Template talk:History of Armenia

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia History of Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the template attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

Why isn't Mitanni one of the predecessors of Armenia? -- Davo88 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, what does Mittani have to do with Armenia or Armenians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Egyptians referred to Mitanni as Nahrin/Nayiri and if these 2 are synonymous, both of them should be included. -- Davo88 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Naharin has nothing to do with Nairi. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're synonymous, as in they both mean "land of rivers". Armenia is indeed a land of rivers, the source of Tigris and Euphrates, rivers that gave life to the whole area. Besides, if the Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization, we have all the right to put Mitanni as a civilization of Historic Armenia. -- Davo88 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they both don't mean land of rivers. Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization because Seljuks absorbed Iranian civlization. At the time of the Mittani there was no such thing as Armenian civilization or Armenians. There is no connection even geographically. Mittani had its center in SYRIA, at its largest extend which lasted for a short while they covered barely 10% of historic Armenia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found a new academic source that you said I needed. I found Hovick Nersessian which in the New York Academy of Sciences. He mentions that Mitanni is an Armenian kingdom also Ararat arev 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hovick Nersessian is no good. He's a nobody.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the New York Academy of Sciences is no good? Thats not a good academic reference? Ararat arev 00:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me squat! Who is he? What does he do? What are his credentials? I can't find any reference to him. For all I know he doesn't exist. The notability factor is enough to exclude him as a reliable source.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nahrin and Nairi both do mean "land of rivers" The Egyptians pronounced it Nahrin and the Assyrian pronounced it Nairi. These 2 peoples were Semitic, and they pronounced slightly different, but same meaning. The Armenians and Armenia you said didnt exist at that time? Armeni is mentioned as early as 2300 BC, not only that but all these other kingdoms that "participated" in our history. Like when you put Hittites. Hayasa, Haik, Armens is there in the Template. So whats the issue with Mitanni also being there? Ararat arev 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosilli already explained to you how they both don't mean land of rivers. I will not even entertain the idea of Armenians existing as a well defined ethnic group in 2300 BC. Please never ever again bother me with such nonsense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying Haik, Armens, Hayasa, these are in the Template:History of Armenia, why cant we put in the Mitanni link also? Ararat arev 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man o man Eupator shouldn't even repeat himself o_O Nareklm 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me why those others are there in the Template, since you said Armenians didnt exist at that time. Ararat arev 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haik is the legendary founder of Armenia. Armens are allegedly the proto-Armenian speakers of the Armenian language. The Hayasa are linked with Armenians by multiple sources and inhabited historic Armenian exclusively. Hurrians from Syria with an Indo-Aryan aristocracy whose borders barely touched historic Armenia for a short while have nothing to do with Armenia!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrians who came back and built the kingdom of Urartu. These Hurrians were from Mitanni. Also, Hittite is way out of historic Armenia even. Ararat arev 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you led me to believe we are getting somewhere you start regurgitating the same old bs. Hurrians didn't "come back" anywhere...Yeah Hitties are also away from historic Armenia and they are not in the fracking template! Even then I can cite thousands more connections between Hittites and Armenians than Armenian and Mittani.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you forgeting Tigran the Great's Armenia's lands?

The man's time cover the entire Mitanni region, and Indo-Aryan is barely existing at that time. So $&*#ing what? Tigranes also ruled Judea and the territory of moden Lebanon.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) The Proto-IE which Sanskrit was written in, which Artak Movsisyan mentions the Mitanni names in Armenian Ararat arev 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Movsisyan can go and jump off a cliff with his translations of names. Did he by any chance translate Mithra into Mihr? lol-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you also look in the Kurds page, you see that they particpated in the Mitanni. They were tribes and very close tribes with Armenian tribes. The Nairi is in their page also and Urartu even. It says these tribes were with them. So Mitanni's time Kurds tribes were there also. So our tribes like Nairi is there at that time. Mitanni participated in historic Armenians and Armenia. These tribes particpated in our ethnic history. Ararat arev 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a lesson in logic. Just because there is bullshit and poc in Kurd related articles that doesn't mean there needs to be more of the same in Armenian related articles. This is not a contest of who can spout more bs.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this:

As they settled, the Hurrians divided into a number of clans and subgroups, founding city-states, kingdoms and empires with eponymous clan names. These included the Gutis, Kurti, Khaldi, Nairi, Mushku, Mannaeans (Mannai), Mitanni, Urartu, Lullubi and the Kassites among others. All these tribes were part of the larger group of Hurrians (Khurrites), and together helped to shape the Hurrian phase of Kurdish history.[13] These groups, except the Mitanni leadership, are thought to have been non-Indo-Europeans. Ararat arev 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Good for the Hurrians. So what?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak clearly on this last part. What do you mean good for the Hurrians? You mean you agree first of all with what it says? If you do, then you see that Urartu and Nairi is in our Template right? What's missing ? Mitanni. Ararat arev 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nairi and Urartu were based in the territory of historic Armenia. Like Gaul was in modern France and Dacia was in modern Romania. Mittani weren't based in historic Armenia there were located in Syria.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about locations here? I told you the greatest extend was in Greater Armenian during like what, 60 BC ? Which extended all those lands. Tigranes is not Armenian to you also? Another thing ethnicity has nothing to do with the locations. If you are saying Mitanni is Persians and Indians roots, where are they now? Where is their locations now? Way way down there man Ararat arev 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I have no idea how to respond to that politely. No offense but it's gibberish. You need to reconsider your involvement here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I proved to you also. You dont seem to answer on the Persian and Indian issue . If their ethnic roots are from Mitanni also? Where are they now? Their "location" is not even close man to Mitanni's location. Ararat arev 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want an answer Eupator. I told you Persians and Indians are way out of that area. Mitanni was in our ethnic roots. If Persians and Indians have their roots in Mitanni, look how far they are now. So you agree with me? Let's agree so we can add in Mitanni there. Ararat arev 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember a while ago you said Vahan Kurkjian was mentioning the location of Mitanni in Armenia? So you see there is our reference also. Ararat arev 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to explain to you IE migrations when you think Sanskrit is a proto-IE language... I never said that, nor is there anything stupid like that in Kurkjian's book. Understand that Mittani will never be included in this template. Any attempts by you to do so will be reverted. I will never ever again try and explain you anything. This is the end of it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this Eupator character? Don't be an ignoramus. Read facts before you resort to your own assumptions. Have you even compared Armenian hierographs with the Egyptian ones? They are similar in language and use the same words. Armenia goes back to 12000 BCE and stop searching for the exact word "Armenian". Its the same thing as finding the word "Greece" in ancient texts. You will not find it. It has variations. Pathetic fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.19.135 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Armenia as it is now referred to is a collection of ancient tribes that used to reside in the that region. Those tribes existed before the Greeks and Persia and certainly most other "great" civilizations. In that region you can find rock formations similar to Stone Henge that predate it; the first skirt, wine and so one. Plus, who the heck are you, meaning what are your credentials, and your so called facts to prove your claim Eupator? I am not Armenian but I have done extensive research on them and the region. Just to recap, Armenia is one of the oldest civilizations on this planet (again, please note that it is a combination of multiple ancient tribes with different names), and unless you can completely show proof that your claim is right, which you can't; therefore, please pipe-down. And, you need to know that the majority of Syria was Armenian land (half of Georgia was, historically, Armenian, Azerbaijan didn't even exist and that land was originally Armenian, and part of the other nations around it, also (mind you this is all fact). Just another note, the Mitanni are referred to as Assyrian, it is very significant to note that most assyrians have become "Armenians" and that has been shown to be true with the journals on Genetics published in European Journals. There are a multitude of facts that I can state, but it would simply make my comment boring to read. -Researcher

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.165.81 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nairi should be added before Urartu given how that tribal confederation of sorts proceeded the Kingdom of Urartu. We should also add the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture given how it spread from the Ararat plain as well as the Trialeti culture. This seems to be standard practice with similar templates: Template:History of Greece includes Helladic and Cylcadic civilizations as well as Minoans, Template:History of Austria includes Hallstatt culture etc. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupator (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kura-Araxes has no known connection to Armenia. It ended about 1,400 years before the Orontids even arrived in Armenia. Any connection is speculative. A tag of

is more appropriate for Kura-Araxes as you note since it addresses the archaeological history of Armenia. The same tag should, in my view, also apply to Hayasa-Azzi--all we know about Hayassa-Azzi is that it was a 13th and 12th century BC ancient kingdom and an enemy of the Hittites. No one knows if they are Armenian per se although they would be placed under the Armenia-related topic tag. In contrast, Urartu should be placed in pre-historic Armenia since it existed very close in time to the Orontid kingdom. Artene50 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only connection we need is that it was on the territory of Armenia. Modern state or people don't matter. This is the norm in Wikipedia. End of story.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other nations have a whole heap of kingdoms, civilisations, empires ext.. which dont relate to the modern state or people, and yet they are still on the template because they once existed on their territory! where is the consistancy on this website! either include them for armenia, or piss off and delete these other ambigous entries in all other templates. no wonder people think wiki is a joke! good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.187.44 (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying Eupator but AA keeps saying or implying that Hayasa-Azzi or Kura-Araxes are descendants of Armenians of which there is no proof. Even Dbachman said that to equate Armenia with Kura-Araxes culture, in its talk page, is WP:SYN. No one knows what happens to this people after their culture disappeared. A better template, since it directly links to the archaeological history of Armenia, for Kura-Araxes is the "Armenia-related topics" which Mikkalai suggests. The same case is preferable for Hayasa-Azzi since we don't know what happened to its people after the fall of the Hittites. They would be part of the archaeology of Armenia under 'Armenia-related topics.'

In contrast, Urartu definitely belongs to the pre-historic section of Armenia because 1) it was the immediate predecessor of the Orontids and 2) there is a very strong probability that some Urartians were ancestors of today's Armenians. The last Urartu king, Rusa IV lived only 15 years (d.585 BC) before the reign of Orontes I in 570 BC. I wish there were a few good scholarly books on Urartu for me to read because some sources claim that Rusa IV died in 584 or 590 BC. (very confusing!) But Rusa IV certainly was overthrown one generation before Orontes became king. Artene50 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what aa says. They can be on both templates just fine. We don't edit within a framework of what others might misinterpret. You and AA are the ones suggesting unrelated stuff. Now stop disrupting multiple articles and this template. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator. An idea: Why don't you place the Armenia-related topic tag at the bottom of the Azzi-Hayasa article (see below) as Mikkalai has done for Kura-Araxes culture? Everyone who reads Kura-Araxes will know it is related to the archaeology of Armenia. The same can then apply for Azzi-Hayasa. If an article has too many tags, the article is distracting and the Admins will remove them. Artene50 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Ancient peoples]] [[Category:Archaeological cultures]] [[Category:Archaeological sites in Armenia]] [[Category:Archaeology of the Caucasus]] 

This can be ignored, the template has changed since, see the next section.

I want to know what people think of the new template.

The color code:

• Green: Pre-history
• Blue: Antiquity
• Red: Middle Ages
• Orange: Early Modern Age
• Purple: Modern Age

It's organized to give an in-depth template for the full history of Armenia (geographic area and states). The states are in bold and are the main articles, some sub-sections include dynasties, minor states, vassals, key events, etc.)

Some articles that I believe deserve an article (which I may work on) are included (as in the Phrygian Theory, or the Nakhichevan deportations by Shah Abbas).

Here are two versions of the images:

Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frost178, please stop your edit war. Adding Arme- to Shupria distorts the template box (makes it too wide). Shupria is the more objective name, so it was chosen. Mt. Ararat has nothing to do with the history of Armenia other than it being a mountain in the Armenian Highlands. We're not including Lake Sevan, Lake Van, Mt. Aragats, etc. to this article are we? There is no reason to include Mt. Ararat for the same reason. The Empire of Armenia has no article for itself. "Ancient Armenia" to refer to a time when Armenia never existed is inaccurate and anachronistic. If we are going to use a title for it, it should be "PREHISTORY" which I am planning on including if you stop your edit war. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have a period of time called ANCIENT the precedes ANTIQUITY since ancient is the adjective form of antiquity. Please stop reverting it. Prehistory is the most accurate name for the period since it refers to the geographic area LATER known as Armenia, hence, being part of Armenia's PRE-history. Additionally, before this new design was implemented, the period was ALWAYS referred to as "Pre-History." Why do we need to change the content simply because the design has changed?
Please EXPLAIN why you believe it is required to add the word "Kingdom" in the area entitled to TIMEFRAMES/PERIODS. Besides, there are many kingdoms in the period named "Ancient Armenia."PLEASE DISCUSS BEFORE MAKING EDITS

The new template is a step in the wrong direction. We should go back to using the standard, {{region history}}, and remove the excessive colouring. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is based on the History of China and History of Iran template. I believe it provides a more organized structure than the templates mentioned in {{region history}}. I do admit the colors don't look very appropriate, though. Let me try removing colors and keeping it white. Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There. Tell me what you think. Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

better, but still pretty horrid. we should at the very least use {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Now if only there was a third person in this senseless edit war with Frost.Kentronhayastan (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with {{align|right}} for the dates. The dates are wrapping over to a new line, and then look like the correspond to the next line. there are a few ways to fix this: (1) remove the alignment, or (2) do what I did in the first section using an embedded infobox, or (3) add some nowrap around the lines, which could make the box too wide. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you did to the first section worked great. Would it be possible to the the same for the rest? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would but someone keeps reverting my edits. I will wait until the edit flood stops. Frietjes (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I don't see anything wrong on my computer. What you did looks fine on a computer, but try looking at the template using a phone. There needs to be a different way to do it.

On another note, Frost has returned with the IP address 76.232.254.14 and is editing all pages on Armenian history. He is undoing the purpose of the template's collapse and expand feature. Its purpose is because the History of Armenia template has become the biggest one on Wikipedia. Havinh the eras hidden, while having the appropriate era remain open, makes it less overwhelming (for example, if you go to Satrapy of Armenia, the "Antiquity" list will be open by default, whereas the others will be closed). Frost (or the person with IP address 76.232.254.14 if I'm wrong) believes all pages should have them expanded at all times. Let's discuss this so that we can come to a conclusion on this point. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think your solution is a very innovative one and even has potential for similar large templates, it could be the way of the future! I'm not familiar with Frost but the anon seems to be the same one who for some reason complained to me about you on my user talk page because the Marzpanate period was omitted, though I see you have since re-added it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce the issue. On the contrary, your infobox solution seems to work for my computer, but on my phone, it's adding a box around the text. I'm going to try some things to solve the issue. I'll revert to your infobox if I find no solution. Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it on a PC, phone and a Mac, and had no issues with alignment. Kentronhayastan (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's a major problem. the dates wrap over onto the next line and look like they are associated with the next entry. I am going to remove the right alignment until this can be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess making it wider solves the issues, though it looks a little large no? The History of Greater Iran template has a similar solution as your previous one. Maybe it's not so bad to have boxes in the phone version. I'll try some things in my sandbox and if I find a solution I'll bring it here. Thanks a lot for your help. Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to put "BCE/BC" at the top right, next to the sub-title (for example, next to "Achaemenid Period"). Since all of the articles are set in BCE/BC, there is no need to include it in every date. We can specify CE/AD when the dates pan BCE to CE. This is a solution that was used on the History of Greater Iran template. I just can't figure out how to do it using the style of this template. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe centered looks better. Plus, when a list is shown, it becomes confusing since it blends in with the periods and content. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's even worse now. the title text overlaps with the [show]/[hide] links. unless you make the template wider, this will be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's overlapping right now? It's not even centered. (the titles are left-aligned for me right now). I thought it was only Renaissance & Early Modern Age that overlapped with hide/show... which is why I had made it smaller. Is there a way to make text narrow? as in the inexistent {{narrow| ...}}? Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no overlap with the left-aligned and wider box. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I still believe the main titles should be centered (it looks a lot better). What if we ditch either "Renaissance" or "Early Modern Age"? The Armenian renaissance happened during the Early Modern Age anyway. What do you think? Is it still overlapping (as you know, I can't tell since it didn't overlap for me in the first place). Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user KentronHayastan removed a very important chunk of the section (Marzpanate Period --> Marzpanate Armenia) in the Antiquity. Can you please restore that part? It is the part after Commagene, we have our leader in the Christian era Vartan Mamikonian, battling against foreign rule in our land. He apparently removed this part, I dont think this user who appears is Armenian historian, is in fact ruining in a very clever way. Please look out for his changes on this matter. Thank you. 75.51.173.37 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten to transfer that period to the new template. Thanks for pointing it out, though it was already fixed hours before this was posted here. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frost778 is suggesting we use the word Ancient instead of Antiquity, and extend its period to include (merge with) everything before it (or, age1 in the template's code). I disagree. The original template had the word "prehistory" since it covered a period before the history of Armenia per-se. He suggested we use the word "Ancient" instead of "Prehistory," which is inconsistent since Ancient and Antiquity are synonymous (see Antiquity), hence, both cannot be in the same template for different eras. I opted for "Bronze & Iron Age," since I'm assuming Frost's problem with Prehistory is because he would like to merge Armenian history with that of states that existed before Armenia (be it proto-Armenian or non-Armenian in the Armenian Highlands), consider prehistory implies "before Armenia." I figured Bronze & Iron age which is far more neutral since it doesn't give a hint on opinion on what those states represented, and fits more accurately the role of titles in the template since they represent ages. He is using the history templates of Iran and China as justification for his argument, but I don't believe that is a valid justification. Are there any other opinions? Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all who is Frost? Second Im an Armenian and you appear as an imposter, even though your name in Armenian for those who dont know means Heart of Armenia.

3rd here is the real issue:

My lovely friend, you still havent gave me an answer why they have ANCIENT in 3200 BC, and why we cant, you realize these other users are slowly going to realize, if not already, what im talking about, and that you are an imposter, your name in Armenian for them that dont know means Heart of Armenia. So I suggest you either show yourself true, or you are an imposter. I told you a simple question regarding why our lovely friends of Iran Persia, can have ANCIENT in 3200 BC of there History of Iran TEMPLATE, and our History of Armenia is not allowed to in that area of time I just mentioned to you. Got it buddy?

You just changed the word to ANTIQUITY in the History of Iran part for the same 3200 BC time! You didnt do anything different there. Who are you trying to fool? Its the same meaning you put in the same era, put the same word , one of those words in the same ERA in the History of Armenia, where you have Bronze Iron Age. The issue is not if the word is ANTIQUITY or ANCIENT, the issue is where you put it in 3200 BC time for them and for History of Armenia you dont put it at that time.

And you are saying History of Iran to have ANTIQUITY in 3200 BC is not a valid argument? Please buddy. Explain to me how Persians exist in 3200 BC, and that you changing the word with same meaning to ANCIENT, as you put ANTIQUITY now, is not a valid argument and point Im trying to make here. Persians or History of Iran should not have ANTIQUITY at a time they dont exist, not even Proto-Persians. So tell me why you are not putting ANTIQUITY in that same ERA in the History of Armenia, and you just changed the wor ANCIENT to ANTIQUITY in the 3200 ERA of the History of Iran template. 75.51.172.205 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 75.51.172.205 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"you appear as an imposter" Is that a personal attack? You are a blocked user (your identity as Frost778 is confirmed), why are you editing? Who is the imposter? When you get unblocked, you are more than welcome to contribute constructively. The template of Iran is irrelevant to the template of Armenia. I can use the same type of fallacious argument: Georgia's template uses Prehistory, Bronze Age and Antiquity. Make valid points that will convince me and others that "Ancient" should be used instead of "Prehistory," "Bronze & Iron Age" and/or "Antiquity." Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frost778 is someone who got blocked for edit warring on this template 3 days ago, and posted a nearly identical screed to the above at the top of their talkpage... so it's looking pretty suspicious for you. And seriously, wikipedia doesn't care what your username is, what it means, or what your ethnicity is, we care about product quality. (With some exceptions like offensive words or company names, etc.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the image in the template, as the symbol shown in the picture is a pagan and does not relate to the history of Armenia.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Δαβίδ. Thank you for your interest. I would like to know why you would like to change it. The image is used in the "History of Armenia" template of almost all popular languages, so it would be a drastic change (EDIT: I could have sworn this is true, but it seems it's only used on the Turkish Wikipedia template at the moment). Indeed, it's a symbol Armenians have used since pagan times, but it does not mean it is a viewed as a pagan symbol today. It's a significant symbol found on many Armenian architectures and in publications, and is one of the symbols of the culture of Armenians (much like the Greek pantheon, you can say, is a pagan symbol, but still significant symbol of Greeks). The image itself represents the land (Mt. Ararat), the religion (Khor Virap) and culture (Arevakhach, the said symbol) in one image. Therefore, I believe this image is more suitable and symbolic. Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the point is that this symbol is not as important as you try to present. It is not as widely used as you say, it only used by a few nazis and pagans, who don't have much support.

In addition, many of the facts related to this symbol is very controversial. the name, style, etc. These facts are not confirmed by reputable sources. Discusions on this you will find in armenian section.--Δαβίδ (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you have never been to Armenia or know little about it if you believe that the use of the Arevakhach is controversial. You can find the symbol on pretty much any government, religious (churches, khachkars) and cultural building, pre-christian and modern alike. It's even found on water fountains and carved on floor tiles and walls everywhere in the country. It's a symbol used since before Christianity to this day. You can find it on the coat of arms/flag of Yerevan. It's in the background of the logo of the Republican Party and the Heritage Party, the "Medal of Gratitude" awarded in Nagorno-Karabakh. It's engraved on the side of Papik and Tatik (We Are Our Mountains), the famous monument in Artsakh and one of the most significant cultural monument of Armenians. It's commonly found on traditional Armenian carpets, clothing, manuscripts, it's painted and carved in almost all churches and religious monuments including Khachkars, cultural establishments, and even educational buildings, sometimes in discreet locations, almost like a signature of Armenian culture. If the Turks have their star & crescent, the Jews the star of David, the English the three Lions, the Scandinavians the Scandinavian Cross, the Irish the Harp, the French the Fleur de Lys, we have our Arevakhach. Just because some people (and those who created the Wikipedia article for Arevakhach) believe this symbol makes us Nazis, it does not make it so. It's true that it has similar roots as the Swastika, but the modern view of the Swastika has nothing to do with the Arevakhach. Please do not edit due to your POV, thank you.

Additionally, a variation of it is similarly used in Georgia (Borjgali). Search for Arevakhach or Armenian Eternity Symbol, or just visit Armenia.Kentronhayastan (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Armenia, what you mean? It is not such a simbol as the three lions, or the star of David, you just want to represent it in such way. This is a different things. It is not one of the symbols of Armenia and why we must use any symbol in this infobox? Articles about this symbol in different sections of the wiki have not any reputable sources, there is no little data as it is a symbol, and so on. The fact that the symbol used by some organizations does not mean that it was Armenian national. Not in any other infobox on this theme do not use any symbols. Why should we use what that unknown and controversial symbol here? I am totally against of using that symbol.

And please do not distort the facts about what that cross-stones, and so on. I'm very familiar with the culture of Armenia.--Δαβίδ (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can claim to be from Armenia as well. If you live in Armenia and have rarely seen the Arevakhach, you must be living in the snow caps of Aragats, and if you understood "some organizations" from what I said above shows you have no interest in conceding if proven wrong. I'll conceded this one. You seem to be one of those users who create new accounts to impose their POV and begin edit wars. This image was used for almost a year now with no one changing it. I don't feel like wasting my time with an edit war, so I put the most objective symbol that can be put: the Armenian coat of arms, the symbol used on most history templates.Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That pagan symbol is one of the main symbols of Armenia. Recently UNICODE added it as "ARMENIAN ETERNITY SIGN". Why have you removed the pic? It was so nice. I don't have anything against the coat of arms, but it's too primitive. Хаченци (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kentronhayastan, The symbol is on official symbol of Armenia on a number of logos and it is widely popular among Armenians. I don't know why the User:Δαβίδ rejects this fact, but there was no reason to change the prvious logo. It can be modified, but Ararat must be the main scene of logo in any case. The coat of arms is not an optimal choice. I suggest the following - the preious pic of Ararat with for symbols in the corners - the Armenian cross, the Armenian sign of eternity, the coat of arms and the letter Ա (or anything related to the alphabet). That would be nice. Хаченци (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why. There are no any reliable sources which are proved the facts that youre bringing here. The fact that this so called symbol is popular its your opinion, you must bring RELIABLE SOURCES here. This so called symbol is used by few armenian pagans and nazis. Besides that, we dont use any symbols in such templates.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What pagans and nazis are doing is not our problem. I already told you on the russian wiki, that this symbol is one of the official symbols of Armenia. There are several other Armenian symbols, but the choice of the symbols on the template is up to us. We fully have the right to use it. I guess its impossible to convince you, so I would like to hear the opinions of other users as well.Хаченци (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official symbols of Armena are national flag and coat of arms, there is no any other official symbols. If you want to represent this symbol as national or very imprtant you must have some RS. Without that its ony your opinion. I have already said that we dont use symbols in such templates, but coat of arms. You can look at Italy, France, German history templates.--Δαβίδ (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, its not an official symbol of Armenia, but it's still an Armenian symbol, which is used on official level. So we can use it, if we want. I am not interested in Italy, France, German history templates. There is no rule in Wikipedia which restricts the choice of templates to official state symbols. Let us wait for other users, and see what they think about it.Хаченци (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the previous image was less bland and more characteristic of not only Armenians, but of Armenian history as well (that's why I made it in the first place), since it includes the land (Ararat), the religion (birthplace of Armenian Christianity, Khor Virap), and Armenian culture (the eternity symbol). David (the user who believes the eternity symbol is a Nazi pagan symbol), does not seem to know much about Armenian history or culture, and I seriously doubt the truth in his claim that he lives in Armenia, because, as I've said, the symbol is such a common symbol in Armenia, it serves as a signature of Armenian culture on whatever we make. Alas, I won't change the image until at least another person agrees with us that the previous image was more appropriate. He's asking for evidence, I showed him evidence, he pretended I never said anything (maybe because I only named them). It's on official logos, in churches, on khachkars, on the "We are our mountains" monument, on various decoration monuments, in inscriptions, even on water fountains all over Armenia, and, as you have said, is recognized by Unicode as an Armenian symbol. For some reason, this is not enough. I seriously don't want to start an edit war with someone who imposes their POV (namely, that the eternity symbol is a nazi/pagan symbol which it is not) even when evidence is shown. It's just a decoration, and not critical enough to waste the time and energy. Kentronhayastan (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some images I found in 5 minutes only on Wikimedia Commons:

I'm sorry, but if the two largest official political parties in Armenia find it include it on their official symbols, there is some significance to the Eternity Symbol beyond simply being a pagan symbol. Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That symbol cannot be placed here, because there are many other ornamental symbols which are used in armenian architecture more often. I've not said that this is nazi symbol, I've said that its also used by some nationalistic and pagan groups. And also I have a one question. You realy think that for example this or this symbol is same with the symbol that you put here?--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example? Do you have any proof that there are symbols, besides cross, used more often than this one? Or this is yet another one of your statements, which does not need a proof? Хаченци (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Хаченци, that you are tring to prove here? That this is the most important armenian symbol. It's a sheer falsyfication.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it is the most important Armenian symbol. Don't assign to me what I haven't said. Хаченци (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows about this like Kentron should make an article for this symbol if there is already an article for the Borjgali symbol! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many disussions about this, and I can surely said that there are more common, more widespread, and more known ornamental symbols in Armenian culture. And if someone tries to portray this ornamental symbol as a very important and special, it is their own business. They do not have enough arguments for it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sister languages with this template for more ideas. Most use the coat of arms, and Volapuk has a different flag altogether, but personally my favorite is the photo of ruins used in Russian, Ukranian and Turkish wikipedias. It is more aesthetically pleasing and more informative about the authentic early culture than any symbol. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David, what other symbols (apart from the Christian cross) would those be? @Til, I'm not too fond of the ruins... Especially considering the history of Armenia is not simply ancient, but modern as well. I think the coat of arms is the most objective one. I vote for the one with the symbol that was originally there, though.

Granates, grapes, khachkars, lions, eagles and so on....but I've already said that I am oppose to include there any symbols.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, none of them is an ornamental symbol. Second, Do you have any proof that those symbols are used more widely, and had a general (not a local) character? Lions and eagles??!!? They have been used in various times by different dynasties in different regions. Those lions on architectural monuments don't have a common symbolism, in contrast to the eternity sign. Granates and grapes - good example, they are also widely used. But again - none of them is an ornamental sign. Хаченци (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lions and eagles used more widely used in Armenian sybolism, thats fact. Granates and grapes too. I dont need to choose symbols which will go under your own criterias.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a fact after you prove it. So far it's only a baseless statement. I already pointed out, that lions and eagles do not have the same symbolism. The lion on Bagratuni coat of arsm and the lion on Rubinyan coat of arms are not the same symbol. On Chiristian monuments lion symbolizes one of four Evangelists, and it can not be identified with lions from coat of arms. Hence, when one talks about lions as symbols, one has to specify - which lion? The same for eagles. The granates on Christian monuments are elements of "The tree of Life". After Parajanov's "The colour of granate" it has another symbolical meaning as well. And then - how many of modern official symbolics use granates or grapes? The sign of eternity appears in Republic of Armenia more often (in my opinion). Maybe we should make a list of symbolics of official and non-official organizations, and check, weather there is any symbol used more often, than the sign of eternity. How do you look on it? Хаченци (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly oppose to include there any symbols, where is no such a practice in Wikipedia in other templates. --Δαβίδ (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of Kentron (Ararat, christianity, ethernity) makes sense. I have suggested earlier something similar - Ararat in the centre, on four corners the Armenian cross, Armenian eternity sign, Coat of arms of Armenia and Armenian alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins of Zvartnoc church is one of the most famous examples of Armenian culture, which is included in UNESCO's heritage list. I'm strongly oppose to include any other symbols here, besides coast of arms.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's famous, but not really most famous. Khachkars are more famous, Ejmiatsin and Garni-Geghard as well. Maybe even Aghtamar church, as an Armenian cultural monument, is currently more famous. Хаченци (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss anything with you. Other users are already agreed with coat of arms, but it seems you don't want consensus.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no consesnus. You were the only user to oppose the previous picture, and Kentron, despite his personal will, has done as you wished. For such important questions inveolvement of several users is required. Хаченци (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to follow the tastes of nationalistic users.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, really, and there is nothing remotely nationalistic about our suggestion either, at least, not to the extent that is unacceptable in a discussion within the scope of the history about a nation. I prefer the original image, but I don't feel like spending time and energy to try to convince you. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence to prove my point, at least, for what I regarded as the first phase of this debate. The fact that I am still waiting for a response after all this time proves to me that there will be no second phase, and that regardless of what I try to prove, you will simply never address it. That's why I decided to jump on the bandwagon and use the uninspired coat of arms like everyone else, which does not help in distinguishing the Armenian History as an article that is supported with exceptional care.

However, just in case you are accepting to engage in an honest debate with me, here are my points. First, look at all of those images I posted here (and search for the We Are Our Mountains symbol of Artsakh as well -- it's being deleted from Wikimedia because of Azerbaijan's "No freedom of panorama"). The history of Armenia revolves around the land, the culture and religion of the people (as is the case for all nations), so I don't see anything wrong with decorating the template with symbols that represent those three elements most. I don't think anyone will deny the significance of Mt. Ararat as the primary symbol of the Armenian Highlands, nor will anyone deny that the most significant religious symbol is where the Armenian state adopted Christianity – Khor Virap. The Armenian Eternity symbol is arguably the most significant symbol of Armenian culture, since it is the symbol Armenian architects and artists use to "sign" their works off as "Armenian" (as I have said, the Eternity symbol appears on almost all significant Armenian monuments used since pre-history, and you only have to visit Armenia and Artsakh to know this). You simply don't like that it shares related pagan roots with the swastika (I repeat, Arevakhach has absolutely nothing to do with Nazism). I'm sorry to break it to you, but all cultures have pagan roots (the Christian cross itself is arguably a pagan symbol). I also find it curious that you have not noticed that many images of the eternity symbol I have provided to you appear carved into Christian monuments. I also don't think that Georgia (who shares the symbol with us), would include it on their airlines logo if it were such an insignificant (and Nazi) symbol. Finally, the two biggest political parties of Armenia would not use a symbol that is so insignificant to the Armenian people in their official logos (especially if it had links to Nazism). Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first surviving record of the name ‘Mithra’ dates back to 1400 B.C., spelled ‘Mi-it-ra’, in the inscribed 4 peace treaty between the Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni in Asia minor.However, what these scholars fail to realize is that in the Gathas, the earliest sacred Zoroastrian texts attributed to Zoroaster himself, Mithra is not mentioned. Furthermore, Mithra also does not appear by name in the Yasna Haptanghaiti, a seven-verse section of the Yasna liturgy that is linguistically as old as the Gathas. Many scholars have noted that the lack of any mention (i.e. Zoroaster’s silence) of Mithra in these texts implies that Zoroaster in fact had rejected Mithra. This is supported by the fact that Zoroaster did not mention Mithra was because in fact in the earliest Avestan writings both Mihr-Mithra and the Armenian Matron Goddess Anahit are condemned as “daevas” or “false gods” or “daemons” that were not to be worshiped.

It was only in the fourth century BCE, when we for the first time find the mentioning of Mithras in the Iranian context as a “positive’ deity of the very radiance of the Sun in the inscriptions of the Achaemenid king Xerxes II Mnemon. The Religion of Mithras or Mithraism as it became known in the West would soon spread beyond borders of Armenia, not only towards the East, towards Iran and India, but also that of the West. Mithraic temples known as Mithraea sprang up all over the Roman Empire. They were mostly promoted by Armenian aristocrats who already by this time were prominent generals in the Roman Army. Armenian King Tiridates III is a good example, who prior to his coronation was a prominent general in the Roman Army, it was Emperor Diocletian a close friend and fellow Mithraic devotee of Tiridates who asked the Armenian king to take the challenge of personal combat from a Gothic chief, Trdat successfully stood in for the Emperor and won the tournament. By the second century AD Mithraism was virtually the state religion of the Roman Empire and virtually all of the Roman Emperors during this time and prior to adoption of Christianity in the Fourth century CE were high initiates of the Mithraic mysteries. Most of the Mithraic rites along with the rituals and rites were simply taken over by the newly forming Roman Catholic Church.

Excerpts from Pre-Christian Gods of Armenia (Glendale, 2007) by Hovik Nersisian (1921-2009). Nersisian is an author of many books and articles. He was a renowned scholar who in 1991, for his merits in Iranian Studies, most notably the study of the oldest surviving copies of the Avesta, became a full-member of New York’s Academy of Sciences. About these ads Share this:

   Twitter2    Facebook56  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.35.190 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]  

Kingdom of Syunik

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Armenia page 24.17.216.223 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Izno (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

We should add a Middle Paleolithic section under Prehistory and add the Nor Geghi page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor_Geghi) since it is actually very significant in how it challenges migrations from Africa being responsible for all technological innovations and the findings were in Armenia. We should also add an Upper Paleolithic section under Prehistory and add the link to the Trialetian culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialetian) and we should add the Trialeti culture after Kura-Araks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialeti_culture) since both of these were in the Armenian highlands. MageAZ (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Kura-Araks and the legend of Hayk both fall under the Bronze Age of Armenia not "Stone & Copper Age" MageAZ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been reverts to the addition of Mushki by an unregistered IP user to the template in the prehistoric section of the template.

1. . This very template (History of Armenia) has itself been present on the page of Mushki for over 2 years now.
2. . The topic of the connection of the Mushki people to the Armenian people has been discussed on the article's own talk page.
3. . The article is relevant to the prehistory of Armenia, as many of the expert historians of the region (as cited in the article) claim that the Mushki people are one of the primary candidates for having brought the Indo-European language, which developed into what we call the Armenian language today, to the Armenian Highlands. Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should be about removing Mushki from the article.

These three points are why keeping Mushki in the template should be considered the status quo/baseline:

• The inclusion of the template on the article.
• The article's topic's connection to the template's topic, by Western experts of the region, having been agreed to.
• The existence of several citations and sources confirming the article's topic's relevance to the template's topic.

I argue that the unregistered IP user made a false equivalency when arguing in the edit reason that the inclusion of Mushki is equivalent to including the Luwians and Hurrians to the template.

It's a false equivalency for Luwians because there is no mention of them being Armenian ancestors in the article for Luwians, nor has there been a discussion about it, that I am aware of, on its talk page.

It's not a false equivalency, however, to include the Hurrians who are believed to have lived in the Armenian Highlands (the Urartians), and they, in fact, are in the template already.

Let's keep discussions where they belong. If you disagree that Mushki are connected to Armenian prehistory, then discuss that on the Mushki article's talk page and update the article according to what is agreed to. This template is simply a list of topics and events significant in Armenian history; the discussion here should only be about whether or not it should be included on the template, and as long as the article makes the claims it currently does, it's a significant topic. Kentronhayastan (talk)

@Kentronhayastan: I agree that Mushki should be re-added to the template. I also think that the Diauehi should be re-added. I'm not sure why they were removed to begin with. They are likely as connected to the Armenian ethnogenesis as Mitanni, if not more. In fact, there's more connecting the Mushki to Armenians than there is Sumerian 'Aratta' or even Armani to Armenians.

Also, I'm not sure why Gobelki Tepe, Karahan Tepe, etc are in this template. They are so ancient and not in the territory of modern Armenia. It seems like a stretch to include those and some of the other Stone Age cultures, especially if Mushki and Daiuehi are not going to be included. Mushki and Diaeuhi could very well have been Armenian speakers. Gobelki Tepe's population certainly was not. Skeptical1800 (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this template to more closely resemble the manual of styles (vcard plainlist) for most other "History of" templates, while also making it more easier to read. The template had too many articles 'branching' off each other, so I deleted articles that could be considered sub-articles of others already listed. I also removed the years lengths, which were often overlaping, and the "ages" headers, which most "History of" templates do not have and just resulted in the same or similar articles being linked more than once. --Steverci (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the previous version had over 10,000 bytes, when most of these templates have between 1,500-3,000 bytes, so it would definitely be fair to say that it was over-designed. --Steverci (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci: I’m the ‘over-designer’ of the former template. I do agree that it was large. I wanted to increase the discoverability of the less popular articles of Armenian history. Armenian history being long as it is, led to an admittedly unwieldy template. With the current change, some relevant and interesting but not “first-class” Armenian history articles are now relegated back to obscurity and discoverability via links from more popular articles. What I intended to do eventually was make the change you made, but also create additional templates for each specific era. Maybe this will give me a reason to do that now. One feature that is lost with your change, however, was the possibility of keeping the appropriate era expanded for an article of that era (example, keeping “Antiquity” expanded while reading “Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)”). Do you think it is possible to reintroduce this feature? Also, I find the “Armenia” in “Prehistoric Armenia” redundant. “Prehistory” is a valid word on its own, and it is meant to display articles of “what came before Armenia which influenced or led to the formation of Armenia and/or the Armenian nation” (i.e., proto-Armenian history). — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are just supposed to be a brief overview, not meant to cram every single topic inside. As for that feature, I thought having both an era and a sub-era made the template look very cluttered and confusing, and almost none of the other "History of" templates were also styled like that. I agree about "Prehistoric Armenia" though, I'll change it to "Prehistory". --Steverci (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Mushki and Diauehi were recently removed from the template. I believe that they should be re-added. The Mushki have been connected to Armenians since ancient times (albeit, indirectly, see Khorenatsi, who seemed to suggest they were "relatives" or Armenians) and in modernity (most famously, Diakonoff, but more recently, with scholars such as Aram Kossian). Modern scholars, such as Aram Kossian, Konstantinos Kopanias, and Veli Sevin have suggested that the Mushki came from the vicinity of modern Armenia and perhaps descend from Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture, which is included in the template.

As far the Diauehi go, there is some scholarship (Sayce) suggesting that this is a patronymic name (Diaus) and connecting this to an Indo-European culture (Martirosyan, Dumikyan) (Martirosyan connects Diaus to Deus, Dios, etc). Hewson and Adontz placed the Diaeuni originally in Palu or Mush Province and suggested that they moved north--firstly to Kars Province and subsequently to Tao-Klarjeti/Tayk. Whether they were Kartvelian or indeed Indo-European, they most certainly contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis, certainly as much, if not more, than the Mitanni (who are still included in the template) did. There's more connecting the Mushki to Armenians than there is Sumerian 'Aratta' to Armenians or even Armani. Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Aratta because that has nothing to do with Armenian history, nor prehistory (it is purely a hypothetical idea that Ararat/Urartu and Aratta might be connected, with very little academic support). I definitely think Mushki should be part of this template, because they are assumed to have played a major role as a proto-Armenian people. Diauehi, I’m less sure. I think that instead of throwing in every hypothetical proto-Armenian to the list, they can be mentioned in the Historiography section of the Origin of the Armenians article if there is enough reliable scholarly merit. — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aratta and Portasar being removed but I think Diauehi should be added again since they may have been Proto-Armenian speakers. I think Armeno-Phrygians can be removed because they were a hypothetical people who probably didn't exist (I'm basing this off of Clackson, Brixe, and Obrador Cursach, who argue that Armenian isn't that close to Phrygian see here:). Additionally, genetic studies (such as Haber 2016) do not support a Balkanic (i.e. Phrygian) influx. In other words, there's more connecting Diaeuhi to Armenians than the possibly/probably non-existant "Armeno-Phrygians."Skeptical1800 (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeptical1800: Having a section called “Ancient history” and “Antiquity” makes no sense because one is the adjective of the other. It is equivalent to having two different sections called “Medieval history” and “Middle Ages.” I have placed everything before the appearance of Armenia proper under “prehistory” because it is the history ‘pre-Armenia’ (i.e., proto-Armenians and others). I think the problem is that there is too much crammed into prehistory, some questionable (as was discussed over the years above). — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but the problem is that "prehistory" specifically means "before writing" so I think we need a better phrase, hence why I split it up between the period before writing and after. Maybe we can change it to "Bronze and Iron Ages"? Another note: if the Legend of Hayk is to be included (it's not actually historical, so I'm not even sure why it's listed), it is supposed to take place between either the 25th century or 22nd century BCE. It should not be placed after Urartu but rather well before, between Kura Araxes Culture and Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture. Skeptical1800 Skeptical1800 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)(talk) 05:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another option could be keeping the "Prehistory" section and adding "Early History" after that, which would start with Armani. The Legend of Hayk (if it is even appropriate to have in this template) should be moved to the Prehistory section again, as it takes place during the 3rd millennium, and therefore, placing it after Urartu is an anachronism. But I would argue removing it from the template all together.Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Skeptical1800 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]