it as an exercise to do the WP:DUE appreciation of this.

--dab (𒁳) 09:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT CHANG THE MAP AGAIN!! It has been already decided upon after much discussion what map will be used, read through that discussion and you will see. Any further changes will be reported and you will be disciplined. MosMusy (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

address to the issue please. I have raised this back in 2009. The thing has been tagged for two years. One "reference" turned out to be fraudulent. We have rules around here, and they revolve around your ability to support a point using WP:RS, not who can be the most annoying pov pusher. I have just reviewed the references we have. Clearly, Armenia is a country in SW Asia. Locator maps show the location of a country within its wider region, not relative to some other continent. Are we showing Poland in a corner of a map of Asia? No. Are we showing Cuba in a corner of a map of South America? No. Are we showing Japan relative to North America? No. Because that would be extremely stupid: a locator map with the thing it is supposed to "locate" stashed away in a corner is stupid. The region of Armenia is the Caucasus, or arguably including the wider Armenian Highlands of Asia Minor, not Iceland. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know much about maps. This is a political map - Armenia political is part of Europe along with the rest of the South Caucasus. This is a fact. Armenia is not part of the politics of Middle East and thus it's inaccurate to place Armenia with that part of the world. Armenia has to be placed within context of Europe like Georgia and Azerbaijan, the two other South Caucasian countries. We have discussed this at nausea and it was agreed that Armenia will be put with Europe map - and now you come here and begin to changing everything. You keep this up, I will report you as Moderators are looking out for people who keeping changing the map. I don't take this lightly a person putting false information about my country. MosMusy (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I do not know what "moderators" you are talking about, but I would likely be one of them, and the last time I heard, the administrative corps - and particularly myself - had an extremely low tolerance for nationalist revert-warriors. Maps are maps. The last time I heard, they are geographic tools, not political ones, and it makes zero sense for the article itself to state "Armenia is part of Southeast Asia", and then for the map to show it as part of Europe. If you actually come up with some reliable sources that place Armenia inside Europe, I will be thrilled. Until then, kindly stop revert-warring and trying to bully Dbachmann like you managed to bully others above; the alternative is to get page-banned under WP:ARBAA2. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, please explain why the Georgia and Azerbaijan pages have a map which shows them as part of Europe, when they too are located in southwest Asia.--Moosh88 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are political maps and there are Geographical maps. This is a political map meant to show in what political context the country belongs in. For Armenia that is Europe along with the other South Caucasus countries that have their political ties with Europe not Middle East. It's just so absurd to place Armeia as part of Souteast Asia, but then put its other neighbours as part of Europe. No that's not how it works. We had a lenghty discussion concerning this I suggest you take a look at it rather than barging in with misinformation. As I have said before, I will not rest when misinformation is being placed about the political context of my country. The South Caucasus is a seperate region from the Middle East - I suggest you read up on this. MosMusy (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, European Union considers Armenia as an European country. Here is a link from their official website http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/armenia/index_en.htm So some wikipedia users know Europe better then the European Union ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not change the map, without proper justification! This is a political map. It's meant to show in what political context the country is. For Armenia that is Europe. That is fact. There's no more you can say. And if your were true with your intentions you would be pushing the same agenda for the other Caucasian countries, but apparently this is just a campaign against Armenia. MosMusy (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MosMusy, your continued unprofessional tone and your repeated reverts, without sufficient sources, to the appropriate SW Asia map that has long been appropriately associated with this article are inappropriate. Two experienced, well-regarded administrators and editors above (Moreschi and --dab are 100% correct both in their comments regarding WP procedures (no, repeating enough times that you "had a consensus" does not make it so) and their comments on the content.

I've noticed you use the term "political" 65 times in your arguments here and on other pages. Unfortunately (for your fallacious argument), as Moreschi points out above, maps, even so-called "political maps", are primarily tools of geography, not politics. Continental definition relies on various factors, primarily geographic; thus for decades if not centuries, in publications by the most-respected geographic authorities ( dab cites several above and neglects to mention the National Geographic Society in the US which also places Armenia in Asia), despite some religious and political ties to Europe, Armenia has and will be considered to be in SW Asia, not Europe. This is partly because major mountain ranges have, for eons, separated peoples and states in a fashion second-only to large water bodies; thus the Black Sea-Caucasus Mtn.-Caspian Sea division between continents.

As a professional geographer for 30 years, I've authored or co-authored the relevant portions (continental definitions) in one or two of the published sources cited above and can assure you that (not all) but most relevant authorities view "continental assignment" to be guided primariy by geographic factors, including physical geography, not purely political or religious or cultural. Otherwise, we would have Israel in Europe. We need to stick with the real consensus of worldwide geographic authorities, not a contrived WP "consensus" of you and a few others who happened to be looking in a couple months back, and leave the SW Asia map for Armenia.DLinth (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the thing. The map is not a purely geographical one, it is supposed to show in what context of the world that country belongs. To what part of the world the country is influenced and involved politically. For, Armenia this is Europe. DB was questioning that Armenia is not politically Europe, below I have several sources proving this. The biggest one is that Armenia is part of Council of Europe (Israel is not and is not considered a European country by the EU or EU political structures - as you see there is a difference). European Union classifies Armenia has European country - they have higher credibility in doing so than anybody here. And of course, I have several examples showing that Armenian Government is integrating with EU. Armenia in no doubt deserve a European context not a Middle East context when it comes to show it on the map. Geographically, Armenia is part of the South Caucasus, a different entity from the Middle East, you should know this. This brings me to my second point. I really don’t understand the double standard that is being used here. So Georgia and Azerbaijan can have maps showing them in clear European context (Azerbaijan is almost not showing in its map) while Armenia has to be shown in SW Asian context, because its neighbours are soo much closer to Europe and so much more European?. It’s truly ridiculous and comes to show the real intentions in making these map edits here. If you were really genuine in your map changes you would have made it to the rest of the South Caucasus which falls in the same geographical locations and all countries in South Caucasus are politically Europe like Armenia. Confirmed again by official EU and Council of Europe which made this decision very long time ago and have higher legitimacy in this matter than anybody here. I will not rest until this issue is resolved in a proper manner that shows no double standards.

If no proper response in a timely manner, I will revert the edit, as I have fully spelled out here my justifications.

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/index_en.htm

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/politics/news/24261/

http://www.armradio.am/news/?part=pol&id=18723

http://www.gov.am/en/news/item/5418/

http://www.armenianatomission.com/index.php?cnt=4&sub=12

http://www.yerevanreport.com/5012/armenia-step-up-european-integration/

http://news.am/eng/news/22489.html

http://enpi-info.eu/maineast.php?id=24541&id_type=1&lang_id=450

http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2011/03/25/eu-armenia/

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=armenia8217s-european-perpectives-2010-09-23

Armenian Government Foreign Policy:

One of Armenia’s foreign policy priorities is gradual integration into European architecture. Armenia’s European aspirations are based on the nation"s historical and cultural affiliation. Having European civilization background and being committed to shared values enshrined in the European Unions (EU) fundamental treaties Armenia established good partnership with the EU. Respect of democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights are the core values on which Armenia-EU relations are based.

There is an intensive cooperation between Armenia and the EU in various fields, ranging from trade and economy to science and education. During last years EU proved to be a partner aimed at helping Armenia’s transition to a market economy and stable democracy. The Armenian Government coordinates its cooperation with external help and, together with the EU, focuses its efforts on such important problems as fighting corruption, the reduction of poverty and inequality, stable economic growth, particularly through international trade. The EU remains Armenia’s number one trade partner and one of the biggest foreign investor in Armenia. EU helps Armenia to implement the next generation of reforms aimed at further strengthening of democratic institutions and respect of human rights. The Armenian Government’s objective is also approximation of Armenia’s legislation to that of the EU and in this regard the cooperation is there.

Armenia-EU political dialogue comprises wide range of bilateral and international issues. Parties are determined to increase diplomatic efforts, including through the EU Special representative for the South Caucasus, and to continue to support a peaceful solution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.Since June 2007 Armenia was invited to align itself with CFSP declarations on a case-by-casebasis. It has done so on most opportunities.

Mission of the Republic of Armenia to the European Communities established in 1994 represents the Republic of Armenia in all the EU institutions and structures. Its main task is to advance Armenia’s European integration.

It has been over ten years that the Delegation of the European Commission for Georgia and Armenia first started to carry out its activities in Tbilisi. On 1 November 1999 an office in Yerevan, Armenia, was opened to expand the Commission"s activities in the region. Yerevan office of EC Delegation was upgraded into full-fledged delegation in 2005. Inauguration of full-fledged EC Delegation and opening of new premises of the Delegation took place in February 2008. Ambassador Raul de Luzenberger was appointed head of EC Delegation.

In 2003, with the appointment of the EU special representative for the South Caucasus, the EU committed to a more practical involvement in the region and provided a permanent mechanism of contact of both bilateral and regional nature. Mr. Peter SEMNEBY is EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus

MosMusy (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes there is "Armenia-EU political dialogue". What is your point? There is also US-EU political dialogue, Japan-EU political dialogue and Egyptian-EU political dialogue. Also, why are you listing random urls as "references"? Have you read WP:RS? Then why do you refuse to cite proper references to support your opinions?You seem to be interested in the foreign relations of Armenia. This is certainly an encyclopedic topic, and as soon as you get a basic grasp of how to cite references, you may consider editing Foreign relations of Armenia, an article in dire need of attention. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't get the point of my post. It's not just Armenia-EU dialog, the EU considers Armenia a European country. It doesn't consider Israel, USA or Japan as European. That is why Armenia is part of Council of Europe, but Israel, US or Japan are not. There is a key difference here you apparently fail to grasp. Armenia does not belong in the same category of countries like US or Japan, because it's already considered part of Europe. European Union has the ultimate power in deciding this, not you, me, or anybody in here. The references I put and not some random links but attest to this fact. The first one shows the official EU website, listing the European countries. Other articles point to the fact that Armenia is integrating with EU and will be come associate member soon. And finally the text is from Armenia's foreign policy statement. You also failed to answer me why you have used double standards in pursuing a map change for Armenia, but not its neighbours, Georgia and Azerbaijan, who are similarly located. MosMusy (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see, MosMusy, that despite the patient explanations from a considerable number of veteran editors, that you continue to cling to your unsubtantiated views that you are right, they are wrong, and the vast majority of relevant geographic authorities are somehow wrong as well. You claim that a continental designation (Europe or Asia) is somehow exclusively determined by 1990's-2000's political dialog, with "ultimate power" held by the EU to determine what continent a country falls in! That's silly. dab is quite correct above.

Additionally, you claim that Country A (Armenia), after centuries of its history and geography being irrevocably linked with SW Asia (including the Asian part of Turkey, though not in a pleasant manner), sometime in the 1990's (based on your links and your argument) "jumped over" into Europe. And thus, Country B and Country C and Country D, when given EU membership, will do the same. Sorry, countries don't "jump around" from continent to continent with the political winds or dialogue of the moment. For centuries, Armenia has been considered an Asian state and will remain so. (The US has had ASEAN membership; the US is now a SE Asian nation?)

Sorry, but the long prevailing view by authoritative published sources such as the World Factbook, National Geographic publications including their current atlas (both on its maps and in its list of countries), the UN, Oxford Reference online and thus WP is that Armenia is a SW Asian state, and the map in the article needs to not contradict the article by placing it in Europe.

Regarding your last question above, both Georgia (a small portion) and Azerbaijan (a larger portion) have territory within Europe (the easily-most-widely accepted definition of "north of the Caucasus Mtns.".....placing Mt. Elbrus in Europe as its widely-recognized high point, by the way.)

Politics, particularly recent politics, does not dictate a continental designation.DLinth (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell me if Armenia is so much linked with Southeast Asia, why does EU designate Armenia as a European country? While not designating Australia, US, or Israel? As I said, if you more informed about the region, you would know that the South Caucasus and Middle East are rather different entities in both geography and also culture (more so for Georgia and Armenia). As I have said the map is supposed to show the part of the world that the country is in context with and is associated with politically. A purely geographical map would should Armenia in a neutral position (with Armenia in dead centre), but the map you have put is neither an accurate political depiction of Armenia nor an accurate geographical map of Armenia. Lastly, I am going to try to see if I can understand this skewed logic. So, since Azerbaijan and Georgia have a tiny strip of land in "geographical" Europe they deserve a Europe context map, with the country being shown on the edge of the map, but Armenia which is right there deserves a whole other context? As a geographer you should see quickly the absurdity of this logic, and would know that South Caucasus deserves the same context in its map. Instead, these changes are being imposed only on Armenia, which show the double standards and unprofessionalism in the people pushing it. I will continue to revert the map change, until I get a proper response and justification, and it is clear to me no double standards are being used. I willing to discuss this but am not willing to submit to skewed logic. MosMusy (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus is also not geographically in Europe but it is shown in Europe context. So MosMusy has a good point here if you want to enforce a asian map on Armenia than you should do for every similar article.Ali55te (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus is an island, not on a continent and thus hardly relevant. "Eurasian island in the WP article. A Mideast regional map in my opinion would make the most sense....Others can discuss that. This topic is about non-island countries, Armenia in particular. MosMusy has been banned twice for nationalist revert-warring, threatening to "just revert" what he doesn't like, and for refusing to get the point. More above.DLinth (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic here. Japan is an Island also. That means we can show Japan in any context we want ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. Each state is a case by case basis. Japan, UK, Madagascar, Singapore tend to fall into the "no-brainer" category, so closely linked to one and only one continent. Some other island territories such as St. Helena are close to no continental land mass, and ones like Trinidad and Tobago open up another can of worms.

A sensible discussion would require comparing only apples to apples, so Japan and the others above are quite different than Cyprus and, to my original point, Cyprus is (vastly) different than Armenia's case. There are no "rules" or logic that necessariy apply to both Cyprus and Armenia equally, much less to Japan and the others. Needs to be on a case by case basis as required. Armenia is considered in SW Asia based on WP:RS ....as dictated by the predominance of reliable, authoritative sources (by a wide margin: World Factbook, National Geographic publications including their current atlas, UN, Oxford Reference, etc.)

By the way, note that I said that I would personally use a SW Asia region or Mideast area map for Cyprus, and that a SW Asia map is proper for Armenia. Those maps are not the same at all as an "Asian map" (one of all of Asia) nor the same as a map of all of Europe. It's a locator map, and thus having the geographic entity in question somewhere sorta close to the center of the map seems logical, which is why I very much question the current Azerbaijan and Cyprus map choices....but will leave that up to others. DLinth (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A neutral map of Armenia that shows Armenia in the centre of the map, the map right now does not do that and shows Armenia in upper portion of the map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Neutralmaparmenia.PNG Mov25 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Mov25, appropriate, nice new map, meeting the needs of a locator map quite wellDLinth (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe there's a move in wikiedia to make all country maps show the country in question in the centre of the map. I will also make such maps for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Plus, you think the zoom level is fine? Or should be more zoomed out?Mov25 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence above is excellent news. Your second sentence is even better news....they are two most in need of this that I've seen recently. I thought the zoom level was good and would retain it...you got everything within 1500 km, certainly enough....I would not zoom out any further! Outstanding!DLinth (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Check Azerbaijan and Georgia for their new maps. However, I have been getting some opposition from a Georgian user. Their map that they were using is a pretty bad one in accordance with established map standards. I think having all 3 countries have this same map style makes it look more professional and fluid. I hope everybody can just agree on this standard in the 3 pages. Mov25 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Both maps look good, show consistency in style which any encylopedia (even WP) should have, are an improvement in communicating the location of the country (the whole purpose), and neutral (country near the center)....and oriented to north properly! Well done. You'll see my comments on the Georgia discussion page on the map (I'm a cartographer/geographer); don't let that often-warned, banned 3-month WP editor (Contessa something) get to you; if pattern follows, he'll soon realize that his personal attacks and bullying won't get him far, and he'll come back as a sock puppet once or twice, then disappear.DLinth (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So I see the map has been changed again. In my view, this map is too zoomed out, we don't need to show the whole world to display Armenia, but I guess people are sick of the map fights by now. Though I believe we are all agreeing on the fact that any map should show Armenia in the centre. MosMusy (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So is this it? We are settled on the current orthogonal map once in for all? The map is good, my only problem is it's a bit to zoomed out, but the important thing is Armenia is in the centre. MosMusy (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so....all three South Caucasus locator maps should be similar and now are, all three have the Orthogonal Zoomed Out Map, all three maps have the country in question somewhere near the center, and all three are not "maps of Europe" for countries in the South Caucasus, so, even though I'd have a slight preference for more zoomed in too, they seem fine to me as is. And several other editors have either said they agree and/or have actually edited the Orthogonal Zoomed Out Map in as the locator map.DLinth (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All right it's settled then. Let this be a testament for no one to change the map again, we already had enough headache coming to this consensus. So we reserve the right to automatically revert any edit affecting the map! Oh, and upon request, I edited the more zoomed in map for Georgia, but it seems people over there are fine with that one. We could revert that back to the style we have here if we want consistency. Should be discussed at their talk page. MosMusy (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.DLinth (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)