Armenia Unassessed

Urartu is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What exactly is the "Proto-Iberian world"? --Yak 22:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to expand this page based on info from WWW. I cannot tell whether the paragraph on linguistic affiliation makes sense. Anyway, further details should go to the Urartian language page.
Jorge Stolfi 04:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is meant by "Urartu is Ibero-Caucasian"?
As far as I know, Ibero-Caucasian is just a theory that the three or four language families that are presently spoken only in the Caucasus (South, Northwest, Northeast, North-central) have a common origin. However, at present there seems to be no linguistic evidence that all four families are related; not even the most ardent "lumpers" have claimed a connection between South and North Caucasian. In fact it seems that some people claim to see a connection between NW Caucasian and Indo-European, back to 10,000 years — and they are having trouble showing it. So the connection between N and S Caucasian, if it exists, must therefore be even more remote than that.
So if there is significant affinity between Urartian and any of those four Caucasian families, it can be with at most one of them, and this article should say which one. The "Ibero-Caucasian" or "Proto-Caucasian" theory is best left as a speculative section in the Caucasian languages page, until someone manages to convince enough linguists that it is real.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 05:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Urartuan is a later form of Hurrian. The Hurro-Urartuan languages were then found to have a similarity with Lezgian/Avar/Dagastani which is usually called North East Caucasian. However it was regognised as wrong to classify Hurro-Urartuan as North-East Caucasian so the new term Alarodian was introduced.

Later this family was found to be related to Vaynakh/Nakh languages sometimes called North-Central Caucasian.

Meanwhile on the western slopes of the mountains Circassian (West Caucasian) was found to be related to Hattic. Again it is strange to classify Hattic as Northwest caucasian when the "Hattians" were nowhere near NWC. Hetto-Iberian was proposed first but the extension of the term Alarodian to include the new Hatto-Circassian family was also suggested on the basis of certain similarities.

Finally the term Hetto-Iberian was applied for all 5 language groups. Georgian linguists objected to being excluded from the Hetto-Iberian family since they claim transcaucasian Iberia as a Georgian kingdom not Circassian. They proposed a new much larger super family called Proto-Iberian which also included Basque, Etruscan and Pelasgs. However the existence of such a super family is not very well attested at all as of present.

Unfortunately a little Georgian politics has affected all such related pages and has to be filtered out carefully so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.Zestauferov 12:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

is nothing too far-fetched for nationalist disputes?? Anyway, don't say "Modern Armenians are the descendants of the Urartuians.", say, "according to Arthur Peabody in Armenians — why they rock (de Gruyter, 1982), ethnic Armenians are descended from the Urartian population". Replacing my made up one with a genuine reference, of course. dab (ᛏ) 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [1]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fine, but since he is as persistent as his nemesis, will this mean all Turkey-related articles will remain protected indefinitely? This is not a solution. Arbcom him, ban him, rollback him, he has left the arena of fair-although-biased editing and may be treated as a vandal. dab (ᛏ) 19:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I absolutely agree with you on the point that Rovoam should be banned from editing Wikipedia and his account should be closed indefinitely. In fact, I was arguing about this for long time now. However, this would not be the solution. I said before and I repeat it here too: the only way to deal with this person is for other editors to unite and withstand al his spurious edits and vandalisms. Only after seeing the determination of Wikipedia editors will he realize the whole senselessness of his actions and will retreat.

On the other hand, realistically, the process of banning this "user" from Wikipedia would require decision by ArbCom, i.e. a long and slow process. Therefore, I think, Tony's protection of these pages was the only right option at the moment.

p.s. Just for records: here's the list of pages protected by Tony, which underwent Rovoam's vandalisms: this page, Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Arran (Azerbaijan), Azerbaijan, Safavids, Turkey. --Tabib 19:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree with dab that he needs a good arbcomming. This will probably happen. However he probably can't be physically banned, he's too obsessive and has too many IP numbers. I agree with Tabib that a show of unity against his determined abuse would show him that his bread has landed butter-side down. He must be pretty demoralized already; we just have to keep on until he realises he can never win. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we've had to protect the article of an obscure nation that's been gone for close to three millennia. This feels like a new low. Isomorphic 05:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Rovoam's revert on Kura-Araxes culture was ridiculous; he removed a whole group of edits, only a tiny bit of which was even by Tabib. Most of what he reverted was by me and a third user. He's being spiteful and stupid. Isomorphic 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for unprotection of this article. There was nothing like an edit war going on, and I don't mind reverting nationalist biases every couple of days. If we keep it protected, how shall it improve? Tabib, I will revert anti-Turkish and pro-Turkish bias alike, I don't care about Turks or Armenians, in relation with this article. The whole thing is just ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected as requested. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dab, you're right. I would gladly distance myself from reverts, if I know that someone is there to watch out this person. I thank you all for your principled positions.--Tabib 06:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by a well-known troll and vandal User:Rovoam to last version by User:Isomorphic on 00:47 May 17.

The reason why I reverted his edits is because they were spurious.

He first removed a NPOV sentence I have authored and instead, introduced his sentence [2], which was earlier removed by User:Isomorphic stating "rm POV statement; there is no historical consensus for this" [3].

After that his edits were softened a bit by Isomorphic [4]. And then, this person has introduced again the NPOV sentence, written by me which he himself has removed. Thus he tried to present himself as if his edits were valuable to Wikipedia [5].

I believe all users should deal with this person very carefully, because he is rather obsessed and is very good at manipulating with public through various malicious tricks.

In my message above I have named the pages that suffered from Rovoam's vandalisms and were vprotected. Just recently, this person started also to vandalize Nakhichevan and Karabakh and I'm afraid if he persists, these pages will have to be protected as well. --Tabib 12:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

enough with the Armenians! just revert them without comment. I would like to see one reference making the claim, and we'll cite that, no problem. Cite sources, Rovoam, don't edit-war. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is silly. Should we ask for protection of the article until anon either cites a source, or grows tired? dab (ᛏ) 08:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, unfortunately, one has to understand the motives behind his actions. This person is a fanatic and extreme nationalist. But at this moment, in my personal viewpoint, the reverts, vandalism and spurious edits he is doing is not realy for propagating some idea, it is just the expression of his anger and hatred and willing to take revenge from me for whatever reasons he has in mind. He thinks that by vandalizing various Azerbaijan and Turkey related pages, which I have ever contributed even insignificantly, he will get me down.

I believe, this person will not stop for quite some time, he will be testing the reaction of various editors, will try to confuse them, deceive them, anger them; he will continue blatant and sneaky vandalisms (not obvious at a glance), maybe even will try to justify his actions by his wish to "teach [me] a lesson of tolerance" (?!) ([6]). I am absolutely convinced, the only way to stop this person, is to stand united against him and revert all his edits, without consideration. In the long run I also believe ArbCom should also review its decision on him and completely ban this person from editing Wikipedia. He's been under revert limitation and personal attack parole, but since then he's been systematically violating revert limitation and also on numerous occasions waged personal attacks, and I am not talking about vandalism yet and replacing user pages with other pages from Wikipedia dedicated to various human organs..--Tabib 13:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he was banned? It's just that he is difficult to block, but he has no business editing Wikipedia, obviously, with such an attitude. See WP:AN/I#Rovoam_and_vandalism, it seems people are considering contacting his ISP and/or the authorities now. Maybe some "real life" pressure will make him go away (sheesh. think how easy it would be just to put up your own webpage, with no one interfering). dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree with the protection at this point. This was getting a little bit too annoying. I also agree that we are reaching a new low, protecting articles on ancient cultures because of political pov vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since article is protected, can you post this map into article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu.jpg

User:PANONIAN

Or, alternatively, I would suggest this map, originally from an Armenian source (but the author of the map is a Western scholar, Hewsen). It is even more correct and clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urartu-Biainili.jpg --Tabib 15:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's been three weeks; unprotecting. --Golbez 04:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose Image:Urartu-Biainili.jpg is fine for the moment, but its copyright status is dubious, we'd need a full reference where it was published, and it needs to be redrawn, preferably in colour, as a GFDL image (see Wikipedia:Maps for that). dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Initially, I have posted this map during discussions in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh [7]. The map is taken from an Armenian web-site http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/armenians/history_p1.html (scroll down a bit and you'll see a link to map). As you can see in the lower right corner the map has two annotations. First, it has the sign of the web-page ("HyeEtch"), which may imply that the web-site reserves the copyright for this image. But just above this sign there is also a writing "Robert Hewsen", which makes me think that this map is actually scanned from a book by a Western scholar and placed in that web-page. Nevertheless, the actual copyright of that very image may be the web-site. Therefore, I concur with Dab on his point that perhaps some of our editors could prepare exact copy of this map for exclusive use in Wikipedia. --Tabib 09:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

exclusive use in Wikipedia — you mean, free use under the GFDL :) if you have time, why don't you try the GIMP, I usually draw my maps with it. dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the upcoming weeks I'd like to expand this article. I hope to add more information to each of the existing catagories and to make a few new ones as well.--Moosh88 00:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have expended it for the worst. You and Eupator have introduced POV in this article. Fadix 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to make any major edits like I wanted, as I have been very busy. So I don't see what you're talking about.--Moosh88 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urartu was then invaded by Scythians from the north, and finally conquered by the Scythians' associates, the Medes, in 612 BC. Many Urartu ruins show evidence of destruction by fire. Even before the Urartuian empire came to an end, Armenians had been mixing with the Urartuians. But it wasn't until the demise of Urartu, that the Urartuians adopted the Indo-European Armenian language and the Armenians adopted certain aspects of Urartuian social, political and cultural institutions. The Urartuians thus became the Armenians and vice versa. That is POV. Fadix 23:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly overstates what is known. My understanding is that, while Armenians consider Urartu part of their heritage and most academics believe that there was an Urartian contribution to the Armenian people, there isn't much solid evidence one way or another about the relationship between Urartian remnants and proto-Armenians. There's a gap in knowledge between the fall of Urartu and the rise of Armenia. Isomorphic 07:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really much more simple than people make it out to be. Urartians were the Hurrian speaking elite and rulers of the state. After countless wars with Assyria, already weakened Urartu is destroyed by Scyhtians/Cimmerians. Right about the same time Media takes over, obviously Medians favored the native and newly arrived IE's rather than the Hurrian speaking peoples. That's why their language and culture take a back seat, while IE's dominate from then on arguably in a syncretic society.--Eupator 19:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds basically right to me. But still, the truth is that all we have is speculation, assumption, and some weak evidence. Nobody truly knows where the Urartians went, or how long they kept some form of coherent state. I know some have suggested that a greatly weakened Urartian entity may have existed in the north for some time after the cities fell. Isomorphic 02:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just raised my concerns about the changes made. Fadix 23:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, after all, that we're talking about a people who were completely unknown to history from before the time of the medieval Armenian hisorians, all the way until the last couple centuries. Yor "first source" is a joke. If you take that sort of thing seriously, I have a bridge to sell you. Isomorphic 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every body who is neutral notice that this page is owned by some POV-pushers. They remove sourced material which they don't like from the article. e.g. following text: [8] Urartu was what is now Armenia, a country that covers Armenia itself and parts of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Much of it is where the modern Kurds live, and the Kurds are the direct line of the people who lived there then, although interbred with subsequent peoples. The Gutu or Kuti lived in the middle reaches of the Tigris about 2000 BC, in Sumerian times, and were related apparently to the Kassites who lived to the east on the edge of the Iranian plateau. The Assyrian name of them, Kirtie, evolved into Kardi. The name of Babylonia used in the Amarna letters is Karduniash. The Armenians crossed the Caucasus in about 600 BC, pushing the Chaldians to the south so that they lived in what is now Kurdistan. The word “Kurd” is “Kald” with another common consonantal change. Asina 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the following : WP:Verifiability--Eupator 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

once you cite your first verifiable source, we may start considering whether or not we have a dispute. You may, for example, check out Armenians to learn that it is far from certain that the "Armenians crossed the Caucasus in 600 BC". You are just copy-pasting random material from crackpot websites, in violation of both GFDL and Verifiability/CITE. I suggest you read a book on the topic and come back with ISBN and page numbers. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other sources referring to the Khaldi:

The Urartians or Chaldians in the hills to the north of the Assyrian steppes had shown they were a danger to the Assyrians who accordingly had a keen interest in stopping the Chaldians from using their temple to their god Chaldi at Musasir. [9]

The Chaldi (Urartu) signs from the 8th century BC also talk of the land between the Transcaucasian Kura and Araxes River area and often mentions their horses. From a military expedition they obtained 10,000s of horned cattle and 100, 000 s of sheep, and 100s of horses. /Mescaninov, Leningrad (Chaldi). [10]

These are in addition to my first source which is a good one [11]. Asina 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to argue that there is a connection between the Khaldi and the Urartians. I admit that the hypothesis sounds less far out than others I've heard, and I have nothing against mentioning it. You just need to tell us who suggested it, in what publication. Piling on the dodgy weblinks (Messopotamia in a title is not exactly a seal of quality) is of no interest. Name a scholar and cite his suggestion. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another academic one Ephuater:

This country was formerly the home of one of the great empires of ancient history; that of the Urartians or Khaldians, who could dispute the hegemony of Asia with Assur, at the time when the first colonists were settling on the seven bare hills that afterwards were Rome By: THE REV. W. A. WIGRAM, D.D. [12] Asina 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that this is not a matter of Kurdish nationalism since Kurdish nationalists see themselves as PURE Aryans (such as Medes) and look down as unknown peoples such as this. Asina 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and here:

but it is very doubtful whether Armenians have any connexion with the aboriginal Khaldian inhabitants. Their own traditions absolutely contradict the theory; but their modern national writers are apt to claim such descent. [13]

Maybe this should be included If other nations are ignored? Asina 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway remember that in academic world Kurds are regarded as a very ancient people of the region; even long before Armenians came to around lake van in 7th B.C.:

The Armenians took refuge in the Lake Van region in the seventh century B.C., apparently in reaction to Cimmerian raids. Their country was described by Xenophon around 400 B.C. as a tributary of Persia. By the first century B.C., a united Armenian kingdom that stretched from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea had been established as a client of the Roman Empire to buffer the frontier with Persia.

Xenophon also recorded the presence of the Kurds. Contemporary linguistic evidence has challenged the previously held view that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes, although many Kurds still accept this explanation of their origin. Kurdish people migrated from the Eurasian steppes in the second millennium B.C. and joined indigenous inhabitants living in the region. Source: U.S. Library of Congress [14] Asina 23:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wigram links begins to convince me that the Khaldi were identified with the Urartian by some 19th century scholars, so let's mention the association. We still need a proper citation though. Note that the Khaldi are attested at the Black Sea coast, in the Bronze Age, while the Urartians are attested in Armenia, in the Iron Age. If anything, therefore, the Urartians derive from Khaldi stock. That's a hypothesis and should be sourced. dab (ᛏ) 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom was known as Armenia to the Greeks living in western Anatolia, possibly due to that fact the contacts they had with Urartu, were through the people calling themselves Armens, or Armenians. So to Greece, and thereafter to the Roman Empire, the country was known as the land of Armens – Armenia.

This was edited to form the current, improved version of this short paragraph without the Armenian POV. --Azzarzurna 10:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence referring to the tree of life. (It was believed to be the site of the Tree of Life and was sought after by various kings in that era.) This claim is apparently based on The Urantia Book – text of dubious origin. Moreover, even if one assumes the text to be genuine and valuable, he/she still can’t make the claim, because Urantia refers to the Earth not to Urartu. I am not aware of any historical texts of Assyrian or Hittite origin mentioning the Tree of Life in Urartu. Evgeny 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This message for a bunch of guys who arekeeping to remove my edit. The ethnic composition of Urartu was a subject of dispute in the page "Armenia". But there is some temporarily agreement now on that subject - Urartu' people and Armenians were different. Please stop removing my contribution to that section with relevant reference. Otherwise, let's refer to mediation--Dacy69 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We know that two languages were spoken in the region. That's it. It's already stated in the article that Armenian is Indo-European and Urartian has affinities with Hurrian. No need to repeat things twice.--Eupator 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, is it proclamation? Who knows? I and some other know different things - and we cite sources. --Dacy69 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is for Eupator, Ararat rev and other guys who are just keeping to destroy other contributions. Please read other authors - I.Diakonov for example. The problem with some Armenians is that you are so ardent, brain washed by a sense of nationalism. What if Urartu is not your ancestors - how it impacts Armenia. For example - Russia should not be less proud if their first kings were Scandinavians. Britain was conquered by Normanns. So what? It became great empire, anyway. It does not matter at all for your ethnic pride if Urartu is not your direct ancestors. But it is big problem for the science of history - nationalists try to re-write and distort it. This problem exists now in Iran, Russia, Balkans, Caucasus. Everybody is competing for being the most ancient. I recommend, you guys, read your compatriot's book - Ronald Grigor Suny: for example, Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History or Populism, Nationalism, and Marxism: The Origins of Revolutionary Parties Among the Armenians of the Caucasus--Dacy69 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Don't discuss other editors or their possible motives. Consider yourself warned. --Eupator 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attack in my message. Academic - yes. It is about attitude to history. For personal attack please see my discussion page and Ararat rev comments. Now about my points. Just would like to cite Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074433/Urartu) "The Urartians had a number of traits in common with the Hurrians, an earlier Middle Eastern people. Both nations spoke closely related languages and must have sprung from a common ancestor nation (perhaps 3000 BC or earlier). Although the Urartians owed much of their cultural heritage to the Hurrians, they were to a much greater degree indebted to the Assyrians... The Urartians were finally overcome by invading Armenians toward the end of the 7th century BC."--Dacy69 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you think is a personal attack. Remain civil. Also, if you haven't noticed yet, Wikipedia is not Brittanica.--Eupator 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it is. I've seen it from Ararat rev. Read Wikipedia guidelines - it is based on well reputative sources not propoganda. Britannica is one of reliable sources. So, it has a right to be inserted along with others.Let's return to the subject of this page. perhaps, we can recourse to mediation--Dacy69 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is no truth. There is no consensus on ethnic composition. We can't site one side's view as a fact. Read my additions in the "Language Debate" section. We don't know whether Urartian was spoken or merely written in the area, so we can't know for sure what the ethnicities were. Though I believe it points to them being Armenians.--TigranTheGreat 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is one of POV which is indeed supported by many reputative scholars outside Armenia. Let's refer to mediation. Why you are so afraid of this procedure. Otherwise, I have to recourse to Arbitration--Dacy69 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save us your threats, familiarize yourself with wiki polciies before you resort to threatening. Arbitration will never be accepted for this.--Eupator 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already clearly mentions the minority and majority positions. And it doesn't say U. was armenian--TigranTheGreat 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, watch for your language, instead. I don't threaten. I propose mediation and inform you about my further steps - this is in a spirit of cooperation. Again for threatening look at some other users on my talk page. And for TigrantheGreat - My point is about ethnic composition. My POV with reference to sources. That part says that Urartians and Armenians has coherent links. I don't agree. Let's resolve through mediation.--Dacy69 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already says that Urartians and Armenians spoke different language. The "coherent" links is about culture--if they lived together, they must have developed some common grounds.--TigranTheGreat 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept the point about language. It is written in Language section. However, as I argued with Ararat rev - language is not only issue. My further point is the Armenians moved there later, in 7-6 BC. I see there is no agreement on mediation procedure? Why we should not try? You are pretty confident in your arguments. So, maybe I will lose.--Dacy69 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need any agreement. You can call for mediation anytime you want! --Eupator 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing request for mediation on this, as well as on Yerevan page. I ask parties involved to put their signitares--Dacy69 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now been fully protected upon request at WP:RFPP. It will stay until people can resolve the disputes. Nishkid64 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hopefully we can straighten things out. Nareklm 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator and TigranTheGreat are asked to sign mediation agreement. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Urartu --Dacy69 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not hold articles hostage with your pathetic quibbling over 'ethnic composition'. The 'ethnic composition' of Urartu is totally uninteresting to anyone but Armenian nationalists. This isn't an article on Armenian patriotism, it is an article on an ancient kingdom. If you want to argue about various theories of Armenian ethnogenesis, do that over at Armenians and History of Armenia, where it is on topic. On this article, there shouldn't be more than one sentence containing a link to those articles. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop calling every contributor of Armenian descent an Armenian nationalist? Anyone who raises objections is an Armenian patriot to you? And who are you to say what ethnic composition (or anything for that matter) are interesting to? Try showing some of that Swiss neutrality we admire so much. Hakob 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume, given that Adil (Dacy69) is back. I appologise to dab for my answer, but settling issues is the only way to keep this article clean from Adil intrusions, since believe me, he will refuse to leave the article alone. First of all, this article is about Urartu, so I fail to see why people are bothered about it, more particularly nationalist Azeris editors like Adil.

Is there any link between Armenians and Urartians? Herodotus claims that those living in Armenia are the natives who acquired the language of the conquerers, which he claims to be the Phrygians. It sounds weird at first that Adil will obsessivally fight on this, since Azeris have the same sort of claim on the Caucasian Albanian, claims which he supports himself. We know that Herodotus was probably right on the basis of Haplotype and other genetic sequencing tests that Armenians are more genetically linked with the Caucasus indigenous people than those of the 'Thraco-Phrygian region.' Also, there are Armenian language anomalies and barrowing in its structures which suggest indigenous language assimilation.

I have already placed those works as references in the past, which treat about the Armenian language structural differences with typical Indo-European, suggesting early mixture.

Problems of Armenian Phonology I, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1954), pp. 197-201

Problems of Armenian Phonology II, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 4-8

Problems of Armenian Phonology III, by Werner Winter, Language, Vol. 38, No. 3, Part 1 (Jul., 1962), pp. 254-262

On the Placing of Armenian, by J. Alexander Kerns; Benjamin Schwartz, Language, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1942), pp. 226-228

Is Armenian an Anatolian Language? by William M. Austin, Language, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1942), pp. 22-25

The Etymology of Armenian ert'am by Charles R. Barton, Language, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), p. 620

'Initial' Indo-European */y/ in Armenian, by Robert Minshall, Language, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1955), pp. 499-503

Some Effects of the Hurro-Urartian People and Their Languages upon the Earliest Armenians by John A. C. Greppin; I. M. Diakonoff, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 720-730

The Position of Tocharian among the Other Indo-European Languages by Douglas Q. Adams, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 395-402

The Indo-Hittite Hypothesis by E. H. Sturtevant, Language, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1962), pp. 105-110

Adjacency Parameters in Phonology by David Odden, Language, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 289-330

Selected Studies in Indo-European Phonology, by Gordon Myron Messing, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 56 (1947), pp. 161-232

Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian by I. M. Diakonoff, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 105, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 597-603

The Armenian Aorist by G. Bonfante, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Jun., 1942), pp. 102-105

Mountain of Tongues: The Languages of the Caucasus by J. C. Catford, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 6 (1977), pp. 283-314

Statistical Measurement of Linguistic Relationship by Alvar Ellegard, Language, Vol. 35, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr., 1959), pp. 131-156

Having said that, I will also add that, indiginous Armenians had various aspects of their cultures directly influenced by the Urartian Kingdom, their Gods, their buildings etc.

Finally, there is no point in raising any issues such as 'Armenians are not Urartians', which I assume Adil is doing, since no one I think claims they are, on the other hand, the Armenian Kingdom founded after the fall of Urartu has been founded by the same indiginous people, but the domminating class was replaced. Fad (ix) 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I asked to verify my identiy to settle this issue and to stop groundless accusation.

Second, my interest in Urartu is in its genuine history - and to get rid of falsifications and speculations. I don't mind to accomodate various theories. And I don't mind when other people are interested in the history of other countires. This was the way how the science of history was developed. Ancient Egypt's history was developed mainly by Europeans, wasn't it? Germans wrote about ancient Rome, French scholar Grousset studied Turkic nomads, etc. There are many other examples. And here in Wikipedia Armenian user Clevelander are making his edits in Azerbaijani sites. This is a spirit of Wikipedia.

Now to the question itself. A long list of publications does not produce more reasoning, particularly, if they are about language. Piotrovski, when pointed to Urartian and Armenian differences, studied material culture. Here, in Ethnic Section, (not Language) it was stated about etnnic similarities and continuity btw Urartu and Armenians, which is basically non-mainstream opinion, which even the Armenian MFA is not supporting. In the 6th century B.C.E., Armenians settled in the kingdom of Urartu (the Assyrian name for Ararat), which was in decline” [[15]]. (Perhaps this will be removed soon)... Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and many other scholars maintain other opinion. This, I argue, should be reflected in the Ethnic composition section. The same is applied to page Armenia, in section of Antiquity, when it states the same ethnic bonds and gives only Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory. And, we perfectly know why this point is made by nationalists.--Dacy69 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my accusation of you being Adil, is a result of a merging test which has a higher specificity than Checkusers which uses IP addresses, since anyone bright enough to use proxies could get away normally. If you want the results and my investigations, it will be my pleasure to post them on your talkpage. But I reserve the right to keep my sampling method introduced in SAS based platform to myself. About the Britannica source, you much about know that this is not a position accepted by everyone. Herodotus claims the Armenians are the indegenious people who acquired the language of the Phrygian invadors. But anyways, I fail to see the relevancy of this discussion with the main subject of this article. Fad (ix) 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all this isn't even on-topic here. This is the article about Urartu. The relation of Urartu to the historical Armenians, such as it is, should be discussed on History of Armenia and Armenians. We will only place a brief link to these articles here, regardless of the merit of the Urartu-Armenians connection. I wish this article would attract editors interested in the actual topic, not just in some ethnic label intended to give an aura of antiquity to modern Armenians. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]