Talk:Armenia/Archive 2

Christianity in Independence section of infobox

I have removed the phrase "301 AD Official Adoption of Christianity" from the infobox. While the adoption of Christianity was undeniably an important moment in the history of Armenia, it has nothing to dopla with gaining independence or sovereignty: it was a decision by an already independent state. It deserves a lot of attention in History of Armenia, but the infobox is not meant for information like this. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 00:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

301 AD is one of the most important dates for all Armenians. In a sense, it helped to establish the Armenian nation in a significant way as it shaped the Armenian identification. For me, an Armenian, the year that Armenia adopted Christianity is just as important as those years when it was established or became independent. It should also be noted that Bulgaria has its Christianity adoption date included on its infobox. -- Clevelander 01:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it was undeniably an important moment in the history of Armenia. That's why it should be mentioned at History of Armenia. But an important moment for a nation's identity is not automatically related to the independence of that nation. Adopting a religion is not a declaration of independence, or acquiring that independence. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox IS meant for information like this! Who exactly are you to decide that it isn't? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all I wanna urge you to calm down. Words like "who are you to decide" here or "utter crap" in a previous edit summary do not contribute anything to wikipedia. I would also like you to assume good faith on my part: like you, I don't have an agenda to follow (of which you accused me in your edit summary on Bulgaria).

We can both read. We can both see that the bold text heading that section says "independence". In every other country article, it simply says: independence declared: then-and-then; independence recognized: then-and-then. And that's what it should say in a section titled independence. Adopting a religion has barely anything to do with declaring or acquiring independence. It may be one of the factors in starting a process that can eventually lead to independence, but that's not enough to make mention of in the infobox. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out where you are coming from with this, when such significant historical events have been tolerated for many country articles infoboxes, and I urge you to tolerate it for Armenia and Bulgaria. I see now those were the only countries you removed it on, but they both happened to come up on my list so I wrongly guessed you were doing it to several other countries as well - sorry if I overreacted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to some of the "many country article infoboxes" on which "such significant historical events have been tolerated"? I've now been through all of the European countries and much of Africa and Asia, and I've only come across Georgia, Armenia and Bulgaria. In Georgia, the reference to christianization has been removed, so only Armenia and Bulgaria remain. Why should these two be any different from the other countries? Yes, the christianization has played an important role in the national history of these two countries, but it has played an important role in the history of other countries as well. Could you explain to me how adopting a religion equals declaring or acquiring independence? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but one can make the argument that it's more important on the Eastern periphery of Europe than say in Central, Western or Nothern Europe. --Eupator 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of going off-topic: That's indeed an argument one could make, and as a historian I find it feasible to some extent. However, western European countries were largely responsible for the spread of christianity in other continents. Christianization has been important in different ways in Eastern, Western, Central, Northern and Southern Europe. It's very hard to attach comparative importance to those differing historical trajectories of christianity. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To Calgvla

My suggestion is by no means "racist", but just an attempt to make a compromise. Here are some points:

1. You said that "this texts keeps it consistent with the armenians arcile". However, the Armenians page says that Armenians originated in the Middle East. Please do not play with words.
2. Also, if you want to prove that Armenia is in the Middle East, please cite reliable sources. If you ask me, Armenia is in the Caucasus.
3. What do you mean the citation Eupator added is "fictional"?

—Khoikhoi 07:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"# ^ The Geographic Web Site World Atlas places Armenia in Europe as do most European governments and sources, such as the BBC. The UN classification of world regions places Armenia in Western Asia as does the CIA World Factbook."

What European Govts and Sources think Armenian is in Europe? This is contradictory to the European Unions official position on Armenian and any Atlas produced by a respected publisher.

When did the BBC say Armenia was part of Europe, please state your source.--Calgvla 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1.) Armenian is in the Middle East (http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/am/Armenia_map_flag_geography.htm) and also to according to every Atlas produced by a major publisher, so lets keep this consistent and take out the Eurasia refernce, it's so broad that it becomes meaningless

• 2.) The Contries of Europe entry should be below the Asia sections, it will mislead the reader into think Armenia may actually be in Europe

• 3.) I don't understand why this is an issue of debate, buy a map!

Armenia is Non-European, Proposed Changes

It is an offensive Point of View to include Armenia on the European continent, Armenia is located in Asia. How would you feel if some stranger stuck their picture in your family photo book? This is the case of a small group here trying to force Armenia into the European family.

I propose the following changes to remove the subjective point of view that Armenia is in Europe. The following changes will create a more truthful and accurate article that will cease to offend Europeans.

1.) Replace "Eurasia" with Middle East or Asia Minor, "Eurasia" is far to broad of a geographic area and replacing it with an accurate and more narrow geographic location will better serve Wikipedia readers.

2.) Replace this quote with the following, Current Quote

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

Proposed Quote "Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among it's Middle Eastern neighbors."

discussion of geography should be limited to the geography section.

3.) At the end of the Article the "Countries of Europe" section should be removed to avoid confusion and only leave Countries of Asia and West Asia.

Armenia is in Asia therefore it is an Asian culture and people, it may have had some European influences like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. but this does not make them European nations, nor should Armenia be considered European.

Please let's put a stop to these offensive and dishonest European connections and stick with the factual truth. It is very hurtful to the European community to force this inclusion upon us.--Calgvla 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I support the proposed changes, they are fair and accurate.

I honestly don’t think it matters whether or not Armenia is considered a European or Asian nation. It is, of course, technically in the continent of Asia, but then again, so is most of Russia, a certainly “European” nation. And it would be inappropriate to deny the enormous cultural influence of the Greeks, Byzantines, and Romans on our people. Why Europeans would find the inclusion of Armenians among European peoples to be ‘offensive’ is hard to fathom. Would it offend central Europeans to have Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, or the Ukraine, or people in the Ural Mountains classified as European? East Kazakhstan falls within the boundaries of geographic Europe; would you consider eastern Kazakhs Europeans? ), and while the modern Armenian Homeland is located north of Anatolia, Diaspora communities have existed through the Middle East and southeast Europe for thousands of years. Besides, there is not strict guideline of what is ‘European’. Europe as both a cultural and genetic entity, has invaded (and, in turn, been invaded by) countless nations, both neighboring and afar. Many long-term inhabitants of the European mainland have closer connections, both cultural and genetic, to south and central Asia than they do to their neighbors. Europe is not a family; it is a thousand families who happen to share a chunk of history and a chunk of land. Geographical classification is no reason to disconnect Armenia, who has been a part of European history since before the birth of Christ, from being a ‘culturally European’ nation.

The Myotis 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As an afterthough, give me your exact definition of 'European'. Do you define it geographically (in wich case it is debatable, but the polls favor Europe) or culturally (in wich case it is is almost certaintly part of Europe)?

Also, why does it make any differce to you where Armenians come from? It's not as though you will suffer from having Armenia as part of the same Continent. And I dont think most inhabitants of Europe feel otherwise.

The Myotis 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • It matters to Europeans that their borders are not distorted. It’s best to serve the truth.

      Armenia is completely contained within Asia, therefore it is an Asian Culture.
      
      To say “Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of 
      Europe…” is wrong.
     
      Using this same logic, The US, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, etc. would also be 
      considered part of Europe. This would be an absurd conclusion. 
      Culturally Armenia has a predominate language, alphabet, traditions and customs 
      that originated outside of Europe, whereas the other aforementioned nations do not. 
      So they would have even a greater claim based on this logic.

      As for Armenia being a Christian nation, somehow qualifying it for inclusion in 
      Europe, this is also a fallacious criterion. By this logic Albania would be considered 
      part of Asia. More importantly the boundaries of Europe were clearly defined long 
      before Christianity was introduced.

     As for the Counsel of Europe, this is a non EU private organization. Being within the 
     Borders of Europe is not a requirement for membership. Any nation with significant 
     trade activities with Europe could join.

     In the larger picture even the EU does not require a nation be in the boundaries of 
     Europe to accept membership, e.g. Cypress. The EU is an organization with 
     expansionist Economic and Political goals.

     In a spirit of compromise and concession, I propose the following changes.

     1.) Replace "Eurasia" with Asia Minor, "Eurasia" is far to broad of a geographic area 
         and replacing it with an accurate and more narrow geographic location will better 
         serve Wikipedia readers.

     2.) Replace this quote with the following, 
         Current Quote
         "Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, however                 
         the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different 
         sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

         Proposed Quote 
         "Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among it's Asian neighbors.  
         Armenia has been highly influenced by European culture, trade, and politics, while 
         maintaining a rich indigenous culture, language and traditions"

     3.) At the end of the Article the "Countries of Europe" section should be removed to avoid 
         confusion and only leave Countries of Asia and West Asia.

         This is fair and accurate and we agree and move on?
         Peace to all--Caligvla 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not going to happen.--Eupator 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source supporting that claim about the Council of Europe's entry criteria.--Tekleni 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the objections here. Armenia is in the Council of Europe (and the UEFA). As far as I am aware, Armenians themselves consider that they have cultural links to Europe, and, indeed, there has always been a large Armenian diaspora in Europe proper. Armenia is of course geographically in Asia, but that's not the be all and end all. john k 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at this. The BBC's country profiles lists Armenia in the European countries and not in the Asian countries. See the drop-down tables at the right of the page [1]. Azerbaijan OTOH has both Europe and Asia [2].--Tekleni 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To conclude, we would like to emphasize that the Armenian people – both in Armenia and in the European Diaspora – regards itself as a European people. This people was separated from the main European stream by unfortunate historical circumstances and is now resolutely committing to an in-depth reunification with the European family.

European Armenian Convention Declaration 19 October 2004, Brussels--Eupator 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we must respect their self-identification, and make it compatible with other views. Therefore, Eurasia is true NPOV as it doesn't take sides.--Tekleni 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia, likewise that of neighbouring Georgia is based on European integration or call it reintegration to be precise with the immediate goal of EU membership by 2020. The MFA has a European integration department for crying out loud.--Eupator 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • the BBC is not an unbaised source, and this is not the place to discuss it. There are many European and Armenian organizations trying to strengthen trade in the region, this does not change the geography of the region.

please keep things directed to unbaised academic sources that are non-political in nature. 1) The American Heritage Dictionary, places Armenia in Asia Minor 2) The CIA World Fact Book, places Armenia in Southwestern Asia, east of Turkey 3) Easton's Dictionary, places Armenia in western Asia 4) Encyclopedia Britannica, places Armenia in Transcaucasia, lying just south of the great mountain range of the Caucasus and fronting the northwestern extremity of Asia. 5) Rand McNally Atlas, places Armenia in Asia

the preponderance of credible academic non-political sources clearly establish Armenia in Asia, not Europe. Can we please agree to the changes and move on.--Caligvla 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The geographic ambiguity is already addressed here and everywhere else. Footnotes are abundant in the templates for Europe and Asia. Culturally, ethnically and historically Armenia is an extension of Europe. Due to the ambiguity of the region the term Eurasian is applicable for geographic purposes. Armenian self-definition and identification as Europeans counts for something as well. The EU also considers Armenia as well as Georgia long-term entry candidates for EU membership. We also have Cyprus as precedent. If you want to attempt to change Wiki consensus attempt an RFC, just try it :) You will need to do it for Cyprus, Georgia and Armenia. Note that this is the last time i'm directly responding to you. --Eupator 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hayastan is culturally in Asia, not in Europe. Its language is closely related to Persian and is not a member of European linguistic unity (which is based on Latin and Greek borrowings). Long history of Armenia is closely related to the great kingdoms of the ancient East and Mesopotamia. Menthality of Armenia is surely not European and racially they are close to the other nations of the Near and Middle East.--Nixer 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • They should be corrected as well, but I only have ability to take on one at a time, Again the EU is a political organization that does not require a nation to be IN Europe for membership.--Caligvla 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See Copenhagen criteria.--Tekleni 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument Armenian is not IN Europe but an economic partner.--Calgvla 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They do not say that Armenia is not in Europe... you made that up.--Tekleni

23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like ot point out that the government of Armenia ha sofficially stated it has no wishes to join the E.U. or NATO and that it does not consider itself a European state.

69.196.164.190

Armenian in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Armenian (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Armenia not located in Europe

This is a dispute about whether this article should state that Armenia is located in in Eurasia, or contain other text that implies that Armenia is part of Europe.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I propose the following changes.

• Replace "Eurasia" with Asia Minor, "Eurasia" is far too broad of a geographic area and replacing it with an accurate and more narrow geographic location will better serve Wikipedia readers.
• Replace this quote wit--Roboczar 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)h the following:

Current quote:

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

Proposed Quote:

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among it's Asian neighbors. Armenia has been highly influenced by European culture, trade, and politics, while maintaining a rich indigenous culture, language and traditions"

• At the end of the Article the "Countries of Europe" section should be removed to avoid confusion and only leave Countries of Asia and West Asia. -- Calgvla 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eurasia is accurate and is used for other countries as well; maybe that passage is negotiable, however your version is biased as it implicitly says Armenia is no European in all aspects; Armenia has officially stated that they consider themselves European, they are a prospective member of the EU, and a full member of the Council of Europe (which required the consent of all existing members and Armenia), therefore the European template stays.--Tekleni 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep things directed to unbaised academic sources that are non-political in nature.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary, places Armenia in Asia Minor
2. The CIA World Fact Book, places Armenia in Southwestern Asia, east of Turkey
3. Easton's Dictionary, places Armenia in western Asia
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, places Armenia in Transcaucasia, lying just south of the great mountain range of the Caucasus and fronting the northwestern extremity of Asia.
5. Rand McNally Atlas, places Armenia in Asia

the preponderance of credible academic non-political sources clearly establish Armenia in Asia, not Europe. --Calgvla 23:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I can't understand why this is up for debate, hardly anyone in Europe would consider Armenia part of Europe --66.233.115.220 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is not true. Hectorian 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I found the following journal artciles that all undergo Peer review, each one of them supports the claim that Armenia is not in Europe and in the Middle East.

1.Observation of Coherent π[sup 0] Electroproduction on Deuterons at Large Momentum Transfer. By: Tomasi-Gustafsson, E.; Bimbot, L.; Danagoulian, S.; Gustafsson, K.; Mack, D.; Mkrtchyan, H.; Rekalo, M.P.. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Dec2003, Vol. 66 Issue 12, p2159-2168, 10p; DOI: 10.1134/1.1634323; (AN 11714909)

2.Armenia Wants Second Mideast Synchrotron. By: Koenig, Robert. Science, 11/24/2000, Vol. 290 Issue 5496, p1481, 1/2p, 1c; (AN 3817426)

3.Book reviews. By: Krikorian, Robert O.. International Journal of Middle East Studies, May98, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p276, 3p; (AN 607702)

4.Reviews of Books: Middle East. By: Bournoutian, George. American Historical Review, Oct97, Vol. 102 Issue 4, p1197, 2p; (AN 9711021875)

5.Book reviews: Armenia. By: Kechichian, Joseph A.. Middle East Journal, Autumn97, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p605, 2p; (AN 9711171671)

6.Africa & the Middle East. By: Papazian, Dennis R.. History: Reviews of New Books, Spring97, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p131, 3/8p; (AN 9705014215)

7.Book reviews: The Armenians. By: Adalian, Rouben P.. Middle East Journal, Autumn96, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p596, 3p; (AN 9706241608)

8.Book reviews: Armenia. By: Adalian, Rouben P.. Middle East Journal, Summer95, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p509, 2p; (AN 9510232977)

9.Works on Islam in Russian. By: Landau, Jacob M.. Middle Eastern Studies, Jul93, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p580, 5p; (AN 9308307357)

10.Chosen peoples: Why ethnic groups survive. By: Smith, Anthony D.. Ethnic & Racial Studies, Jul92, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p436, 21p; (AN 9210192609)

--Caligvla 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think one of the issues here is the need for coherence. Turkey is - according to Wikipedia - Eurasian. These two articles being in the same encyclopedia, there must be internal coherence.

If Turkey is Eurasian, and Armenia is beyond Turkey (ie, separated from conventional "Europe" by Turkey), it must either be Eurasian or Asian. Physically, it can't be European, unless Turkey is European as well.

• Another issue I find in this debate is the unfortunate use of the word "offensive". As a citizen of one of the oldest European nations - and I believe I am speaking for millions of other Europeans - I am not in the least bit offended if Armenians are considered (or consider themselves) European. They have a beautiful culture, and I'd feel honoured to count them among the European family if that is the geographical consensus.

If I were Armenian, I would have felt hurt by the suggestion that my presence in the continent could be "offensive". 83.132.98.80 10:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate statement would be that Armenia is located in the Caucasus, which is essentially a borderline between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It would be correct to include Armenia in any of these categories but incorrect to exclude it from them. Saying Europeans wouldn't appreciate Armenians also being Europeans is nothing short of xenophobic. -- Augustgrahl 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Can we keep focused on the facts, just because one feels honored to include a group doesn't mean that the group is within the Geographical limits.--Caligvla 01:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • To address the "cultural" connection, the following journal article cites that Armenia is growing closer to the Middle East culturally and moving away from Europe. "Armenia and the Middle East" By Gayane Novikova from the Middle East Review of Internatonal Affairs Journal Vol. 4 No. 4 Dec. 2000.

So, we have both credible academic, non-politcal sources that do not place Armenia in Europe on a Geographic Basis, as well as academic peer reviewed journals that place Armenia culturally in the Middle East. Can we get a consensus to my proposed changes and close this discussion? My proposal is restated below with the subtraction of the Eurasia request, in the spirit of good will and compromise I will drop that.

• Replace this quote with the following:

Current quote:

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

Proposed Quote:

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among its Asian neighbors. Armenia has been highly influenced by European culture, trade, and politics, while maintaining a rich indigenous culture, language and traditions"

• At the end of the Article the "Countries of Europe" section should be removed to avoid confusion and only leave Countries of Asia and West Asia.

peace to all--Caligvla 01:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Ever!--Eupator 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would to actually mention that there is controversy over whether it is or is not part of Europe. Along the lines of:

"Armenia is unique as it transverses both Asian and European spheres of influence. While there is debate over whether Armenia is 'European' or 'Asian', there is rich cultural, historical and political links with both Asia and Europe."

I will admit that I know little about Armenia, but that is one possibility. Good luck in finding a compromise. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we are not looking for a compromise though as there is no reason to do so based on a single troll.--Eupator 15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I think adding your quote to the proposed changes would be fair--Caligvla 06:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to change the article. I mean, the BBC seems to consider Armenia as being wholly in Europe. That in itself is sufficient to ensure that {{Europe}} stays.--Tekleni 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • The BBC is not an academic source, its' articles do not undergo peer review--Caligvla 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a legitimate POV though, and must be represented per WP:NPOV. Your Turkish POV does not override the NPOV policy.--Tekleni 16:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • STOP with the "Turkish" remarks, like the majority of Europeans, I have no affiliation or support for Turkey.--Caligvla 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • As for the BBC, I have cited sources that have a higher standard of academic credibility. Please take the time to review them and leave the personal attacks out of the conversation.--Caligvla 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is very little debate or controversy on this subject. The only debate comes from right wing and neo-fascist political parties/advocates in Europe and elsewhere who do not wish to see the EU encompass nations like Turkey, Turkish Cyprus or other 'asian' nations based on veiled racism and outright bigotry. It's upsetting to see this appear in Wikipedia time and time again. Save the agenda for political speeches, please. I support the page's protected status until this cools down.--Roboczar 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • So then you do agree Armenia is in Asia?--Caligvla 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes and no.--Tekleni 16:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The geographic and cultural status of Armenia is a non-issue. I appreciate that you have a particular distaste for Armenians and do not wish them to be included in the EU, but that's something you can discuss with people who care to listen to your political views, not in a public work like Wikipedia. If you don't feel that they are part of your selective European club, take it up with your political leaders and stop trying to singlehandedly change consensus on what is not a controversial topic.--Roboczar 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • This has NOTHING to do with the EU, the EU is a political organization with an expansionist policy. I am not trying to dispute that. I have no such "distaste" for Armenians they have a rich Asian culture. However, when the boundaries of Europe are distorted it is an injustice. You are using the Straw man fallacy, and it is not appreciated.--Caligvla 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • What you seem to fail to understand, Caligvla, is the "boundaries" of Europe are arbitrary lines drawn through the Ural Mountains and Caucasus so that Geographers could break part their workload into two sections. These lines do not mean anything, and have no cultural, ethnic or political significance. Slavic people of identical culture and genes live on both sides of the Ural Mountains, yet one group lives in 'Asia' and the other in 'Europe'. Europe is a clutural sphere without any lines or borders. Another thing you failed to do is answer the most important question I asked in my last post, the one on which your entire argument balances. "How do you define European??" You keep on saying that we are "offending" Europeans be classing ourselves among them, but you never give your personal opinion on what Europeans are. Are the Roma people European, despite migrating out of north India during the middle ages. How about Ashkenazi Jews? Crimean Tartars, Eastern Kazakhs? They both live in Europe. You cant focus your argument on a adjective you refuse to define. I will keep asking you until you give me a precise definition. Unless you can give me one, don't even bother answering. In case you did not see it the first time, again "How do you define European??"

The Myotis 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Your request brings up the point of it all, It's not about what *I* think Europe is or is not or what you think. It is about serving the truth, I have cited a preponderance of the evidence from academic and scholarly works, which has been met with countering personal and subjected points of view, which correct me if I am wrong is not the objective of this site.--Caligvla 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We’ve had strikingly similar discussions on talk:Europe and talk:Georgia (country). In all cases those who put Armenian and Georgian “European” identities under question are politically motivated. Armenians identify themselves as European, and their self-definition is the most important factor to consider. This is definitely a legitimate POV as exactly the qualities and symbols associated with the European identity have played an uttermost role in the formation of the Armenian nation even though the Oriental influences have always been strong. I will never understand what "distortion of the European boundaries" means.--Kober 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Kober, couldn't have said it better myself. It's not just politically motivated, many others are also very ignorant of Georgia and Armenia in general but that is decreasing. I have also seen people make similar attacks against Cyprus. Really pathetic. --Eupator 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I said 'If you can’t give me a definition, don't bother answering'...*sigh*... Let me put it this way, your personal opinions are, of course meaningless, but there are several distinctly different ways to define 'European', and you don’t seem to be using any of them. You must have a specific definition and you must only have one. Academic citations are meaningless unless you define what you are trying to prove. Who knows what definition the Scholars where using? I'll make this easy on you; I will give you multiple choices. A- A person belonging cultural group based in the western reaches of the Eurasian landmass. Armenia would certainly qualify, particularly considering its alphabet and connection with Greece. B- A person residing within the borders, according to one or another definition of the boundaries of Europe. This line usually is drawn somewhere through the Caucasus, often (but not always) including Armenia. C- A person ethnically belonging to one of the northeastern Caucasoid groups. Judging by some of your earlier edits, I suspect you may think this, if you will not argue it. Just pick one.

The Myotis 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Kober & Eupator, you are using the Association fallacy please don't muddle up the real issues here with the political goals of others.--Caligvla 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is some people (weasel word I know, but who these people are has been addressed above) consider Armenia (and various other countries) "European" for cultural, historical, religious and other reasons. Ergo, the template and neutral (i.e. doesn't address the issue) formulation stays. Next!--Tekleni 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Wikipedia community has given user Caligula ample time to make his case, despite his racist outburts. He has failed to change the consensus. As a result this discussion will be archived tomorrow and I will ask for page unprotection. If he attempts any further dusruption of this and associated articles the next RFC will be regarding his conduct.--Eupator 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This should remain open until more independent and more objective users have a chance to voice their support or not.

there have yet to be any credible opposions to Caligvla--66.233.115.220 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. As long as there is proof that there are people (and organizations) considering Armenia European, then there's nothing more to discuss. Also, sockpuppetry if frowned upon, but if you insist, be my guest. You're likely to be banned.--Tekleni 22:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One day is all an RfC gets? That seems hardly fair. There are people and orgs that will do and say anything, we should always defer to the most credible sources. As for Eupator's likely straw man sockpuppet, talk to him about it...--Caligvla 23:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about, Caligvla? Are you attempting to accuse Eupator of having a sockpuppet in order to divert attention from your own? -- Clevelander 23:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Its very interesting. Armenia which has unparallel wealth of civilization, history, culture and traditions is denied of European association. Caligvla, where do you have prove that Italians are European? Or Germans? According to Julius Ceaser, Germans were barbarous tribes while Armenians reached new heights of cultural advances of their kingdom. Instead of accusing others of sockpuppetry and hinting of some pan-Turkist agenda on Armenia (we have seen such many times here), please explain in details what differentiates Italians and Armenians in terms of being part of European family. After reading Armenian history and studying their culture (also traveling in Armenia) I can assure you that you would not find more European civilization (which has contributed tremendously to the world in the fields of literature, religion, arts, etc) than of Armenia. If Turks (who are indeed a central asian people leaving on Byzantine/Armeno-Georgian lands) being considered as future candidates of EU, what on earth makes you presume that Armenians should be otherwise? This claim has no logic, therefore it should be ignored. Ldingley 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to all my cited sources, Armenia is not in Europe. Please stop with the straw man fallacy, I have made no claims that Armenian is not a "wealth of civilization" I only cited a plethora of sources that Armenia is not a European one, but perhaps a European influenced one. As for a Turkist agenda, as I have clearly pointed out to Tekleni several times, like most Europeans I have no support for Turkey see [[3]] My only agenda is to serve the truth.--Caligvla 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to other sources, including the government of the Republic of Armenia itself, Armenia is European. Therefore there are two POV, and both must be represented in the article per WP:NPOV. If there are two POVs, POV A and POV B, you can just choose POV A or POV B and claim it's neutral. You need to include both; something your Turkish agenda won't allow you for some mysterious reason.--Tekleni 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means cite your sources so they can be verified, am I the only one who backs up what he says with non biased, non-political peer reviewed academic research? --Caligvla 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They have, despite the fact that you pretend not to see them; check the weblinks cited above.--Tekleni 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets take the Canadian government for example:[4],[5] or USAID:[6]:"Since its independence, Armenia has emerged as a strategically important country in the Caucasus, and its progress towards becoming a stable, European-oriented, democratic country with a transparent, market-based economy is important to U.S. security and economic interests in the region. " How about the Uk government? [7]--Eupator 17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

6 and 7 are one source, a Canadian Govt site, and it's a good one, the other sources say Euroasia and make no claim Armenia is European, they only claim Armenia is "European-oriented"--Caligvla 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this? :) http://www.europeanmovement.am--Eupator 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

: Armenia's President Robert Kocharyan has many a time stated that the cooperation with the EU is one of Armenia's foreign policy priorities. Do you think it real for Armenia to join the EU at least in the far future or will our relations be limited to tight cooperation?

Mr Torben Holtze head of the European Commission's representation in Armenia and Geogria, Ambassador of the European Union with residence in Tbilisi: A:As a matter of principle Armenia is a European country and like other European states it has the right to be a EU member provided that it meets necessary standards and criteria. The European Parliament noted Jan 12 2002 that Armenia and Georgia may enter the EU in future. Many official documents contain this wording. [8]--Eupator 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That supports my side, "Moving Armenia towards Europe" it must me somewhere else now if it needs to move towards Europe. Keep trying , peer reviewed journal articles are the best sources, see if you can find any that support your view.--Caligvla 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just silly whitewashing now. You haven't done that btw, all you did was search for "Armenia" Middle East" and posted the results as evidence for POV. Do you think anyone is going to take that seriously?--Eupator 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla, please understand this. {{Europe}} is not going to be removed from the article, nor is the article going to say or imply that Armenia is not European (or Asian for that matter). WP:NPOV > two POVs, both get represented.--Tekleni 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that, even if the Canadian government and BBC aren't peer reviewed, they represent a very real understanding of the situation; these people aren't flipping coins to decide whether Armenia is a member of Europe. The point of Wikipedia is to report on what is, not what should be, so with an issue such as this one, where arguments have been made both ways, the job of an encyclopedia is to acknowledge the differing definitions and move on. I don't think that there will be concensus on placing Armenia in or out of Europe, unless and until Europe's borders change drastically. Armenia lies at the physical border, but that border is nebulous and ill defined. It's also not the only border, as there are cultural, in addition to geographic definitions of Europe. Finally, (and I'll admit here that I'm a resident of the US, who has never been to Armenia) I'm not sure what is gained by placing Armenia in Europe, nor am I sure of what is gained by not doing so. I'll admit this is a guess, but isn't there a lot more to Armenia than whether it's technically part of Europe or not? --Badger151 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is this: Armenia is Europe. This is a fact, it's not a response to a question. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Vartan Oskanian[9]--Eupator 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC source hasn't been cited, or I can't find it, can someone sent me the reference?

Badger your words are nicely put, I propose you rewrite the contested sections. Currently it is far too slanted to the Europe POV--Caligvla 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's been given many times along with far better sources. See country profiles:[10] --Eupator 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eupator gave excellent sources and references. If you do remove Europe template from the article, I will consider it as vandalism due to the fact that numerous people disagree with your claims. Im still waiting fro an answer, what makes Italians European and Armenian not European? Ldingley 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy Ldingley, Italians are not the issue.

The questions stads. It is very relavent. Stop using terms like logical fallacy, its not nice. Ldingley

How about this...

Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Asia and Europe, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation.

No. Understand that the current version is already NPOV beyond a reasonable doubt. That can be said about Albania or Turkey, not Armenia.--Eupator 18:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Article, move Locations in Europe, below the Locations in Asia and West Asia, I think this is more than fair can we agree to it, and put this to bed?--Caligvla 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC) --Caligvla 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Priority is given to Europe because that's what the Armenian and European governments say. --Eupator 18:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Europe should come first, because culturally, historically and so on Armenia is European. As per sources above, Canadian, US governments also conform this. Lets not vandalize the article Ldingley 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not to mention that Armenia was the first Christian state, and we're always hearing the Pope etc saying that Christianity is an important part of European identity (or something like that). Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe (which contrary to Caligula's claims does have geographic criteria), and if you check the refs of Eupator above, they and EU officials see Armenia (and other countries) joining the EU as a long term goal.--Tekleni 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tekleni. Nothing to add more. Ldingley 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The borders of Europe were clear long before Christianity came along. Is the USA in Europe too?

How about this...

Armenia is entirely in Asia but having sociopolitical connections with Europe, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

This is directly quoted from the Countries of Europe section. Also move it from the top of the article to the Geography section where it orginally was before Eupator moved it.

can we now agree and move on?--Caligvla 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No need for that. The geography section is for physical aspects such as landscape only.--Eupator 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you accuse Ldingley of logical fallacy by asking why Italians are European while Armenians are not, when you do the same thing (that bit about the USA)?--Tekleni 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley, statement was using comparison by false analogy, I was not.--Caligvla 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a personal attack against Ldingley, please refrain from repeating such accusations, especially when you didn't even bother to answer his question.--Eupator 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

noted--Caligvla 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A fellow colleague brought this controversy to my attention. I am an Armenian-American from Burbank, California and have an interest in how Armenia portrayed in the media. After careful review of Caligvla's cited sources this issue should be closed, the suggested changes are appropriate. It seems the opposition has a personal axe to grind due to Caligvla's lack of sensitivity to point of view of the Armenian users on this site. Regardless of Caligvla's lack of tact in his earlier contributions, which he has seemed to back off from, the facts remain on his side and the other users who have supported this position. The user Caligvla is not the issue, just like on CSI you have to follow the evidence. --Wordlytrin 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:) Very interesting, but i'm not buying that for a second. Ասում էս ոն՞ց գտար էս տեղը: Պատասխանի հայերեն:--Eupator 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with that. Eupator offered great references and all of them point to the same thing. Im not an Armenian user, so being neutral person i can openly say that Mr Caligvla points doe snot make sence. Even his sources are not that clear. I think we should leave the article the way it is. As Eupator pointed out, its already NPOV article and there is no need for some edits which will give a rise for POV allegations. And im not alone on this. Clevlander should also be involved in this. Ldingley 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley, that user is not an Armenian or a real person. It's just another sockpuppet that mysteriously appeared out of thin air to support caligvlas pov.--Eupator 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not Armenian either. Also Caligvla, as I told you before, sockpuppetry is frowned upon.--Tekleni 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So far we have 8 Supporting the changes, and 10 opposed, and a couple who just posted comments without taking a side. See my talk page for details, let me know if I made a mistake.--Caligvla 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right: anon sockpuppets don't count, logged-in sockpuppets don't count, and users who said but that's not the be all and end all don't count either (you misrepresented what was said). The only leginitmate users around here supporting the thesis that Armenia is not European are you and Nixer (who has a questionable block log).--Tekleni 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Nixer doesn't count either. He has a long history of attacking Georgia and Georgians in a similar fashion as Caligvla.--Eupator 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW how long is this RFC going to be going on for. After a few days an RFC is considered old news, because the contributors go to the top of the list.--Tekleni 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to this? "Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe and Asia, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

and put it back to it's original location in the Geography section...

--Caligvla 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I am moving it.--Caligvla 01:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I object--Craig Thomasian 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla: I don't think it's very nice of you to claim to simply move an entry to the geography section, AFTER you have changed the wording to circumvent consensus on this article. I will support a ban of your username if you continue to pull crap like this. Also, there is a ~6 hour space between your 'request' and when you assumed there were no objections. That's not a very realistic time frame. --Roboczar 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla should assume that we are all universally opposed to any edits he makes that pertain to Armenia or Armenians, so he doesn't have to ask if we are opposed or not.--Eupator 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think making an assumption like that is generally a bad idea, because he may actually have something to contribute... if all the hard work he claims to be doing is actually taking place. My only suggestion is that his additions go through a careful review process before being added to the article. 24-48h should be enough time for people who are watching the article closely to make a judgement. I agree however that as of this time he should not just be making edits on his own whenever he feels like it.--Roboczar 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen these: [11],[12],[13], [14], [15], [16] --Eupator 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I didn't realise the problem was so endemic. That's really very sad. I really wish stuff like this didn't happen in WIkipedia, but I suppose that's a pretty unrealistic wish.--Roboczar 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had a few supporters with a longer user history than me, in both this discussion and on the armenians talk page, To say NO ONE supports this is a complete distortion as is the text in question.--Caligvla 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aguerriero has given you the next steps for dispute escalation and resolution. Please use them. If you can't remember, they are the WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM. This discussion has been played out for days now, and your history of being coy while trying your best to circumvent rules is nothing short of shocking. Escalate the issue to a committee or drop the dispute.--Roboczar 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay Eupator, since you keep plastering those links everywhere, you can and on as many talk pages as you can and I am tired of following them around and posting explanations. Each time I do you delete my responses, so I am posting them here as off topic as it may be, but since you posted them I will respond here.

Link 1: Armenian Crime in Glendale, CA. Between 2005 – present, there have been over 20 murders in Glendale, CA. They all have been committed by Armenians. You don’t find this notable? Yes it is, but I posted in the wrong article and I have ceased trying to put it there once I found other articles that cover Armenian gangs and organized crime. Armenians do commit the overwhelming majority of crime in Glendale, CA. and before the 1990s Glendale had one of the lowest crime rates in Los Angeles County. You don’t believe me? Call or write to the Glendale Police Department 131 N Isabel St Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 548-4840. Blanket deleting factual information in Wikipedia will not delete the suffering of many innocent people in Glendale, CA. Again I have to state was that the right article to post it in? NO. Is this the right place to respond, NO. But you keep bringing it up and I have to defend my actions.

Link 2: Swarthy, excessive body hair, and monobrows This was posted in the Classification section of the Armenians Article. There seems to be a strong North American bias here, since when is describing common physical features a bad thing. Just because North Americans have their own sense of aesthetics, doesn’t mean the rest of the world shares your views. The section claimed Armenians were like Slavs and Germanics, I pointed out the most common differences. To not do so would mislead readers. There was no ill will here, only an attempt to distinguish those who were compared to.

Link 3: See Above

Link 4: I proposed the addition of 3 images from an academic scholarly anthropological journal. These images were of 3 Armenian men from 1911 and 1912. Since my written descriptions were rejected, I tried to continue in a civil manner and upload neutral academic pictures so readers could decide for themselves. No one liked the pictures so I recently tried to upload a picture of a young Armenian boy who was quite handsome by even the most subjective of North American standards yet that was unfairly deleted too.

Link 5: The term Eurasia means next to nothing, it was far too broad, Middle East, Asia Minor, West Asia, Asian Caucasus, would all be more narrow and accurate. Eurasia leaves open the possibility that part or all of Armenia is in Europe, which it clearly is not.

Link 6: This section presented an unbalanced POV, while I personally feel ALL nations should recognize the Armenian Genocide and label it as such, I though it would balance the article to mention that the world’s two largest economies refuse to call it a Genocide. Since this is such a sensitive topic I decided to drop it.

Now let’s get back on topic! Armenia is not located in Europe, therefore it can’t be a European culture, but like many others is an European influenced one. I am only asking for this one minor change that would keep the article balanced.

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe and Asia, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

And relocate the statement back to its original position in the Geography section. This compromise is more than fair and serves both sides.

--Caligvla 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The assertions made above are clearly racist and xenophobic in nature as well as factually inaccurate; thus, I will not dignify them with a proper response.--Eupator 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

About the crime in Glendale, from my understanding almost half of the population in Glendale is Armenian. Hence, it is misleading to present Armenians as a sort of overly violent minority. You might as well say that most of the crime committed in Armenia is done by Armenians. -- Augustgrahl 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if that were the entirety of the edit you actually made, Caligvla, we may have had a discussion about it, given more than 6 hours time to respond. However, there was additional text changed, and placed in a 'move' edit to mask the fact that words had been changed and sentences added. This is not acceptable behavior from an editor. I implore you to either take this issue to a mediation committee and hash it out with the rest of the editors with a third party to broker a compromise, or drop your dispute. I am considering taking action myself, even though I am not a regular contributor to articles on Wikipedia. This has got to stop, and if you won't start mediation, I will.--Roboczar 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Population - it is speculated it is more than half now, if you count the illegal aliens from Armenia and Russia.

Mediation - I am open to the idea of mediation, but if I am the only one participating it won't acomplish much, do you think Eupator and Clevelandar would participate?

RfC - From what I read it stays open until all parties agree, make the change and then it's case closed, if I do it they will all jump on me.

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe and Asia, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

And relocate the statement back to its original position in the Geography section. This compromise is more than fair and serves both sides.

from your postings all of you agree with the statement, you just don't like it because it comes from me.

--Caligvla 18:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with that. Everything stays the way it is, neutral. --Eupator 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite true. I would support that particular edit, if I had assurances that would be all that is changed. What bothers me is that more was changed the first time, and that there was not enough time to discuss the change before it was made. The edit as I see it makes no distinction other than a geographical one, and a neutral reader would not assume simply from that change that Armenia could never be considered part of Europe.--Roboczar 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say that while I am personally repulsed by what the motivation appears to be behind the changes, I am trying to look at it from the perspective of a neutral reader of Wikipedia, who is simply looking for information about Armenia. That is how I arrived here in the first place.--Roboczar 18:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were to ignore this guys motivation behind such an edit I would still be opposed to that. Armenia has nothing to do with Asia culturally or politically. Once again, self-identification of the government is what matters here the most. --Eupator 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I tried to find the citation for that (from earlier), but I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking. It might even be useful to put such information in citation 1, to give readers insight into how Armenia sees itself.--Roboczar 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Rob if you support the edit then please make it, I have been painted with a broad brush and my motives have been deeply distorted.

and if you have time please look over my sources. I spent a lot of time to research this issue. --Caligvla 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will do no such thing until the other editors have said their piece.--Roboczar 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

if you look through this talk page and the armenians talk page there are plenty of supporters for my changes, with a much longer user history than me--Caligvla 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. He had one supporter, a user with a questionable block history that was on a similar crusade against Georgians not while ago. One was neutral and the rest were anons who most likely were his socks.--Eupator 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually *have* looked through the support your argument has garnered, and all but Nixer (who Eupator supposes is also a vandal) appear illegitimate/sock puppet. That isn't really the issue I personally want to address though, as I have no administrative tools to verify any of it.--Roboczar 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be meat puppetry as well, but one can never really know these things.--Roboczar 19:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LOOK IN BOTH ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS TALK pages

Please see comments in two (euro) cents and Armenians as Indo-Europeans sections, latest conversation has shifted there, not that it was my intention. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First up, the EU considers Armenia a valid country for eventual admission wrt geographical location criteria. Second, the "Armenia is beyond Turkey" argument is a red herring. The traditional boundaries of Europe are the Bosphorus, the Urals, and the Caucasus. That Armenia is way beyond the Bosphorus is irrelevant; it straddles the Caucasus, one of the other boundary lines. In terms of plate tectonics, it is part of the European continent. That's a physical fact which isn't really subject to debate. Any debate on Armenia being European is purely political, and the dominant political bodies in Europe are happy to recognise it as part of Europe. Rhialto 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

It has been three days so I am unprotecting this article. Please discuss any disputed changes here before making them. If edit warring continues, I will block the involved parties. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

€0.02

Eupator asked me to give my opinion. Caligvla's edits are not racist, but the editor does take an unnecessarily adversarial tone, and should remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, the user page of the editor may suggest that he believes otherwise.

Having said that, the intro should probably be changed to say something like:

"...officially the Republic of Armenia, is a landlocked mountainous country in the Caucasus between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea."

- Francis Tyers · 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What is "officially" supposed to mean?--Tekleni 08:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello,I am from Germany and I don't usually spend much time in the English wikipedia, so I am not sure if it is my place to comment.There seems to be a minority of voices from Western Europe here. I think it is best to stick with geographical terms here. Talk about the culture and values on the Armenian People articles, this article is about the nation of Armenia. It is located in Asia, and put a footnote that states the 2 or 3 sources that place it outside of Asia. Let's keep the political debates for the blogs and keep Wikipedia free of controversial statements. AWT--87.230.8.219 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I AM GETTING SICK OF THIS!

Everytime someone expresses a supporting view of the changes, it gets blanket deleted, I looked up this guy's IP address he does indeed seem to be from Germany, it's a legitmate comment. Consensus through deletion, is no consensus at all!--Caligvla 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're getting sick of this, then why do you continue contributing to Wikipedia? -- Clevelander 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[to Caligvla]: I don't know if that anon was you or someone impersonating you, but it's opinion does not count without it having made any significant contributions to Wikipedia (or at least have been here for some time). Personally, I believe it was you using a proxy ;-)--Tekleni 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This really is a political issue and should be labeled as such. Armenia currently has a spark of hope in joining the European Union. Armenians are reinventing themselves as Europeans, just like Madonna does each time she releases a new CD. If they get in, they will become more and more European. If they get rejected I am sure they will go back to their Middle Eastern roots and the EU will be on the long list of nations they don't get along with. With that being said, Armenians who live in Europe already, are about as European as you can get. Same goes for Armenians in the USA, they always try to blend in. So it really is a broad issue with a lot of political agendas at play. I think once the EU decides what to do with Armenia, this discussion will become a moot point. Just out of pure wonder, has there been any Armenians from Armenia to say how they feel about this? I am from the USA, and Armenians here are proud to be American, they could really care less about the EU.--Craig Thomasian 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Craig but that's hogwash (mildly put). Have you ever set foot in Armenia?--Eupator 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenians "reinventing themselves as Europeans?" I don't wish to be rude, but that's nonsense. Armenians have always looked towards Europe for their cultural cues (even back in antiquity - many historians consider the Kingdom of Armenia (or Great Armenia) to have had a strong Hellenistic influence). Also, to answer your question about how Armenians in Armenia feel about the possibility of EU membership, many are very receptive. In fact, 64% of Armenians in Armenia are in favor of EU integration and some Armenian political leaders (particularly in the opposition) have favored the idea and some have even hinted that Armenia will make its bid for membership in a few years. The present Kocharian administration, however, maintains a policy of remaining tied to Russia and the CIS for the time being. Actually, I don't blame Kocharian either. If you were a country bounded by two states that are hostile to you, what would you do? For now, Russian military support, security and protection are the only solutions for Armenia. -- Clevelander 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

First, in fact any country in the Middle East (such as Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan) had strong hellenistic influence in the past. This does not make them European. Many countries would support joining the EU if suggested. Try suggest it Egypt, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan or Israel. This also does not make them European.--Nixer 15:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First, last time I checked neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan were in the Middle East. Central and South Asia maybe, but not the Middle East. Second, I was not suggesting that because the Armenians of Armenia welcome EU integration automatically makes them European, I was merely responding to Craig's question. Aside from the Hellenistic influence (which I admit also had an impact on many countries in the modern Middle East), there have been other examples of the Armenians looking towards Europe for their cultural inspiration. In fact, unlike most of those Middle Eastern states that you mentioned, Armenia never accepted the Arab influence, Islam, or gave up its Hellenistic influence (which allowed it to retain especially strong relations with the Greeks). During the Crusades, the Armenians of Cilicia joined Western Europe in the fight for the Holy Land. Even under Ottoman rule, the Armenians looked towards France and Italy for their influence. Since the conquest of Eastern Armenia by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Armenians have also felt a certain degree of influence from Russia and the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe. -- Clevelander 16:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Take India. It has Indo-European language (just as Armenia), had significant Hellenistic influence in the past, never accepted Arab influence or Islam, had been British colony for a long time and joined fight during WWII on the side of British Empire. But we still never call India European. Why Hayastan is more European than Hindustan?--Nixer 17:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there was the Indo-Greek Kingdom, I don't dispute that. However, most of its territory is in present-day Pakistan, not India. Also, yes, certain parts of India did accept Islam. If they didn't, then there would be no Pakistan or Bangladesh. Even today, there are areas of India with Muslim majorities. Also, India, as part of the British Empire, had no choice but to join the allies in both world wars, whereas the Cilician Armenians clearly made the decision to join the Western European countries in the Crusades. I'll repeat this again, even under Ottoman rule, the Armenians looked towards France and Italy for their influence and since the conquest of Eastern Armenia by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Armenians have also felt a certain degree of influence from Russia and the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe. -- Clevelander 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only the Indo-Greek kingdom influenced Indian culture. Note that even under Ashoka the Great emperor's edicts were written in Greek. Yes, India now has Muslim populated areas, but Armenia also has some Muslim part of population. Armenia has bad relations with its muslim heghbours, so it is a natural ally for Christian world. For example, Lebanon also supported Christan crusades and maintained Christianity as a state religion (the situation changed in the 1980s with large Palestinian immigration). Modern Israel will also voluntary support any US or NATO crusade against Muslim world, but we do not call these countries European.--Nixer 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand how Craig feels, I think it's hard for Armenians in the US. Everytime I fly to the US and leave, I am treated like a terrorist. Because we look like Middle Eastern people we are subjected to long searches, interviews by TSA, and once you make it through all that you have to be stuck on a plane with a bunch of people giving you dirty looks. I try to keep clear of politics, so I don't really care where you want to say Armenia is located, for me being Amenian is in my heart. I don't think it's fair to beat up on an Armenian who hasn't been to Armenia. I have never been there, I just haven't had a chance to. Does that make me less of an Armenian? I hope not. Let's work on the important things, like getting Armenia in the next World Cup!--Hamparzoum 23:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

lol Please do not use "we" when describing your traits and attributes.--Eupator 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Eupator I saw on your user page you are part Italian, I guess you look more Western/European than me. All my grandparents were from Armenia. I guess I should have made it more clear that most Americans think Armenians and other Middle Eastern people look alike. I think we look cool, and am proud of it!--Hamparzoum 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second that you're Armenian or that you're even a real person.--Eupator 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything to get that kind of harsh reaction. I feel I am owed an apology. Where was it written that if I am Armenian, I have to subscribe to a certain view? Armenians are all over the world. There will be almost a half million the US soon, who have very diverse viewpoints on a wide range of topics. That is part of what makes our culture so robust, we take the best of wherever we go and make it our own. To say we are exactly X,Y and Z, and nothing more, would diminish us as a people. --Craig Thomasian 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello all my friends, I am traveling and don't have much time to keep up with this right now, I have said pretty much all that needs to be said, you either agree with me and 99.9% of every reference book on earth or you don't. I should be back on Thursday, please leave the RfC open until then. Hopefully I can get a few more supporting comments. If not, I'll close the RfC on Thursday and seek mediation then... I hope all of you have a good weekend and get out and have some fun. All wikipedia and no play makes jack a dull boy. --Caligvla 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. As long as there are some people (yes, the point of view of Armenian officials does count), {{Europe}} will remain in the article. Furthermore, what you claim supports your proposal doesn't really address the issue in dispute here: no one is proposing to remove {{Asia}} from the article or say Armenia is not in Asia. We are including all POVs on the issue in compliance with WP:NPOV (and the consensus which seems to have developed here).--Tekleni 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed this current proposed change, it doesn't conflict with what you said above.

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe and Asia, however the official geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. As a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

And relocate the statement back to its original position in the Geography section. This compromise is more than fair and serves both sides.

take care guys, I'll try to check in tomorrow! --Caligvla 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh one more thing, if we can't agree to the above quote, I will be taking it off the table in mediation, and pushing for the quote below, which is far more accurate anyway... Proposed Quote

        "Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among its' Asian neighbors.  
        Armenia has been highly influenced by European culture, trade, and politics, while 
        maintaining a rich indigenous culture, language and traditions"

take care, --Caligvla 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All of it is unacceptable, but you know that already. I will give you until Thursday, come Thursday this entir garbage will be archived. Oh and I very very much doubt arbitration will be accepted....--Eupator 01:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I only offer my two cents as an FYI because of late I've been doing extensive research on the Balkan peninsula, and as a Latvian have also done research on "European Russia." Culturally, there were Armenian settlements well into the Balkan peninsula. The European cultural connection (i.e., push westward and influences returned) is definitely there. From a geographical perspective, the best comparison is what has historically been referred to as "European Russia"—which extends far more eastward than people would expect, that is people who only know mostly modern Europe (i.e., for most of their lives, Eastern Europe stopped at the Soviet Union). European Russia extends far enough eastward to span the entire territory between the Black and Caspian Seas. The Urals are the traditional eastern boundary, beyond which lies Asia. Just as there are the Urals on the east, there are the Caucasus to the south. However, the southern boundary of European Russia (between the Black and Caspian seas) reached to Turkey (just north of Ararat). It would appear to simply boil down to what does Armenia consider itself? It's unequivocally not "too far" east to be Europe, and it's well within the historical boundary of European Russia to the south. Yes, technically beyond the Caucasus. While there continues to be lack of clarity in differentiating the south Caucasus states from from central Asian ones in the post-Soviet era, there's nothing that indicates Armenia can't consider itself European and be identified as part of Europe. Anyone believing making Europe "bigger" is somehow hurtful or insulting to the "Europeans" most likely has no idea how huge "Europe" really is and who the "Europeans" really are--that is, how many cultures were hurt by being forced out of the European fold into the Soviet one for half a century and are now only trying to reclaim their rightful historical identity. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see some intelligent comments in a sea of idiocy.--Eupator 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First, please do not oppose Soviet culture and European culture as the former is a type of the last. Armenia definitely was in Soviet cultural areal, but this cannot make it European just as India did not become European being British colony. Second, Armenians really have large diaspora in Europe (although it is smaller than Arab one), but they also have diaspora in Asian countries. For example, the current president of Lebanon Émile Lahoud is from Armenian descent and Iranian cosmonaut Anousheh Ansari also. Second, yes, Armenia is not too far east to be considered European, just as Israel (which lies in the same time zone with Moscow) or Eqypt. In fact Armenia too far south to be considered European.--Nixer 09:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You misread my comment. With regard to the first, I meant that in popular culture, geographical Eastern Europe ends where the boundary with the former Soviet Union begins, that is, Western Europe is the core of Europe, Eastern Europe is on the margin of Europe—when, in fact, geographically, it is Western Europe that hangs off the much larger Eastern Europe. With regard to the second, that's really the crux—as I stated, there doesn't appear to be much agreement or scholarship on the "continentalism" of the South Caucasus states, as the mountain range rather inconveniently bisects countries and territories of ethnic and cultural influence. Georgia, adjoined to the north, is counted as European. If a country physically adjoins a country considered part of Europe; and it, in its policies and pronouncements, considers itself part of Europe; and European organizations accept that country as European; then I don't see the rationale for denying that country its aspirations. (Well, they're not really Europe, they only pretend they're Europe to get the benefits of being in Europe, etc., etc.) And Europe has rejected "membership applications" from countries obviously "too far south" (e.g., Morocco). If you would like to put in a proviso that, "A strict definition of geographical Europe, using the Caucasus mountain range as its southeastern boundary between the Black and Caspian seas, places Armenia and parts of other adjoining countries considered European into the land mass of Asia," that's perfectly reasonable. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ճշգրիտ! (translation: "Exactly!") -- Clevelander 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe and Europeand council not the same things. No international body can change the borderders of Europe or accept new member countries into it. If tomorrow CoE accepts Israel, you will also call it European country? Armenia is not considered European by all. It is may be considered by certain bodies.--Nixer 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really interested in your self-admitted original research Mr. Vecrumba. but thanks for trying...--Caligvla 16:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Vecrumba's comments echo most of what I have read on this issue. What's more, I'm not sure what the point of excluding Armenia from Europe is here on Wikipedia, when sources generally either disagree, or admit that there is no simple answer. On a second note, disagreeing with someone is fine, and perhaps Mr Vecrumba's comments do qualify as original research, but comments such as "thanks for trying," and "nice to see some intelligent comments in a sea of idiocy," belie the intelligence of the people writing them and are simply unprofessional. --Badger151 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To Caligvla, I'm flattered, but I can't take the credit for other peoples' works. For Armenians in Europe, "Historical Atlas of East Central Europe" by Robert Magocsi. (Armenians have inhabited east central Europe since the late sixth century, in many cases longer than those currently considered to be the indigenous peoples.) For European Russia−that is, the European part of Russia—numerous maps, including Gaskell's Atlas of the World, showing European Russia extending south to the River Aras (and beyond, along the Caspian Sea). I'm not inventing a particular wheel to fit a particular cart to go a particular place—I entered this with neither a personal agenda nor original research. To Nixer, again, I believe my suggestion suitably separates culture from geographical features. Israel does not abut any territories currently considered to be part of Europe, as does Armenia, so your repeated use of Israel as a "counter-example" can only be for its intended rhetorical effect. Perhaps you have some academic references which unequivocally state that Armenia and the Armenian culture are Asiatic? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews and Arabs also inhabited Europe for a long time and outnumbered the indigenious population in certain areas. This does not make Arab states or Israel European. Armenians also for many centuries liver in the Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon and Iran. Next. Armenia is currently not a part of Russia. Armenia just as Israel does not have any territories currently considered part of Europe. You can refer to CIA factbook and UN sources to see that Armenia is in Asia.--Nixer 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do scholars also consider that Jews and Arabs originated in the Balkans? Or do you not consider the Balkans part of Europe as well? Your analogies are absurd. Regardless, we consider ourselves European, our govenrment does so as well. So do ALL European countries and European organizations. That about covers it doesn't it? Once again, nobody is dneying the fact that the UN and CIA place Armenia in Western Asia, they do that with Cyprus as well. So what?--Eupator 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So they are in Western Asia. Australians originated in England, but they are not European. And that Armenians originated in Balkans is only one of many theories. Anyway if even it is true, it was in very distant past. All Indo-European peoples, such as Tajiks and Indians, originated in Europe.--Nixer 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you are only arguing regarding geography right? So what's your problem here? The pov that Armenia is in Western Asia is covered in the article with the CIA reference. What do you want here exactly? There is no such thing as "Indo-European people", there are people who speak IE languages.--Eupator 21:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV, it is fact. Look here for history of Armenia: [17]. Armenia had been under Assyrian, Syrian, Parthian, Turkish, Arab and Iranian rule. The only European country that influenced Armenia was Rome, which conquered it, just as did with Syria, Judea, Egypt etc. The Armenian language is a separate Indo-European tongue sharing some phonetic and grammatical features with other Caucasian languages, such as Georgian. The Iranian languages contributed many loanwords related to cultural subjects; the majority of the Armenian word stock shows no connection with other existing languages, however, and some experts believe it derives from extinct non-Indo-European languages. [18]--Nixer 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's factually inaccurate, i'm not here to teach you history though so i'll say this: Those Oriental influnces are irrelevant, they did not have any significant impact. If we go that route than you're a Mongol-Tatar/Khazar/Pecheneg/insert other Asian tribal name that ruled over your homeland...You also failed to answer my question, since that pov is not exluded form the article what exacrly do you want? This is not a discussion forum, so unless you are seeking a change please refrain from posting here. --Eupator 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just start back here beyond the event horizon as the black hole seems to have reappeared directly above. Did I say Armenia is part of Russia? I said that Armenia is in the territory which once formed a part of European Russia (the empire), and that this "European territory" extended all the way to Turkey, encompassing the entire "Caucasian" area. The Armenians consider themselves a European culture and point to historic ties and other evidence that support their claim: as the Armenians are a separate Indo-European branch, Armenian being classified an Indo-European language (of the Paleo-Balkan branch), it is, indeed, just as the Armenians maintain. (Georgian, for example, is not Indo-European, so they actually have less of a European cultural "claim"—theirs is more through association.) As for the sources cited "proving" Asia (CIA, U.N.), these are not academic sources, nor do they say anything about culture, which seems to be what all the shouting is really about: do we classify Armenians as Asiatic based on the boundaries of the present-day state of Armenia? To which the only possible objective answer is, "No." So, if we wish to describe the European "situation" in the very strictest of senses, it might be something like: "Using the Caucasus mountain range between the Black and Caspian seas as the geographical limit of southeastern Europe, the territory of the current state of Armenia, as well as parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan, are situated on the land mass of Asia. However, the Armenians and Armenian culture and language are European in origin based on their Indo-European roots." (And I really don't understand why Israel, Jews, and Arabs keep surfacing in the discussion, how are they relevant?) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UT

On re-reading, I think "the Armenians and Armenian culture and language are European based on their Indo-European origin" has more clarity. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It cannot serve as a basis to be "european". Tajiks and Indians as well as Iranians and Afghanians also speak Indo-European language. What does matter really is that Armenian language does not belong to European linguistic unity (which is determined by Greek and Latin borrowings). This criterion clearly distinguish Europen languages from others. For example, in English vocabulary there are about 70% Latin/Greek borrowings, and in Russian it is about 50%. In Armenian it is less 2%, while most borrowings are from Persian or unknown non-Indo-European languages.--Nixer 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogwash! Can you cite sources for numbers? Of course you can't. Btw, Russian has many non-IE loanwords. From the Russian language article:"Russian phonology and syntax (especially in northern dialects) have also been influenced to some extent by the numerous Finnic languages of the Finno-Ugric subfamily: Merya, Moksha, Muromian, the language of the Meshchera, Veps etc. These languages, some of them now extinct, used to be spoken right in the center and in the north of what is now the European part of Russia. They came in contact with Eastern Slavic as far back as the early Middle Ages and eventually served as substratum for the modern Russian language. The Russian dialects spoken north, north-east and north-west of Moscow have a considerable number of words of Finno-Ugric origin". "Modern Russian also has a considerable number of words adopted from Tatar and some other Turkic languages.". At least Armenian loanwords are from IE languages not some turko-mongol dialects...Even some of the earliest recorded Russian words like bogatyr are of Turkic origin.--Eupator 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the above. It clearly states that the majority of Armenian borrowings are from unknown non-indo-European languages and terms connected to society and politics are mostly borrowed from Persian.--Nixer 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Where does it clearly state that? What percentage are we talking about here in relation to other languages? Again, if Armenian is not part of your so called European languages family, than neither is Russian with its Mongol-Tatar loanwords. What about Basque and Finno-Ugric languages? Do you realize how stupid your assertions sound?

I do not speak about "European language family" which does not exist, but about the European Languistic Union.--Nixer 19:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenians as Indo-Europeans

Dear Nixer, about your: "So they are in Western Asia. Australians originated in England, but they are not European. And that Armenians originated in Balkans is only one of many theories. Anyway if even it is true, it was in very distant past. All Indo-European peoples, such as Tajiks and Indians, originated in Europe." Actually, the Indo-Europeans all originated in Asia and travelled in a great expansion to the west, across all the way through Russia to the Baltics (about a third of European Russia was actually Baltic in ancient times, Finno-Ugrians in the north, Balts in the center, and Slavs to the south), all of present-day Western Europe, and down into the Balkans and Caucasia (that is, both "sides" of the Black Sea). The Armenians, in fact, then migrated from the Balkan penninsula into Asia Minor as well as south from what is now Russia into Caucasia. (They were not "middle-Easterners" who migrated from the Middle East through Turkey to the Balkans and into Caucasia.) I'm sorry, but you don't even know where the Indo-Europeans came from or which direction they went. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European areal formed in South Ukraine-North Caucasus area. Then Indo-Europeans migrated to western Europe and Asia.--Nixer 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is right on this, recent DNA studies have shown this to be the most likely case. However we still don't really know with absolute conviction where anyone came from. What we do know for fact, and 99.9% of all reference books support that Armenia is 100% in Asia, it doesn't even border Europe. We know they speak a Middle Eastern langauge, that has similar sounds to Persian and Arabic. The alaphabet was a complete invention and looks nothing like any European written script. Their Physical features are more in common with the Middle East, more European looking Armenian families, often have several actual Europeans mix in the blood lines, this is do to their long period of Soviet control. Prior to that we have provided photographic sources from a respected academic anthropological that shows Armenians are not related to Europeans in anyway. To say every nation in Europe believes Armenia is in Europe is a complete lie. Just because you are an EU member state doesn't mean you support or obey all of their edicts. As for what Armenians believe they are, we have also seen conflicting views on that. As we have seen, any Armenian who even had a slightly different view was quickly insulted and attacked by our two resident pseudo-Armenian editors. How much more clarity on this do you need?--Caligvla 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More of the same old neo-nazi rhetoric...yawn.--Eupator 16:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what if their alphabet is invented? The Latvian alphabet is a complete invention also, the current Roman characters in use bear no resemblance to runic Latvian; it is purely the result of Germanic conquest. What an alphabet looks like is not a measure of the culture. "They look and sound Middle-Eastern, therefore they are?" We might as well be discussing phrenology. Nor is Caucasia the Middle East. From The Armenians, by A. Elizabeth Redgate (1999), hailed as a seminal work on Armenian history (and a non-Armenian with no "agenda"), she concludes: "despite their geographical position and their entanglement with Assyrians, Urartians, Persians, Arabs, and Turks, both ancient and early medieval Armenians have a European significance. It is not only that their origins were western and their language Indo-European, it is also that Armenians contributed to western life, in the Christian period particularly ...."—also bringing us back earlier to the relevance of religion, that is, the Armenians did not "take" from early Christianity, they "gave" to early Christianity, becoming a formative influence in the Judeo-Christian tradition which we regard as an integral part of European civilization. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All - Armenian alphabet, Latin, Greek, Mongolian and Arabic derived from Phoenikean alphabet.--Nixer 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Phoenician alphabet gave rise to the Aramaic alphabet, from which the other scripts are derived. However, it is incorrect to state the Armenian alphabet shares those roots. Both Cyrillic and Armenian scripts are artificial inventions created to enable the writing of religous texts in the languages of the indigenous peoples being converted. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the facts. Before there was any notion of a European or Hellenic culture, there were Armenians around with their own culture, and traditions. Armenians have had dealings with all of the ancient kingdoms, and when I say ancient, I'm not speaking of Hellenic Greece or Rome, but of Sumer, Akkad, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and some researchers even suugest Dravidian India. To suggest that Armenians moved to eastern Anatolia is incorrect, Armenians are one of the oldest, if not the eldest, Indo-European group. Also, I'm glad to see that no all of you are looking at what Europe gave to Armenia, but what Armenia gave to Europe. Therefore as more and more scholars are finding out, the Indo-European homeland was Armenia, not north of the Crimea or the Central Asian steppes. As many of you may have discovered, there's editors out there who havd an agenda and are very good at white-washing truth and spreading their lies, in the form of NPOV. All the real historians know the true history of Armenia, not the half baked crap presented by hatemongers, so whether you believe Armenia is European or not, remember that when Armenia was around some of your ancestors still lived the uncivilized life of a hunter gatherer.--Moosh88 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I get the sense that you consider that to be an insult, but I'm not clear on what's wrong with being a hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherers live much closer to the environment, and the world might be better off if none of us had ever moved beyond hunting and gathering. Apart from anything else, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons, over-population, chemical polution in the water and air, etc. More to the point, I don't see how that applies to the subject at hand. --Badger151 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact Middle-Eastern civilizations developed much earlier than European.--Nixer 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Give "Armenians are Middle-Eastern" a rest. Endless repetition doesn't make anything more factual. To Badger151, I believe the point was that as perhaps one of the three oldest civilizations on the planet, the Armenians were "supping" while my ancestors—I freely acknowledge—were busy "stalking" rodents for their next meal. Certainly with respect to east central Europe, Armenians were the earliest European civilization. Saying they're "not European" is a bit like saying American Indians "aren't American" because they got here too early. After all, look at them, east of the Mississippi, they're only "diaspora" existing in gambling casino colonies. And come to think of it, they don't look very "American" either.... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans live in America and Armenians never lived in Europe (except for diaspora). Their ancestors probably came from Europe, but it was long before Armenians formed as ethnos. They just as Europeans as Tajiks, Kurds or Indians. Saying Armenians European is just as calling native Americans "Asians". I already said you that Armenian history is closely connected to Assyrians, Urartians, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. The ancient Armenia constituted large part of Mesopotamia with Euphrates dividing it into two halves. You're the only person here who repeat "Armenians are Europeans" without any factual basis.--Nixer 17:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding factual basis, perhaps you missed the (acclaimed) academic texts I've quoted earlier. "Diaspora" is a term used to describe peoples scattered to places based on external forces, from their traditional place of habitation. For example, I'm "Latvian" diaspora as my parents fled the Soviets advancing to re-occupy Latvia. The old/ancient/historical presence of Armenians in east central Europe (Balkan penninsula) does not qualify as "diaspora" under that definition, as opposed to, for example, Armenian-American "diaspora." Regarding, "Armenian history is closely connected to Assyrians, Urartians, Persians, Arabs, and Turks," my last quote specifically addressed that. Entanglements with other cultures do not define a culture. I am no more Polish, Swedish, Russian, or German than an Armenian is Assyrian, Urartian, Persian, Arabic, or Turkish.

    Having my own employer enlist me once to speak to the captains of Soviet industry about our products because, "Hey, you're Latvian, that's Russia? Right? Hey, you can talk to them in their own language, that'll be great!" So, there I was, hawking our product to people representing the government responsible for deporting my relatives to Siberia to die there. So, I'm quite painfully aware of the effects of mis-identification of culture. Quite frankly, my initial (rather more uninformed at the time) sentiments regarding this all were closer to yours, Nixer. But the more I have gone through references whose credentials are above reproach, not rushing to judge the book by its cover/person by their complexion, the more I am completely convinced that the very last thing on earth an Armenian is, is "Middle Eastern." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is you who says "I read many books and I know" without presenting any arguments. Some Armenians live in Europe just as Arabs do. In fact Armenian history related to the region of the Middle East and Mesopotamia. If you consider them European why not Kurds, Tajiks, Indians, Pushtuns then?--Nixer 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not connected to those cultures anymore than any other European nation that was around before the Middle Ages, that narrows it down to a few but still. Also Armenia only had one small province in the Middle East for a while and that was in Northern Syria where Edessa is, even that was essentially "colonial". The only time Armenia had possessions in Mesopotamia was uder Tigranes the Great's empire and that barely lasted two decades. As for Turks and Arabs, there is absolutely no connection there. Unlike lets say Albania, Bosnia or or Malta. Hell Spain and Portugal are more "connected" to Arabs than Armenia ever was. Arabs were more successfful there than they ever were in their short occupation of Armenia. The only real connection with Arabs is through the Armenia Diaspora that was established in the last 100 years. Nixer, you're fighting an uphill battle. Oh and stop avoiding the questions I asked earlier.--Eupator 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia was also a part of Syria during Roman rule.--Nixer 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this map by chance?: Image:REmpire-Syria.png This is the province of Syria under Roman rule. Now, check this out: Image:RomanArmenia.png. This is Armenia under Roman rule. Now then, does it look like Armenia is part of Syria? -- Clevelander 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Things are getting a little tangled - what I think I hear is that there are a few ways to define Europe, and thus a few different ways to decide whether or not Armenia is in, out, or associated with Europe:

• Geographically - I have the sense that from a merely geographic (i.e.: lines drawn on a map) standpoint, there is consensus that Armenia doesn't fall within the drawn borders of Europe.
• Culturally - this seems to me to be the biggest sticking point. I have the sense that there is agreement that Armenia has a rich culture, but disagreement as to 1) whether cultural connections can place a country within a continent and 2) if yes, then whether Armenia's cultural connections to Europe are strong enough to place it in Europe
• Economically - similar to cultural, above, but seen from an economic standpoint.

Does anyone disagree with anything I've written thus far? And have I left anything out? --Badger151 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very very well said Moosh88, I always joke with my friends that Armenians were in business, while Europeans will still learning how to use fire. I think it shames us to label us "European" when we have our own culture outside of Europe. I don't see anythign wrong with the line below, Moosh88 is right, why do we have to "white-wash" the Armenian people, I am not white and I am perfectly fine with that.

"Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is unique among its' Asian neighbors. Armenia has been highly influenced by European culture, trade, and politics, while maintaining a rich indigenous culture, language and traditions"

any full-blood Armenian wouldn't want to "white-wash" their history!--Hamparzoum 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, I've certainly not intended a "white-wash"--I've only been attempting to avoid a "looks-and-sounds-Middle-Eastern-so-must-be-Middle-Eastern-wash." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh btw "hampo" aka caligvla's sock#12782. I'm in the midst of preparing an elaborate checkuser request!--Eupator 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do, and then you can tell everyone here, that I had ZERO sockpuppets, accusing everyone that disagrees with you, a sockpuppet is really weak.--Caligvla 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenian language and culture

Nixer has brought up several times that "Indo-European" is not any measure of European-ness. Specifically: "Tajiks and Indians as well as Iranians and Afghanians also speak Indo-European language. What does matter really is that Armenian language does not belong to European linguistic unity (which is determined by Greek and Latin borrowings)...."

Greco-Latin borrowings is a poor means of language characterization. It might be a good approximation for describing the Romance languages and borrowings into the contemporary Germanic (English in particular), but it breaks down as soon as you move further afield. For example, Latvian and Lithuanian are thousands of years old--parts of Latvian resemble, and decline remarkably like, Latin, but are not borrowed from Latin in any way shape or form. Still other words have barely changed from Sanskrit in 5,000 years. Yet still European. Chaucer is still readable by those knowing contemporary English, yet Beowulf, which is as far from Chaucer's time as he is from ours, is pretty much unintelligible. Yet still European.

So the question is, how to get from a "branch" of "Indo-European" to "European?" Is there some commonality of roots?

Regarding the ones Nixer mentions:

• Iranian branch -- descended from ancient Persian, includes Farsi (aka Iranian, Dari, Persian) ["Iranians"], Kurdish, Pashtu ["Afghanis"], Tadzhik (close relative to Farsi) ["Tajiks"].
• Indic branch -- derived from Sanskrit, mainly northern India ["Indians"], includes Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, and Romany (the language of the Gypsies).

I think we can be agreed these branches are not European. They did not originate in European territory and neither they nor their ancestors have been spoken there by peoples who would be counted as among the indigenous population. (The ultra-nomadic Romany is rather a special and unique case; fortunately, not having to be discussed here.)

Let's look at the ones we can (likely) agree are European:

• Celtic branch -- originated in central Europe, remained in Europe: Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and others
• Germanic branch -- English, Dutch, German, Flemish, Icelandic, and others
• Latin branch (aka Romance languages) -- Italian, Portuguese, French, Romanian, and others
• Slavic branch -- Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovene, Macedonian, Bosnian, Ukranian, and others
• Baltic branch -- Latvian and Lithuanian, Prussian is extinct
• Hellenic branch -- modern Greek, all others extinct
• Illyric branch -- Albanian, all others extinct

Then there are a couple of extinct branches:

• Anatolian branch -- extinct (Hittite et al.)
• Tokharian branch -- extinct (northwest China)

And so, we are left with one remaining branch—I'm sure we all know by now which one that is:

• Thracian Branch -- modern Armenian

There are also three extinct languages in that branch: Dacian (Dacia), Thracian (Thrace), and Phrygian (ancient Troy). We have related languages of the same branch, Dacian and Thracian, of ancient kingdoms of the Balkans. We have also the Armens, of the Balkans, from whence they expanded/migrated to the "Armenian highlands", assimilating the indigenous peoples, the Hayasa. Armenian, the language of the Armen, is an ancient Palaeo-Balkan (i.e., east central European) language, survived to the present day, infused with Farsi as the result of historical entanglements mentioned elsewhere--and not as the result of some common Middle Eastern heritage as has been alleged. As we all know, language is culture. The Armenians are of Europe: "The Armenian culture is rooted in ancient Europe." Not Persia/Asia/Middle East/et al. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

GDP

Armenia's GDP grew by 12.5% in the first nine months of 2006, which translates into $4 billion. Here's the link to the article, I hope someone with better math skills then I, can play with the numbers and come up with a proper GDP per capita, which the article doesn't provide. http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg166419.html --Moosh88 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a population of 32,192,000, which I pulled from the National Statistical Service of Armenia at National Statistical Service of Armenia (http://docs.armstat.am/nsdp/) on 24 October, 2006; 4,000,000,000/32,192,000 = $124 per person. I'm not too happy with that number, though, because the 4 billion is very vague. Does this help? --Badger151 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The growth rate was for the first 9 mos, not an annual growth rate, you don't have enough information to calculate GDP per capita, you can't assume the same growth will continue for the rest of the year, you don't know seasonality weighting factors, etc. Anything you come up with at this point would be a junk number. Best to wait.

GDP = Consumption + Investments + Govt Purchases + Net Exports,

growth in GDP doesn't always mean growth in purchasing power, the growth could be due to inflation. There are so many factors involved.

--Caligvla 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Here are some figures (although not very recent) from CIA.gov. GDP (purchasing power parity): $13.46 billion (2005 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): $4.868 billion (2005 est.) GDP - real growth rate: 13.9% (2005 est.) GDP - per capita (PPP): $4,500 (2005 est.) As we see here, the GDP is $13.46 billion, and GDP per capita is $4500. As of 2006, to the best of my knowledge, the GDP per capita is around $5400. GDP per capita is the most important economic factor of a country. Besides the GDP, GDP per capita also depends on the population and it's growth rate. The GDP growth rate should be greater than the population growth rate in order for a country to have some economic benefits. By the way, Caligvla, you are right about inflation... That's why we should look at the real GDP growth rate, and not just the GDP growth rate. Haik

A modest proposal

Having read through the discussion regarding Armenia's status in regard to Europe, and having poked around and looked at a few other sources, may I suggest replacing paragraph two of the present article with the following:

"Armenia has a long, rich cultural history, reaching back to the founding of the Armenian nation c2500BC. Armenia’s location near the Ural Mountains has enabled the nation to influence and be influenced by both European and Asian cultures. Assigning Armenia to either Asia or Europe thus becomes difficult, for although present cartography places Armenia in Asia, adjacent to Europe, the historical variation of the Asia:Europe border, coupled with Armenia’s cultural, economic, and political ties to nations on both sides of that border, present strong arguments for the nation’s membership in either or both continents. As a result of this, the geographic classification of the country varies according to different sources. Also as a result, Armenia is sometimes seen as a transcontinental nation."

Please comment --Badger151 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Long, complicated, ambiguous and most importanlty, unnecessary.--Eupator 03:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a fair proposal and I support it. lets take a vote!--Caligvla 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia is not located near Ural Mountains so current proposal is factualy incorrect, that means that voteing is completely irrelevant. No matter how many people support that proposal, its not going to be included in article. People who support that proposal clearly prove that they are eighter pushing certain POV or they don't have any serious knowledge about geography. (Staberinde 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Support Badger's Modest Proposal

1. Support --Caligvla 03:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support fine by me - --Craig Thomasian 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support--Hamparzoum 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Badger151
5. Support I've been observing this discussion, but have not had time to contribute to it. I think this is a fair proposal. —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   Conditional Support: Armenia is at the crossroads of Europe and geographic Asia (asia is used now to describe the Orient)Maybe Middle East and Europe as an idea.FYI: The Middle East is a region that overlaps Europe, Asia, and Africa and is where all three continents meet if anyone wants to critique my suggestion. I think it is a shame that some Armenians are pushing for a strong Eurocentric classification becuase the old Armenians did not consider Armenia European (or Asian), but distinct. Why don't any of you use the official categorization of Armenia used by its government? 69.196.164.190

   Sorry, anonymous votes are not valid. •NikoSilver• 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Badger's Modest Proposal

1. Very Strong Oppose --Eupator 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose How exactly do Armenia and the Urals find themselves in the same sentence? --MarshallBagramyan
3. Oppose -- Clevelander 08:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Factualy incorrect(simple world map proves it) Staberinde 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - hasn't this hyper-trolling episode ended yet?--Tekleni 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Misinforming. •NikoSilver• 18:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose No change needed, Urals not connected to Armenia.The Myotis 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per above. Hectorian 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, edit it

Close is a relative term. What if Ural Mountains was changed to Europe:Asia border? This seems to be the most common objection. --Badger151 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the most striking absurdity. However, removal or the change of that sentence would not change my vote. To begin with you haven't even explained why we should even consider a revision in the first place.--Eupator 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comment-A:Hamparzoum and Craig don't count as they are suspected sockpuppets of caligvla. ExplorerCDT doesn't count either as he arrived here as a result of canvassing[19] by caligvla. B:Voting doesn't matter. This is not a democracy, unless you reach a consensus (with me included) this is useless and that is not going to happen obviously.--Eupator 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You canvas far more people than I ever could, and your sockpuppet claim is not only weak but a complete lie--Caligvla 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, two users who have just joined only to support your bs and do nothign else. Sounds very convincing. Understand that when checkuser is complete your ban will not be temporary. And where have I canvassed more than you? You sent a message to like two dozen users. --Eupator 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-My vote better count. I was asked to look into the debate, I wanted to contribute to it, but didn't get around to it (time, illness prevented me), just because you disagree with my vote doesn't mean it is discounted. If the vote is 25 to 10, the concensus will be to the 25, even if you're part of the 10. So, get over yourself Eupator. Canvassing is needed to make people aware there is a vote (notice he didn't try to sway me), if I disagreed with the proposal I would have voted to oppose, but I support it. Would you consider AfD and Requested moves canvassing? Canvassing isn't against policy. But then again, I wasn't canvassed, I simply asked Caligvla for the link. —ExplorerCDT 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even AFD's are not decided via democracy, consensus is not determined by votes. Not that it would come to that.--Eupator 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ExplorerCDT, canvassing of any form is prohibited in WP by policy. See WP:SPAM#Canvassing. I will place the relative template above for your reference. •NikoSilver• 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla, you're wasting your time: users with less than 100 edits normally have their "votes" discounted.--Tekleni 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I think it would be advisable to get an administrator to check all voters here, to see if they are are using an open proxy IP. Such votes should be discounted (of course they would be anyway as that username would not have enough edits to vote).--Tekleni 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, that Caligvla is using open proxies. 203.144.144.164 (talk · contribs · block log) was an IP used by banned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log) to edit Khoikhoi's talkpage, and then lo and behold, it turns up here and revert wars. Considering that all (of the vast majority) of Bonaparte's anon edits to Wikipedia are through open proxies (in fact, he was banned for open proxy sockpuppetry), then it is extremely likely that this is what is happening. If my suspicions are confirmed, then this will have interesting implications for Caligvla. I think we should ask an admin with the technical access to verify this thesis.--Tekleni 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Everytime you guys start to lose ground, here come the sockpuppet comments, it's very weak. I wish you would look into and then have to come back and say your sorry to me. If there is any sockpuppets around they were created by your team in a pathetic attempt to try to discredit me. Very very weak.--Caligvla 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC Over

As promised if the tied had not turned by the end of Thursday, I would end the RfC and go on to mediation... Feel free to archive...--Caligvla 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)