| Revision as of 02:51, 13 October 2006 editThe Myotis (talk | contribs)1,571 edits →Armenia is Non-European, Proposed Changes← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 13 October 2006 edit undoThe Myotis (talk | contribs)1,571 edits →Armenia is Non-European, Proposed ChangesNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| ::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. | ::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. | ||
| ] 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | ] 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. | |||
| ] 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:21, 13 October 2006
 | Armenia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|---|---|
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 do 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 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 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 01:33, 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)
- 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 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 17:05, 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)
- 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 16:46, 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories:- Unassessed Armenian articles
- Unknown-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles