Talk:Urartu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Urartian/Urartean/Urartuan

The article should probably settle on an adjective and use it consistently. Varlaam (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Khaldian people

Chaldia /Khaldian people: Were they the people of Urartu that went to the Northern parts of Anatolia? Scholars such as Carl Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt (1910) believed that the people of Urartu called themselves Khaldini after their god Khaldi. Böri (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

sure, it's a possibility, nobody will ever know because they didn't leave behind written sources. Such is prehistory. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uratu/Ararat Religious POV

The removed section contained the weasel word "scholars" which linked to a creationist website. This is dishonest, as it presents the views of religious fundamentalists as if they were scholarly consensus. It is not generally acknowledged that Uratu is the Biblical Ararat. Paul S (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The section should be reinstated in some form, because it is indeed a significant point of view that Urartu is identifiable with the Ararat mentioned in Jeremiah, and actually I don't know of anyone who disagrees that Ararat, being geographically within Urartu, is cognate with that name. Do you know of any sources that contend otherwise? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Ararat cites an alternative Armenian derivation (how reliable?) and some older sources suggest Hebrew ’arar or yarad (but how reliable again?) but don't ask me to prove a negative. By all means cite any source for Ararat = Uratu, but we can't have a Creationist website cited on the basis of it being "scholars". Paul S (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Still looking... there are endless websites blindly restating the equation of Ararat with Uratu because of the mountain, without any explanation of how it was the specifically Hebrew form of Uratu would be one to survive in Classical Armenian... Paul S (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're finding as I said, that there is general agreement that Ararat was in Urartu, and that the names are indeed considered cognate by scholars. And this is relevant to this article. If you still personally disagree (despite the fact that evidently not one scholar has ever located Ararat anywhere else but in Urartu) then your inability to "prove a negative" as you put it certainly does fail the burden of proof being on you, for lack of any source that shares your disagreement. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way I notice that you consistently (four times out of four) spelled it URATU in this talk section (without the second R). I just hope you're not spelling it that way in your web searches, because you will probably get more hits if you include the second R. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right! I never even noticed that I'd done that! Paul S (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call it agreement... searching the web turns up two sorts of things - articles about the Biblical Flood or Armenian nationalists and their detractors. The former all blindly accept the equivalence with Ararat with no explanation of how Assyrian Urartu and Babylonian Urashtu would yield Hebrew Ararat but Afro-Asiatic is much less my bag than Indo-European. I'm still trying to find someone from a purely archaeological and/or linguistic perspective with an explanation of how and why. Paul S (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that even Isaac Asimov wrote that Ararat "was a mountainous kingdom where the Tigris and Euphrates had their sources in what is now eastern Turkey. It flourished in Assyrian times, and its name was Urartu - of which Ararat is clearly a version." And the Armenian sources seem to be written by experts in Armenian history. There is no cause to discount them for drawing the same, apparently uncontested conclusion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov not noted for his work in the field of Semitic linguists... all I want is a source explaining how Urartu/Urashtu corresponds to Ararat; all we can find is a load of people saying, "Everyone knows that" with absolutely no explanation of how we all know it. Paul S (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no problem finding lots of sources stating Urartu=Ararat that cannot be brushed off as "Fundamentalist Christian" and "Armenian Nationalist", whatever your problem is. This includes: the Cambridge History, the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and every other source to talk about either. If those in Semitic languages assert that Urartu is the Akkadian form of Ararat, and none disagree, this is getting to the point of being ridiculous. I am familiar with Semitic languages and have no problem seeing how Ararat would become Urartu in Assyrian pronunciation, it may easily be observed that all nouns including countries end in -u, and I can aver many other vowels in Assyrian coalesce with "u", eg in shumelu, "left hand" for just one example. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cite a few of those and I suppose it's a consensus. I remain a little disturbed by the fact that there is no good reason to make the association but everyone does it "because". Paul S (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Urart - translation from assyrian

Hi, I just want to say that assyrians (people) until now call armenians "hurart" in their language. Is there some ideas to explain it?Emil.nkr (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Start and end dates of Urartu

It seems two slightly different sets of dates for the start and end of this kingdom are being used here: 860-590 as seen in the infobox, but also the dates 858 and 585 are referred to, and these agree with the articles for the first and last kings. My educated guess would be that 858 and 585 pinpoint the exact years when the first king started and the last king stopped, whereas the dates "860" and "590" seem to derive from somebody "rounding off to the nearest zero". If this is the case, it would be better to be consistent and to use the exact years these events fall in, viz. 858 and 585, in the infoboxes and articles. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The dates of the timelines preceding the 9th century, without any attestations, are cruelly speculative! HJJHolm (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Organization of Armenian ethnogenesis Section.

Currently, this section is confusing to understand. It is not clear which theory a sentence is being referenced to. I believe this is very important in order for a first time reader, like myself, to understand the material. I suggest it be partitioned further by theory (Kurgan, Anatolian, Armenian, Herodotus). For example, the third sentence: "The presence of a Proto-Armenian population in the area already during Urartian rule is subject to speculation: It is generally assumed that Proto-Armenian speakers entered Anatolia from around 1200 BC, ultimately deriving from a Paleo-Balkans context, and over the following centuries spread east to the Armenian Highland.[46][47][48]" The very first sentence has already mentioned another theory, even before the first is mentioned! I had to read the entire section repeatedly, to understand what was being said. And I still don't know exactly which sentences and paragraphs correspond to which theory. I would very much like to see this section cleaned up and broken down further into it's corresponding theory. This will help clean up the section and provide clarity.Razdukhavod (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Urartu is to Armenians what ancient Britons are to the English, and Gauls are to the French

This doesn't sound like an objective and scientific encyclopedia worth sentence. What if reality is more like "Uratu is to Armenians what 19th century Palestinians to Israeli" ? Also English learned to respect Britons after murdering most of them (safe for Welsh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.50.39 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. Check DNA data. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense, besides being wrong. Neither 'Britons' nor 'Gauls' means a country. I've deleted it Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The language of the Urartians

I want to clarify something here: no respectible archaeologist, linguist or historian now believes that the Hurro-Urartians were somehow Armenian speakers. I know because I am an American scholar of the Caucasus and know many people in America, Germany, Russia, Armenia and other countries who work on Hurrian and Urartian (especially the people at the Oriental Institute of Chicago) and they are unanimous -- literally, no dissenters -- that the Urartian language is a non-Indo-European language that was spoken as both a state-language and as a common tongue before the collapse of the Kingdom of Urartu. Furthermore, there was a time, possibly not long before that collapse, when there were no Armenian speakers in what is now eastern Turkey and the Republic of Armenia. We know this because Armenian is an Indo-European language, and there were no Indo-Europeans *at all* in Anatolia until the arrival of the Hittites circa 2200-2000 BC. The linguistic evidence suggests that Armenian is most closely related to Phrygian and Greek, which means that the earliest proto-Armenian speakers were once much further to the West, in the Balkans, before the end of the Bronze Age. Taken all together, the people of Urartu almost certainly spoke the non-Indo-European language Urartian before the arrival of the Armenians.Trwier (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything you said about Urartean is correct, it is not classified as Indo-European whereas modern Armenian is. However much work has also been done on identifying Urartean substrates in Armenian. People so easily forget how fluid languages can be over time, and how they can often be influenced on various levels or show borrowing by more than one "language family". This perception is because of the massive investment modern scholarship has put into promoting the simplistic concept of rigid, indivisible, inalterable "language families" that can have no possible influence on one another. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Both of what you guys stated is clearly and unambiguously stated in the article. The substrate has been studied in detail by Igor Diakonov.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Loan words and cuneiform

Here's the original edit.[1] It may have had it backwards, it must have had it backwards, but that's it. The source was changed, the number of inscriptions doubled. I've deleted the whole paragraph. If anyone can source it properly, maybe restore it - but it seemed out of place a bit also. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good source if anyone wants to take a shot: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/duhboa.htm and loads more here: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/urartian.html -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Urartu name and "Armina"

"Armina" is not Urartu, neither is the Satrapy of Armenia, because such link hasn't been established. The Old Persian toponym "Armina" therefore is a false equivalence, and another name should be used, because "Armina" has no historical or linguistic importance to this particular period (or at least it hasn't been established). As for the rendering in Armenian, it's totally correct, and corresponds to the period. There is no proof that Urartu had any connection to Persia neither culturally nor linguistically, unfortunately; the only languages attested from the period were Hurrian and Urartian, which have survived through the Armenian language. There are many proven examples of this; it's not the same case with modern Persian. --92slim (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

For the relation between Urartu and Persia, see [2], [3]. And for the relevance of Old Persian name: simply because the region correspond to Urartu is called "Armina", and this is very significant and interesting. "Armina" and "Urartu" are usually mentioned together in the sources such as this one. And according to some theories "Armina" is derived from "Urartu". These are common knowledge and I don't know why you are discussing this. And your source [4] can't be used in the article, first because this is not a reliable peer-reviewed historical source and second, because this Armenian name is not based on a primary source. Most likely the word "Urartu" is an English/French or possible German loanword in Armenian language. Don't know how it "corresponds to the period". One can cite a similar source for Japanese, Urdu, and Romanian language. -- Kouhi (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First, the name and state of Armina (the later Satrapy of Armenia) is definitely different from Urartu, and the geographical location of Urartu is simply irrelevant. Iranica Online is right on the money historically speaking but it only details non-Iranian and non-Persian history; the connection between Persian culture, language and people has not been established, unlike with the Armenians (Urartu, after all, is called the Land of Ararat, the Nairi peoples, etc). Its territory became a part of Media, therefore (according to your first two links) Urartian culture influenced the late Median Empire, and not viceversa. Your first source simply says that it became part of Armina according to Darius I and the Behistun Inscription. That does not mean its the same state or that they are remotely similar. Remember, Urartian is not an Indo-European or Indo-Aryan language. The link you provided simply says that Babylonian inscriptions say "Urartu" instead of Armina, not that they're written together so that's also incorrect. Second, the source for the Armenian transliteration is simply that, a source for a transliteration, which is 100% correct and comes from an official governmental source at that. It doesn't matter what the Armenian name is based in, that's not what the discussion is about; but it's definitely not based on English or German, that's another assumption that you have made. The Armenian language probably was contemporaneous to Urartu, an perhaps the Old Persian too, but the now you see that the discussion is about the fact that Armina is a later state that has so far been proven to have had nothing to do with Urartu; your sources prove this. If you want to include a contemporaneous name that matches, you have to prove either that Armina was Urartu or what the actual Old Persian name for Urartu was. TLDR: Urartu was neither an Old Persian or Armenian state, and has not been proven to be one such state, but has loanwords in Armenian and influenced Persia. Armina/Armenia was a completely different state which has not been proven to be similar to Urartu (therefore there are lots of assumptions made here). We can discuss this further, but I'm just saying that those sources you have provided confirm nothing so far. --92slim (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's been proven that Urartu was a name used by the Assyrians to name the state. The local Urartians called it Biainili (or Biaineli), which forms the root of the Armenian Վան ("Van"), hence the names "Kingdom of Van (Bianili)" or "Vannic Kingdom." Therefore, Armenian is the only language that has conserved the root of the original name. As such the name in Armenian isn't Urartu, but Kingdom of Van, just like the Urartians named it. It's similar to the word Armenia, a named used by the Persians but to refer to Armenians but never by the Armenians themselves. --92slim (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It is fully relevant, not only because of geographical location (which at the very least, beside other things, it means the region had two names, and this is important), but also because historians usually mention these names (Armina and Urartu) together (and Wikipedia is written based on sources, when something is mentioned in a reliable source, it means that it should be mentioned in Wikipedia too. You can find many examples yourself and I already provided one, here is another source which mentions both names together, and this one explicitly mentions Armenia as Persian equivalent of Urartu). The cultural connection between Urartu and Persia, or Urartu and modern Republic of Armenia is fully irrelevant. These spellings have nothing to do with influence and these things. Only names with lingual and historical importance should be mentioned here. This rule is well-established in Wikipedia. And this is why primary sources are important, not "official governmental sources". The source for Armenian "transliteration" is NOT acceptable, because a "transliteration" is of no importance. You should cite a secondary source based on a primary source. If you can't find the Armenian name in a primary source, then it means the name was loaned from another language in modern times, which makes Armenian name unimportant from a lingual/historical POV. You can cite a source (similar to sources I've cited) for Kingdom of Van and keep that name. -- Kouhi (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, those sources prove absolutely no connection between Urartu and Armina. Written together does not mean the same so no, the region does not have two names: Urartu ceased to exist 100 years before the Behistun Inscription, so your claims are completely irrelevant. Read what I wrote and stop edit warring. --92slim (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with 92slim. We must also prove somehow that Persian was of historical significance and relevance to Urartu, which none of the aforementioned sources prove. Sure, many different cultures used different names for Urartu, but that doesn't mean we should have every foreign language transliteration in the lead. To reiterate: we must show per WP:NCGN that there's a strong connection between Persia and Urartu, and not just some geographical commonalities. The article does not provide such information. While, on the other hand, there's an entire section about the connections of Urartu with Armenians. Therefore, the Old Persian name can go to the Name section, but as far as the foreign transliteration goes, it doesn't seem to fit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In this highly reliable source Armenia is explicitly mentioned as the Persian equivalent of Urartu, so the case dismissed. I have a very reliable source for my claim and I will definitely take advantage of this reliable source in the article. On the other hand, you don't have a single source for Armenian name, so don't engage in an edit war, and don't revert sourced material, which is considered WP:VANDALISM. -- Kouhi (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting the point. So let me repeat: you need to prove some sort of historical significance between Persia and Urartu. So far, all we have heard from you is that Armina is the Persian equivalent of Urartu. That's nice. But there's many languages out there that have names for Urartu, why single out Persian and insist sources need to be provided for Armenian? Beyond the whole Armina is Persian for Urartu argument, there's not an inkling of evidence from you that shows Persia and Urartu are historically relevant. While, on the other hand, there's a tremendous amount of sources that shows Urartu playing an important role for the development of Armenian identity and culture. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I should repeat again: These spellings have nothing to do with influence and these kind of things (but read my first comment, I have cited sources which shows the relation between Urartu and Persia, so you can't say there's no relation between them), only names with historical/lingual importance should be mentioned here. The Persian name is important, because it is mentioned by historians and historians paid attention to it (WP:VERIFY). But no historian mentioned this so-called Armenian name in his book which shows that this is of no importance. -- Kouhi (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, however, you have yet to prove why Persia itself, or the Persian people, are relevant to Urartu in a significant way. You're just saying the translation is notable. Again, that's nice. But there's an entire section for Names at the article. So feel free to add it there. But when it comes to foreign transliterations, the guidelines are different, as outlined at WP:NCGN:

Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.

If your argument is that the Persian name itself is significant, you'll need sources saying why that is the case. So then you can elaborate these claims in the Name section. Simply placing it as a foreign transliteration will not help the reader understand that significance, and it is against WP:NCGN recommendations. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the WP:NCGN carefully, "Alternatively, all alternative names can be...", it is an alternative way. It also says "we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves". If you like it this way, according to MOS:FORLANG, we could keep only Urartian name in the lead and move all other names, including the Persian name and a sourced Armenian name into the "Name" section. I don't need to prove a relation between Persia and Urartu (though I already did) since I don't claim that. I want to add Persian name and I have reliable sources for it. It is the supporters of Armenian name who should provide sources for it and prove its importance. The importance of Persian name is clear, see one of the most essential policies of Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability. The importance is that the Persian name is mentioned in several reliable secondary sources which makes it significant and notable. But what you have for Armenian name? Without a source, Armenian name is WP:OR which is forbidden in Wikipedia, and anybody can remove it. -- Kouhi (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The historical significance of Armenia and Urartu is well-established by numerous sources. There's nothing to that sort with Persia. FORLANG and NCGN guidelines don't suggest adding a foreign language name just because it's different or significant in and of itself. That would be better explained at the Name section, and as far as I can see, it's already there. You can elaborate it further if you want.--Երևանցի ^talk 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kouhi: I don't need to prove a relation between Persia and Urartu (though I already did) since I don't claim that. Actually, you do, and you haven't done anything to prove that. It doesn't matter what you claim, that's irrelevant. There is no proven connection between Persia and Urartu. You might as well add the Chinese name for Urartu, because it will also be removed. --92slim (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This source [5], which has been cited earlier, essentially says that while the words "Urartu" and "Armina" do refer to the same thing, by the time of Armina's existence Urartu had ceased to exist and "Urartu" was being used because it had become the traditional name to refer to the territory that now corresponded to Armina. So, based on that, Armina is not an alternative name for Urartu, it is rather that Urartu is an alternative name for Armina. So I think it is not correct to have Armina here in the lede as an alternative name, but it is relevant content for somewhere in the article, and maybe even a mention in the lede. However, the "Old Persian" cuneiform version of Urartu, seen here [6] may be appropriate as an alternative rendering of the Babylonian name if that is how it was rendered at that time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The "highly reliable" source Kouhi cites [7] is talking about Persepolis inscription XPh that exists in three languages - [[8]]. In one language "Armina" is used, in another it is "Urartu" - but that is merely an example of the traditional usage the iranicaonline source mentioned. The Urartian Empire, which is the subject of this article, was no longer in existence when the inscription was carved. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Armenian transliteration

What exactly does the Armenian transliteration (a language first attested in the 5th century AD) have to do here in the lede, written in the script that was formed some ~ 1000 years after the demise of Urartu? - LouisAragon (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't give alternative names of contemporaneous languages, but of languages spoken today. Urartu is a major part of Armenian history and therefore its alternative name should remain. You can add all that stuff in the Name section. In fact, most of it is already there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when? We don't use the modern Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian translations/transliterations on the Kievan Rus page, as thats anachronistic. Similarly, we don't use the modern Persian translation on the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian pages because thats anachronistic as well. Same goes for the Seljuk Empire, Sultanate of Rum, Francia, and Roman Empire, just to name a few more. In fact, on the Kievan Rus page, (which has received way more discussing than this page, and its content is therefore way better reviewed), they list every alternate transliteration by contemporaneous languages -- an attestment that your "we don't give alternative names" statement unfortunately doesn't hold much ground. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

And I'm here to tell you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles are not in tip-top shape and therefore, they shouldn't be used as models. Parthian Empire is FA, but I really believe that there should be some consideration in adding Persian as its alternative name. WP:NCGN guidelines is pretty simple. If it's related to a certain country's history, such as Armenia, it should include the Armenian language. Since that is the case with Urartu, Armenian language shouldn't be removed. Ancient languages should be sent to the Name section and elaborated there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think LouisAragon has a point, but not a cut and dried one. I too tried to find some similar examples and found it difficult. Can EtienneDolet point to other articles that do have this sort of alternative transliteration. I do see Anatolian beyliks has an alternative name using modern Turkish terminology and alphabet, as do all its many fork articles, such as Mengujekids (with its alternative name written in a script that was formed some 650 years after their demise) - so these could be examples. Am I right that the issue is "should a culture/nation/empire that formerly existed on the territory of a nation that still exists be alternatively named using the language and alphabet of that still existing nation, and should the level of the historical or cultural connections between the no-longer-existing and the still-existing be considered when deciding on an answer?" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: (edit conflict), you could indeed describe it like that. I just listed some of the most historically significant empires/dynasties/entities, amongst which we can see one FA article, and one GA article. None of which use anachronistic transliterations in the lede. Another example would be the Byzantine Empire, another FA article. Anatolian Beyliks is one example, but it is a low-profile article (50 edits in the past two years), historically much less significant, and contains only 7 sources, as well as a "refimprove" template dating from 2010. Having said that, it should (ideally) be removed from there as well.
In the lede of this article, we see the modern Armenian transliteration applied to it, and not even just on one occassion, no, on no less than three ocassions we see it passing by. Its simply anachronistic, and thus wrong. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been referred to elsewhere MOS:FORLANG. It seems to justify the uses of modern Turkish I mentioned, it could also justify the use of Armenian here.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG states: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent." And it then goes on to give one example of a place in Ukraine where the Ukrainian transliteration is given. This matter however, pertains to a historic entity of early antiquity where the main language was Urartian, not Armenian, and is much more complex subject than just a town in modern-day Ukraine. On top of that, the statement in MOS:FORLANG is rather ambiguous on itself as well, as it is not really defining enough to cover up such matters, I believe. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with LouisAragon's argument. The modern Armenian name also doesn't sit naturally beside the names civilizations contemporary to Urartu gave to Urartu. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My main concern is removing the modern Armenian language as an alternate language. Armenian is relevant because Urartu played and continues to play a significant role in the history, culture, and identity of the Armenian people. There's also no denying the importance Armenians attach to Urartu. That relevancy alone is good enough to merit the Armenian version of Urartu as an alternate language in the lead. Making edits like this will totally disregard that fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Armenian is relevant because Urartu played and continues to play a significant role in the history, culture, and identity of the Armenian people. There's also no denying the importance Armenians attach to Urartu."
Let's see what's stated in the lede;

- (...) was an Iron Age kingdom centred on Lake Van in the Armenian Highlands.
- It is argued on linguistic evidence that proto-Armenian came in contact with Urartian at an early date (3rd-2nd millennium BC), before formation of Urartian kingdom.[2][5][6][7][8]
- The landscape corresponds to the mountainous plateau between Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Iranian Plateau, and the Caucasus Mountains, later known as the Armenian Highlands.
- The heirs of Urartu are the Armenians and their successive kingdoms.[7][10][11][12]

I thought that that point was quite well stipulated, given, as we can see, that in literally every alinea of the lede something is mentioned about its (strong) relation to the Armenians. But, I guess thats just me.

"Making edits like this will totally disregard that fact."
- How exactly? LouisAragon (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC might help here. I can see a fairness in having the Armenian name in the lede, given the territorial continuity and the modern-era mix of actual discovered / possible / perceived / and believed connections between Armenia and Urartu, but as LouisAragon points out there is enough content in the article that explains those connections, so no information will be lost by the Armenian name's removal. I feel the Armenian name does look out of place in the lede beside the names civilizations contemporary to Urartu gave to Urartu, as if it is there just for symbolic effect. I also think having it there is not in line with the admittedly vague guidelines. While having it remain doesn't do the article harm, giving an inch here to a reasonable editor here could open the door for miles to be taken by unreasonable editors elsewhere. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting this, and looking at the article again, with almost fresh eyes, I think the Armenian transliterations should go. They look really heavy-handed for lede material. it is better to reveal the connections to Armenia in the article content, with maybe these transliterations inserted into the Armenian ethnogenesis section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bianili confederation and Kurdish Tribes

According to Trevor Bryce the Nairi lands were inhabited by what he calls "fierce tribal groups" divided into a number of principalities, and are first mentioned by Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243–1207 BC) when he defeated and exacted tribute from forty Nairi kings.[4] The names of twenty-three Nairi lands were recorded by Tiglath-Pileser I (1114–1076 BC). Their southernmost point was Tumme, known to have been south-west of Lake Urmia, and their northern one Daiaeni.These lands are known from the list of defeated kings: "the king of Tumme, the king of Tunube, the king of Tuali, the king of Kindari, the king of Uzula, the king of Unzamuni the king of Andiabe, the king of Pilakinni, the king of Aturgini, the king of Kulibarzini, the king of Shinibirni, the king of Himua, the king of Paiteri, the king of Uiram, the king of Shururia, the king of Albaia, the king of Ugina, the king of Nazabia, the king of Abarsiuni, and the king of Daiaeni.

Albrecht Goetze suggested that what he refers to as the Hurriland dissolved into a number of small states that the Assyrians called Nairi.[9] Others take this hypothesis skeptically; e.g., Benedict (Benedict 1960) points out that there is no evidence of the presence of Hurrites in the vicinity of Lake Van.

An early, documented reference to Nairi is a tablet dated to the time of Adad-nirari I (13th century BC), which mentions the purchase of 128 horses from the Nairi region.

The Nairi fought against the southern incursions of the Assyrians and would later unite into Urartu.

Nairi tribes: Dayaini, Nimmi, Tunubi, Tuali Kindari Uzula Unzamuni Andiabi Pilankini Aturguiri Kulibarzini (kurdish tribe, nowadays live in the northern iraq, Barzaništun-Barzuriani-Barzani) Shinibirni Jimua Patiri or Paitiri Uiram Shururia Abaini or Abahuni Adaimi Kirini Albaya Uguira Nazabia Abarsiuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachxan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish tribes in connection with Nairi or Urartu. Claiming that Nairi tribes survived upttoday is beyond the absurd. Besides no original ancient sources about kurds are known. This subsection doesn't even deserve a comment, no offence... Hayordi (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there the Kassits, a people in the mountains north of Assyria? Mentioned 3000 BC. Seems to be the same name as Kurds. --94.101.217.222 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Urartu’s all history had been linked with only a view which based Armenian etnogenesis. I think this idea arguable because of that Bianili state was a confederation and had a few different etnogenesis (e.g. Caucasian people in the North, Hurrian-Mittani in the Southwest and South, a allied country Musasir in the Southeast and others). Boris Piotrovsky wrote that "the Urartians first appear in history in the 13th century B.C. as a league of tribes or countries which did not yet constitute a unitary state.

I accept Proto-Armenian ethnicity in the Bianili confederation but some tribes’ names (Pilakini, Kuli Barzini..etc.), some cities’ names (Sarduri Qurda , Gilza,..etc.) and their words show us there were many ethnicities in the country. Such as proto-kurds, assyrians, mittanis, …

Some sources to Nairi tribes from inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I ( King of Assyria) 1.https://archive.org/stream/recordsofthepast01unknuoft/recordsofthepast01unknuoft_djvu.txt 2.http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rp/rp201/rp20125.htm#fn_213 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachxan (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no scientific sources connecting kurds to Nairi or Urartu. Nairi, and later Urartu where proto-armenian rival states(enemies) to Assyria. Relating modern day people based on common prononciation to ancient tribes without any scientific base is ridiculous (no offence). Here is an example: Iberia is a peninsula in Europe today, covering Portugal, Spain, Andorra and partially France. Iberia was also a name of Georgian kingdom that existed until 6th century AD in Caucasus. This two entities with exactly the same name have nothing in common. Do you embrace the point here?. Hayordi (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Shuri

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

Recent reverts/in use

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

You are removing vital information about the Armenian relevance of Urartu. Please, explain your edits one by one and we can sift through them and decide through consensus building measures what should or should not be in this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but no. You don't WP:OWN the article. What justification do you have to revert an edit that cleans up duplicate links, or adds sourced content to Oxford encylopedias, and while the in use template is up? The fact that you don't feel like reviewing the edits is absolutely not a justification to revert. You have to provide a justification for these reverts. There's no rule that you have some special authority to review edits to the article one by one. This isn't the first article this has happened on, and in my opinion it is really holding up improvement of important articles. If you contine to do this I'm going straight to ANI. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, half the content in this article is unsourced, the other half is barely coherent, there must be some way you can contribute to the project other then stalking an editor who is actually working on the article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because you placed a "major edit" tag on top of this article doesn't mean you should do whatever you feel like and not expect any one to critique these edits. That's not how it works and as a matter of fact, that's actually the definition of WP:OWN. Per WP:BRD, you need to explain why you're making such drastic and contentious changes to this highly sensitive article. You are removing vital long-standing material concerning the relevancy of Armenians when it comes to Urartu. Why are you doing this? You are claiming that they're unsourced, but that's not true either. You removed a massive chunk of material concerning Urartu and Armenians saying it was irrelevant when it clearly wasn't. Please, explain that for us. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean by removing unsourced imformation and cleaning up the duplicate links that plague not only this article but many other articles in this topic areas? Please, the content I removed was not about Urartu and if you hadn't charged in and started edit warring I would have replaced it with something better and actually relevant to this article. I intend to restore this and continue editing tomorrow. the relevancy of Armenians when it comes to Urartu doesn't even make sense, if you can't explain what you are talking about with reference to actual reliable sources then you should stop reverting other editors who are trying to reference improve a poorly organized article with vast swathes of unsourced content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As in, removing Armenian Highlands as a region claiming that it was unsourced when it was clearly sourced for starts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Urartian royal tomb. Van citadel, 1973

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

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

The sources are in the article already. See Samuelian, Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, and others. The sources clearly use the term Armenian Highlands. And let's not forgot the term "Eastern Anatolia" is a recent makeshift name for a geographical region that was created to conceal the fact that Armenians have once lived on those lands before the Armenian Genocide. We've talked about this on another article.

Also, you claim that this paragraph is "in an essay style then an enyclopedia article" but you copied and pasted it to another article?

And no one but you thinks this article is in badly need of improvement, and yet some can argue that every article on Wikipedia can be viewed that way. There's no "perfect" article. But you're not improving it to Wikipedia standards here. You're merely deleting relevant material that highlights the Armenian relevancy to Urartu (i.e. removing the Khorenatsi bit, removing Armenian Highlands, removing the Ayrarat information) and etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Arguing that Lake Van is not in eastern Anatolia in the present day is only going to end up on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. But I didn't add eastern Anatolia—What I did, out of respect for all parties, was change the LEDE to say Urartu was centered around the Lake Van region without specifying the present day location. The use of Armenian highland would have to be balanced. It doesn't seem necessary or an improvement to use these terms here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia and this inaccessible source published by Iravunq Pub. House [9]. I don't think we can give these equal weight with Oxford Encylopedias. Without more, Samuelian's opinion will have to be attributed. You said there were "other" sources, can you tell us what they are? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm fine with only "centered around Lake Van", but I support the unsigned above ip editors proposal to remove both descriptors (if I am understanding correctly) because the boundaries of Urartu extend beyond the Armenian highland area deep into Iran and south into the Zagros. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is one option that I was thinking. The borders don't extend much beyond the Armenian highlands, but removing both (Armenian Highlands / eastern Anatolia in its post-1940s meaning) geographical terms from the lead seems OK to me since neither the terms or their concepts existed when Urartu existed. Lake Van is wikilinked so its location is easy for a reader to find, and there is a more specific and detailed listing of Urartu's location in relation to present-day territories later in the article, so I think no content would be lost. 89.242.188.207 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Would someone please delete this content, it is all original research, the cited source just says it is a city in Nairi and nothing more: "The presence of Armenian speakers in the Armenian Highlands prior to the formation of the Kingdom of Urartu is supported by a reference to "the king of Uiram" in an 11th-century BCE list of lands conquered by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I." 89.242.187.168 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Urartian Origins in Northern Mesopotamia

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

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the Urartu page? There are numerous articles where this connection is mentioned. Here is one: http://www.academia.edu/9973747/Imagining_Haldi Preservedmoose (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

bet Kardu and ture-Kardu need to be removed

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

Encylopaedia Iranica Source Questionable

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

FYI, I would strongly suggest not removing referenced information under the guise of "Edited out repeated/unsourced information". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

But to say that most of the names in question are Urartian etymologically is disingenuous at best, especially considering that the source (Enclopaedia Iranica) also suggests that at least some of these names are of Iranian origin (as my sources above suggest). Wikipedia should have a duty to provide unbiased information, so if the information in question must be included, perhaps an addendum can be added stating that alternate (Iranian, Armenian) etymologies have also been postulated as opposed to stating, misleadingly, that Urartian etymologies (or at least non-Iranian, non-Armenian etymologies) are certain. Thanks. Preservedmoose (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

If your "sources" presented above are from Wiktionary, you should know Wiktionary is not a reliable source.

• "Wikipedia should have a duty to provide unbiased information..."

Are you insinuating Encyclopaedia Iranica is biased?

You appear to be the biased one here;

• "Removed Encyclopaeda Iranica reference. Source is questionable..."
• "Edited out repeated/unsourced information"(false edit summary, since a reference(Iranica) and referenced information was removed)
• "Edited out Encylopaedia Iranica. Bad source"

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

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

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

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

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

If Wiktionary is problematic, here are some other sources:

Dadarshish

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dadarsis-old-persian-name-derived-from-darsto-dare-kent-old-persian-p

See page 40:

http://www.academia.edu/37612879/T._Daryaee_THE_FALL_OF_URARTU_AND_THE_RISE_OF_ARMENIA_Reflections_of_Armenian_Identity_in_History_eds._H._Berberian_and_T._Daryaee_UCI_Center_for_Persian_Studies_2018_pp._38-44

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=ms30qA6nyMsC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=arakha+armenian&source=bl&ots=RyHAZEoy73&sig=ACfU3U3sldn217q2ueMaCXMiBWDD-YP5GQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW2Kfo3efgAhXNIDQIHSDoA1E4ChDoATAKegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=arakha%20armenian&f=false

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

http://www.nayiri.com/imagedDictionaryBrowser.jsp?dictionaryId=35&printPage=265&volume=1

Tigra:

Here Tigra is theorized as being either Armenian or Urartian:

https://books.google.com/books?id=kQ6zTASmo6kC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=tigra+iranian&source=bl&ots=RfwlCZ6HP-&sig=ACfU3U0aMzBrQLiLPfI093yEgphPZLhsxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDyOKY3-fgAhWzIjQIHTodBCYQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=tigra%20iranian&f=false

Here Tigra is identified as the Iranian name for the Tigris River, which would suggest an Elamite/Sumerian etymology originally:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_1JXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Trypéva+ptolemy&source=bl&ots=zuRvD05EGy&sig=ACfU3U2WKiVRr9vHexfjqVuP03uaNxtxjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyx_P53-fgAhW8IDQIHb1QAgcQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Trypéva%20ptolemy&f=false

If you want more sources, I can find more.

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

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

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

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

So you are unable to present differing viewpoints(EI) written by two different academics?

Your three excuses to removed EI seem disingenuous at best. Even the Encyclopaedia of Islam has differing, even to the point of conflicting, information considering it is written by different academics.

• "Selectively choosing information/theories to include while ignoring other legitimate theories is neither unbiased nor objective."

Which is what you have done each time you have tried to remove EI either through calling it a bad source, an unreliable source, or repeated information.

So you condemn M. A. Dandamaev on one hand(EI) then use him on the other?

Also, your The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 11, appears to be from 1849. Clearly outdated. AND, nothing you have presented is any different than what Schmitt (EI) wrote:

• "The ethnonym itself and all other names attested with reference to the rebellions against Darius in Armina (the proper names Araxa, Haldita, and Dādṛšiš, the toponyms Zūzahya, Tigra, and Uyamā, and the district name Autiyāra) are not connected with Armenian linguistic and onomastic material attested later in native Armenian sources. They are also not Iranian, but seem related to Urartean (see Schmitt, “"Armenische" Namen in altpersischen Quellen”)."

FYI, the Tavernier source, uses Schmitt which is who wrote the paragraph above.

• "I’d like for you to explain for me how I am pushing a bias."

Using three different, clearly incorrect reasons to remove a reliable source. What do you call that? Bad? Unreliable? Repeated? So the sources you have presented are by academics that you do not want used(Schmitt(via Tavernier), Dandamayev) in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Sure that makes sense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Because the Dadarsis being of Iranian origin is mentioned by numerous sources, same as the others.

You didn’t even address the edit in the Legacy section or the rational for that—which was that the same quote was posted twice! I wrote the new section in the Legacy section which clearly states that SOME of the names were Urartian. I removed this long section from EI because it just repeated aforementioned information.

People get so salty on here. Leave the quote for all I care. Post the same information 100 times. But at least include an addendum that there are alternate possible etymologies. Problem solved.

Also, at least the most of the sources I provided (such as Dadarshish) provide explanations for the meaning of the names. Such as Dadarshish meaning “daring.” Seems compelling enough.

So what do you suggest my rational is for removing this particular passage that you love so much?

I don’t care about the Enclopaedia of Islam. This is not the Enclopaedia of Islam we are talking about and that’s irrelevant to this page anyhow. Most enclopaedias try to be consistent OR they provide alternate theories/viewpoints. WHICH I DID.

Apparently I am biased against EI or something even though I USED IT AS A SOURCE REPEATEDLY.

Go ahead. Rewrite the section however you want.

I’m not even sure where I condemned M. A. Dandamaev considering that I PROVIDED YOU with his write up on the name Dadarshish from EI AND ALSO PROVIDED YOU with his Political History of the Achaemenid Empire book AS TWO SOURCES TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT. I’m unsure what you are so confused about. BOTH OF THOSE LINKS WERE USED AS SOURCES TO BACK UP MY ARGUMENT. I didn’t condemn EITHER ONE OF THEM.

Are you suggesting that I have it out for Schmitt or something??? I don’t even know what you’re arguing.

I called THAT PARTIUCLAR EI Page “questionable” because it contradicted other sources that provided actual etymologies for some of these names. And yes, it was repeated as well. Preservedmoose (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "So what do you suggest my rational is for removing this particular passage that you love so much?"

I have no feelings about this or anything else. I am only interested in reliable sources and their usage. Your excuse for removal of said reliable source?

• "But at least include an addendum that there are alternate possible etymologies."

And removal of Iranica solved all that? Clearly not. Nothing stops you from adding an addendum or showing differing viewpoints. Yet again, your disingenuous actions can not be covered by all the filibustering or listing of sources(2 of which wrote the articles on Iranica!).

• "Most enclopaedias try to be consistent OR they provide alternate theories/viewpoints. WHICH I DID"

And again, removal of Iranica did not provide an alternate theory or viewpoint. Simply silenced that one. I am done with you. Continue your "providing alternate theories" while removing referenced information. I have dealt with your kind before.

• "I called THAT PARTIUCLAR EI Page “questionable” because it contradicted other sources that provided actual etymologies for some of these names. And yes, it was repeated as well."

That was M. A. Dandamaev. Learn to read. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There are two different EI pages in question. The one was intitially posted on this page. The second was the Dandamaev page that I provided you as a source. Dandamaev is not listed on the initial EI page, only on the one that I provided you, dude, which incidentally is the same one that you linked back to me 2 comments ago in an effort to try to prove my stupidity.

As stated, I removed the source because a) the information was already stated previously and b) the information’s credibility was called into question by numerous other sources.

Additionally, I added the addendum previously, to the legacy section, which I rewrote for clarity/readability.

I’m sorry to have pissed you off so much, Almighty Kansas God of Wikipedia! I shall flagellate myself as thy bid!

...or maybe I just removed it because I hate Based Schmitt and am part of a secret, anti-Schmitt society which is trying to erase and deface Schmitt whenever the opportunity arises...!

You can’t even tell who wrote what source. Maybe you shouldn’t be advising others to learn to read. Preservedmoose (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Anabasis

I removed the following: "About one century after the fall of the Kingdom of Urartu, the 5th century BC Greek historian Xenophon claims that Armenian villagers spoke a language that sounded similar to Persian" which was from a self-published source (http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/index3.pdf). This claim is not actually in Anabasis (the entire text of Anabasis is easy to find online). In fact, what is in Anabasis is the following:

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

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

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

Origin of the name of the Armenian central province Ayrarat

Doug Weller , accuse me of ”disruptive editing”,because I wrote this: ”This theory very well may be very erroneous, because Mount Ararat is called Masis in Armenian, and this means that the Armenians called their central province Ayrarat by the name of Urartu, since during peack of urartian power the Ararat Valley became the new center of the Urartian state, where many new city-centers of the Urartian kingdom were founded, such as Erebuni, Argishtinili, Menuahinili and others”. My edit was credible and correct, but you on your site just supporting some doubtful ideas without citations!Matianian (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock of User:Эльбрус Казбекович