Talk:Origin of the Armenians/Archive 1

Armenian DNA

Here is an older study that has similar results http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf

you dont need an account to view it. the National Geographic Project is the most recent and respected that;s why I did not mention the older UK study.--Craig Thomasian 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I don't see anyhting like what you're claiming in either study.--Eupator 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

look in the findings section, please read carefully--Craig Thomasian 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of Armenians in the NG link. I found something about that cave and that was it. If you don't provide a verifibale source i'm going to assume you're making this up.--Eupator 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your account on NG, I'll send you a data packet. Did you review the findings on the PDF article? How could I make this up? It's right there in black and white! Read the entire PDF, it's really interesting, there are sections of Armenia where the DNA is very unique and unlike other Armenian areas only a few KMs away.--Craig Thomasian 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not using the above PDF as your souce. You're using something that cannot be verified. Use the PDF as your source and I will tell you what's wrong with that! Back to your alleged NG source, where in that NG link is there a mention of Armenians?--Eupator 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For the 3rd time, you need to have an account to access the data, what is your account name and I can send you the data packet. accounts are free. Please read with greater care, thanks. I'll pick this up tomorrow, I have to get to home now, it's almost 6pm here.--Craig Thomasian 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. I can't find it. Read: Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Eupator 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried 4 times to send it to you, but you refuse to give me your account name--Craig Thomasian 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any free account there nor am I obligated to get one. You are obligated to provide evidence without any action on my behalf. You have just violated WP:3RR and I will report you.--Eupator 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude I checked it out, The information is flash based, and I can't copy and paste it. So you need to sign up for an accoutn and log in, once I have your user name I can send you the data packet, this is not rocket science... Craig I would give up, this guy has the time to win all these fights, he will never stop trying to have complete control over all the Armenian articles--Caligvla 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I really gotta get home, I'll check in tomorrow--Craig Thomasian 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was searching in the medline database to see if there was peer reviewed academic article to support Nat. Geo.

I couldn't find any that mention Persians, but I did find the Abstract quoted below enlightening.

I think it's too early to tell with Nat. Geo. anyone can join the sample group so it's not really a scientific study. anyway check out the abstract below, the findings show that Armenians are a mix of Near East and Middle East DNA groups and not much European DNA in the mix. That is still a far cry from saying they are of the same DNA as Persians. It's a pretty broad range.

Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome.

• Nasidze I,
• Sarkisian T,
• Kerimov A,
• Stoneking M.

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. nasidze@eva.mpg.de

A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijanian therefore represent language replacements, possibly via elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, in which case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azerbaijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closely reflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore analyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 males from eight populations, representing all major linguistic groups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere. The mtDNA results show that Caucasian groups are more closely related genetically to Near and Middle Eastern groups than to European groups, by contrast the Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East than the Middle East or Europe.

PMID: 12596050 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] --Caligvla 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You just completely fabricated that by rewriting it!

The actual paragraph reads- A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in theCaucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armeniansand Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closelyrelated genetically to other Caucasus populations (whospeak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-Europeanor Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijan-ian therefore represent language replacements, possiblyvia elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, inwhich case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azer-baijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closelyreflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore ana-lyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 malesfrom eight populations, representing all major linguisticgroups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, basedon the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians aremore closely-related genetically to their geographicneighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neigh-bors elsewhere. However, whereas the mtDNA results showthat Caucasian groups are more closely related geneticallyto European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast theY-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship withthe Near East than with Europe.[1]--Eupator 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how he gets out of this one...--Tekleni 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention too. You have to admit it was kinda funny! Congrats to Eupator for looking it up.--Caligvla 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So you admit you're a troll? This will prove most useful in the future.--Tekleni 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit no such thing, It's been a long day of abuse by Eupator and I am fighting off a cold, and my sense of humor was in play. I put enough information so the joke could be eaisly found. You guys have to stop making a big stink over everything and just have a laugh together once and awhile. I think you know me well enough by now to not be any kind of a troll, gnome yes, troll no.--Caligvla 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Worst attempt at damage control since Congressman Foley.--Eupator 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't bet on it.--Tekleni 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

it's a very safe bet... :) anyway I am tired, have fun guys, we can play some more tomorrow maybe.--Caligvla 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal playground. Nobody is amused here by your disruptions other than you!--Eupator 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure I get Caligvla's joke, but that is not the point, the study he mentions is old! National Geographic's study is ongoing and has the largest sample size, therefore it has the most accurate information. Just because anyone can join the sample group doesn't mean it's not scientific. National Geographic has rules and proceedure to make sure they get valid data, otherwise what is the point of the project? Of the samples collected thus far it leads them to believe the Armenians started in the Qafzeh Cave. I will rephrase the entry and hopefully it will meet your expectations.--Craig Thomasian 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

a) I still haven't seen the source. b)It's not encyclopedic. I have seen similar studies claiming Norwegians are genetically similar to Nigerians or that Greeks are genetically similar to Ethipians. Rubbish. c)What's the point of that to be included in this article anyway? d)I suggest you look for another source and before adding anything to the article present it in the talk page. I think that's a fair request for something that extremely controversial.--Eupator 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate once more that this article is intended to analyze various historical sources and scholarly research of such sources. Dubious and extremely controversial genetic studies that change on a a monthly basis have no room here. See: Origin of Romanians for a clear and concise example.--Eupator 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I understand what is motivating you.--Craig Thomasian 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate so that I can respond :rolleyes. You have to understand that adding that each time without reaching a consensus is simply irrational. I mean what's the point? If you're honestly interested in that respond to my two paragraphs above. The more you blindly revert the more I will suspect that your motivation lies elsewhere.--Eupator 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw I wont revert it again since you're so obviously and intentionally starting an edit war, but understand that there is absolutely no way that section will remain here.--Eupator 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You lied, Eupator, you said you wouldn't revert it and you did it again? Can you explain yourself?

No I didn't! I wrote that after the 2nd revert and there is no third revert. Don't be so desperate...--Eupator 20:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the Article, I couldn't find anything on that site that talks about Armenians let alone Armenians having Persian DNA. Armenians are blend of many many many cultures and peoples. Sure there are a lot of Iranian-Armenians out there and maybe they are the majority of the ones who participated in the test, did you every think of that? We shouldn't have to sign up for a DNA test to see all the information on the website. If you go to the US Armenians look like Americans, some Armenians look more European, most Armenians look Middle Eastern to outsiders. Everyone's DNA is so deeply mixed by war, invaders and diaspora. I am full blood Armenian but there is no such thing a pure Armenian DNA. Eupator, claims being Armenian means you have to speak Armenian, so if a Black African can speak Armenian the he is Armenian too. I am not making fun of Eupator. I am only trying to point out being Armenian means diffrent things to differnt people. The "unaltered" article above proves that. There is no such thing is the Armenian race, we are just a mixture of the winds of time, just like anyone else who lived in an area that was a center of trade, culture and conflicts for 1000s of years. Obviously this DNA issue is important to Craig, I suggest you either put up information from a completed study or wait until the results of the NG study are comlpeted. Sound fair to everyone? Eupator since you seem to be the one contesting it, why don't you help Craig find a good source instead of just deleting everything he does?--Hamparzoum 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, so many oxymorons. I lost count.--Eupator 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, then it'll be removed. Period.--Tekleni 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (I feel surrounded by sockpuppets - what was that movie called?)

Caligvla, you'll get caught one of these days, and your well earned ban will be forthcoming.--Tekleni 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What did he do this time?--Hamparzoum 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Here's a hint: Caligvla=Hamparzoum.--Eupator 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry. Interesting how he (Caligvla) is so devoted to promoting how un-European Armenia is and then you turn up with full knowledge of how Wikipedia works and make this Caligvlesque edit [2].--Tekleni 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That and virtually every other edit he ever made are Caligvlesque.--Eupator 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do, you know Eupator, that block evasion (Caligvla is currently blocked) can get your block reset. Do you feel in the mood for being a supergrass ;-) --Tekleni 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep me out of your hatchet job.--Hamparzoum 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Hamparzoum and Caligvla are different people. -- Augustgrahl 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are different people or not seems irrelevant since they are both committed to some obscure cause in proving that Armenians are not European. Two editors, so far, with Armenian-like names relentlessly championing for the same obscure cause. Even if they are different people, they all make similar edits and arguments. --MarshallBagramyan 02:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

please help

Obviously this DNA issue is important to Craig, I suggest you either put up information from a completed study or wait until the results of the NG study are comlpeted. Sound fair to everyone? Eupator since you seem to be the one contesting it, why don't you help Craig find a good source instead of just deleting everything he does?--Hamparzoum 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important to me, Y-DNA from father to son and mtDNA from mother to daughter doesn't change, so you can go back 50,000-60,000 years, way before recorded history and find out where you really started, as well as find out who else started along there with you. So if anyone is willing to help me get some DNA related informtion on the article. I assumed that Eupator was a creationist, and that is where his objections come from. so I am no so sure he would be willing to help. I would be willing to accept help from anyone. I would like to be able to include the information in a way that doesn't offend anyone. If you guys think the NG study is not ready yet then fine. But help me find a source that is proper for the article.--Craig Thomasian 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, you would have information properly sourced before you add it to the article. -- Augustgrahl 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So, can you help me out?--Craig Thomasian 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sooooo not a creationist....lol--Eupator 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, in an earlier comment you seemed to discredit DNA genographic research, so I assumed your motivations had to do with faith issues. I am willing to work with you on this to make it a great article. Thanks!--Craig Thomasian 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy these studies for a second. Like I said I have seen similar studies alleging a close genetic relationship between Greeks and Ethipioans (I mean wtf?) or Norwegians and Nigerians. The studies pop up every year and every year one discredits another study and so on. In addition all these studies have very strong political and social implications thus they need to be taken with a grain of salt. They have great potential but since we are in the very early stages of genetic studies we cannot use them as solid facts, especially controversial ones. Not to mention such sampling studies which can be considered unscientific, similar to your average online polls. Now, if something is not considered a solid fact doesn't mean that it cannot be mentioned in the article; however, I still don't see why it has anythign to do with this article when related origin articles (such as the Romanian one) only deal with historical and lingustic issues. 50,000 years ago there were no such people as Armenians! We only care about the linguistic and cultural origins of the Armenians. Everything else (like DNA studies) is outside the scope of this article.--Eupator 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes it much more clear now, how about a small section that there are studies on-going and a link to some of the DNA site like NG, so people can find more information on their own? I have seen this done in other articles.--Craig Thomasian 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear any opposition to my proposal, I am going to go ahead and add it.--Craig Thomasian 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. I thought I was clear that i'm opposed to any inclusion of DNA research in this article.--Eupator 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was very sensitive to your comments, you said you didn't like the findings of DNA testing, all I am doing here is informing readers that there is DNA Testing for ancestory and origins, these tests include Armenians, and where to find more information. I removed any an all conclusions from the test information per your orders.--Craig Thomasian 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I didn't like or liked any of the results of the so called findings. Convince me that these "studies" are within the scope of the article. --Eupator 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not putting words in your mouth, just not the best paraphraser. Can you please find a better tag, the are not facts to dispute in the DNA section.--Craig Thomasian 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are, i'm disputing them and their relevance in this article!--Eupator 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Eupator on this in-part. Armenians were not Armenians until they developed a culture and language of their own. So the acendents of Armenians while genetically spawned Armenians are not Armenians themselves. They also spawned many other groups and cultures. There should be a place were you can find a home for this. Maybe someone can help you find the proper article for DNA ancestory or start a new article about it. Where Eupator and I part, is that Ancestory DNA's findings are invalid. The scientific community has spent a lot of time on this and it's some of the best information we have on the migration of early man.--Caligvla 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe invalid is not the best word, but they are certainly not factual and are very controversial and they chnage more often than the weather in Texas. For example this study claims sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks: [3].--Eupator 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start another war with you, but there is a lot more to DNA than physical apperance. Some groups look nothing alike and yet are very closely related, as are some groups that look very close have very distant DNA connections. There is a lot more too it than looks. anyway, if you can get him to move it, I think everyone will be happy.--Caligvla 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's very relevant. Your suggested move just does not make sense to me. The DNA article itself has no information at all about these sort of studies. There is this article Genealogical DNA test but even there, where would you put this and more importantly how would you word it?--Eupator 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also look what the above article says: These tests are controversial—their validity has not been independently confirmed — and the results are often disputed. I told you so?--Eupator 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Work it out with Craig... thanks...--Caligvla 19:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed to removal of the tag.--Eupator 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

88.86.11.49 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

about 80/90% of armenians are homogeanous. they are direct descendand of hurrians/urartians/pyhrigians...etc they look somewhere between south european meds to north european nords passing from east europeal alpinics/dinarics.

every one who has been in armenia can notice this. average pure armenian doesnt look less white or european than south europeans.

we have some little middle eastern looking minority however they dont look like arabid/semitic. they look like dravidian/turanian/irano afghanian...etc

but they are minority. and they are less than 15% of armenians. that familytreedna.com is backed by multiculturist scientists to spread propagendas that human races doesnt exist.

any african who speaks armenian is not armenian.