Talk:Armenian language

Anatolian "connection"

Austin's hypothesis of an Anatolian connection is extremely problematic. According to the article it is based on purely negative evidence, which proves nothing. Mandarin lacks long vowels and the feminine gender. Should it be grouped with Armenian and Anatolian? I wonder if the source provides anything better. It seems like mere outdated speculation that doesn't take into account the importance of synapomorphy for classification. If not, I am in favor of deleting the reference entirely, or moving it to a new section for fringe theories.μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That can be expanded tenfold. Ties between Armenian and Luwian are very interesting and are presented in virtually every single IE studies book. Hardly a fringe theory. Just requires better sources. Another major thing that's missing from this article is a brief analysis of the Hurro-Urartian substrate in Armenian.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have such sources to recommend? Sounds very interesting if there are common innovations. I agree about the need for mention of the possibility of substratum influence. Unfortunately the local university has limited materials on historical linguistics, and I am very busy - but I intend to get to it.μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

language isolate, or not? Articles must be co-ordinated

Currently, the article on ARMENIANS describes Armenian as a language isolate. There is no middle ground here, either it is, or it is not. Whatever the linguistic subject matter experts conclude the Reliable Sources in the majority state, either this language article, or the article on Armenians has to be adjusted. Please prioritize this, as currently you have very contradictory information in the Wiki. (adjusted for my mistake)HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Armenian is not a language isolate and never has been. Linguists have placed it in the Indo-European language family since the 19th century. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Taivo (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I sort of smelled some nationalism going on there about this.  :-) This was added in the March 2012 timeframe by user Lycurgus. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article didn't state that it's a language isolate, it said Indo-European language isolate, which it is. The other two existing IE language isolates are Greek and Albanian.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 08:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "an Indo-European language isolate", Eupator. "Language isolate" is a technical term for a language with no known relatives. That is not true of Armenian. You cite Greek and Albanian as other "Indo-European language isolates", but you have obviously not bothered to read either of those articles, and have not read this article either. None of those articles call these languages "isolates". Linguistic science simply does not use that term for these three languages or any other language that has been demonstrably placed in a language family. --Taivo (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI - I ran across this in another article and corrected it. I wonder how many articles have the same nonsense about it, or Greek and Albanian, sprinkled in them? Wikipedia - the never-ending job of policing!HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All three are "family-level isolates", as Wurm would put it. An "isolate" just means no relatives at a certain level – presumably Basque has relatives too if we were able to go back far enough. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of Eastern and Western Armenian

Eastern and Western Armenian are not mutually intelligible, according to experts from Wikimedia Armenia whom I met in Berlin this past weekend. We discussed vocabulary and paradigms. There will likely be a Western Armenian Wikipedia in due course. However, I'll edit the page with external citations. -- Evertype·✆ 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation from Daniels and Bright is not relevant. That book is about writing systems. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation is from Avedis Sanjian, a Professor of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures at UCLA, not Daniels and Bright. I've added several other reputable sources. Did you really cite "wordreference" "reddit" and "100years100facts" as reliable sources on Wikipedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To hell with you. Yerevantsi. They are mutually unintelligible enough that there are live, ongoing requests for a Western Armenian Wikipedia from both Eastern and Western Wikipedians. I, as a linguist, have been convinced by the request by the user community, and we'll go ahead and proceed with it. My Eastern Armenian colleagues indicated clearly that simple nominal and verbal paradigms differed considerably, in addition to the phonology. So go right ahead, Yerevantsi, and summarily delete citations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others. (The Reddit one was poor, and I was about to delete it myself.) You're wrong (and you haven't even argued that you yourself find the two languages mutually intelligible in speech and or in writing). But I'm not going to fight with you, because there are real users out there whose linguistic needs can be served without edit warring with you. The fact is that the mutual intelligibility is DISPUTED. If you care about Armenian, why don't YOU do the work to investigate for yourself. Oh, and Daniels and Bright is a book about writing systems, not about grammar, and if Sanjian can understand both that's probably because he's been specially triained to do so, just like the citations which you suppressed said. -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Try to stay civil. It's not my job to do original research here. Cite published reliable sources or don't edit at all. Do not cite online forums. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Forums and reddit posts are not reliable sources, neither are your tall tales of conversations with supposed experts at Wikimedia Foundation events. You adding such sources to say that there are not sources (which is not the case) is a clear-cut example of WP:DISRUPTION and WP:POINT. Also, please be WP:CIVIL. I suggest you refrain from going down this path. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This is utter fringe nonsense. Revert on sight.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

They are definitely mutually intelligible under the meaning of that term, however more content could be added examining the degree of that mutually intelligibility and whether they are increasingly diverging. I suggest that is the route Evertype should take regarding this issue, if they can find appropriate sources. BTW, I think the issue of a Western Armenian Wikipedia is more connected to the preservation and representation of a language and culture under risk than a real difficulty of Western Armenian speakers understanding content on the Armenian-language Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They are mutually intelligible, but not for all speakers; especially, when considering many words used in Eastern Armenian are not Armenian - i.e. կազար or khaladinik (Russian for refrigerator). This problem is compounded when the language is written - there are many words which are spelled differently.Clean-up Time (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not isolated?

Why armenian language is also a branch of independent of indo european kanguage along with albanian? If isolated, it would be counted as the one of most unique language ever seen. I think in my opinion it would be imoossible to have armenian place at just below the indo european kanguage branch. Why armenian language is not claasified as kartvelian language despite being close neighbor? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:4114:B8DC:1B6C:6EF (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Turkey Lausanne treaty

I couldn't find anything like this in Lausanne, could users show me please? There are no special provisions about Armenians in the Lausanne Treaty

As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

Doesn't specify any language, sounds vague. Hence education language isn't minority language. If this was the case, this makes Kurdish a minority language as well, which is not. Beshogur (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: show me exactly where in Lausanne, Armenian language gets a minority status? This is plain WP:OR. Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you remove this IP user's edit as well. This is exactly same. No proof there is such thing Lausanne. Making assumptions out of vague words. Beshogur (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand your confusion but this is not "ridiculous reasoning" (please WP:NICE btw). A few points:

1. Textual interpretation: Statutory interpretation is complex. The law isn't only texts but also case law and precedent (even in civil law jurisdictions such as Turkey), customs, and legal doctrine. The original intent is extremely important as well. So while it's true that the Treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly mention Armenian, de jure it is recognized, as confirmed by reputable sources and academic works. On the other hand, it's not because something is written in a text that it is "law". For instance, a non-lawyer reading the Treaty of Lausanne may believe that the rights of all non-Muslims are protected, such as Yezidi, Assyrians or maybe Muslims who would convert to another religion like Buddhism: that's not the case, only Greeks, Armenians, and Jews are recognized as ethno-religious minorities. (Famous examples of similar counterintuitive interpretation outside Türkiye include R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith and Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. Another example of constitutional interpretation is freedom of speech in the US: the First Amendment says nothing about flag burning, and yet flag burning is protected in the US under the First Amendment.)
2. Types of sources: Organic laws, constitutions, treaties and other binding international agreements, [...] are examples of primary sources. (WP:LAWSOURCES) but Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources (WP:RSPRIMARY). So we shouldn't rely on the text of the Treaty of Lausanne and on our own interpretation of it ("This is plain WP:OR" as you said). We need to rely on secondary sources. (Still, other aligned primary sources include: Aziz DAĞCI contre la Turquie 2021, AFFAIRE DİNK c. TURQUIE 2010, AFFAIRE YAZAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE 2002, CASE OF İZZETTİN DOĞAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY 2016)
3. Secondary sources:
   1. Tsitselikis, Konstantinos (2013). "A Surviving Treaty: The Lausanne Minority Protection in Greece and Turkey". In Henrard, Kristin (ed.). The Interrelation between the Right to Identity of Minorities and their Socio-economic Participation. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 287–315. ISBN 9789004244740.
   2. Turkey is a nation–state built on remnants of the Ottoman Empire where non-Muslim minorities were guaranteed the right to set up educational institutions; however, since its establishment, it has officially recognised only Armenians, Greeks and Jews as minorities and guaranteed them the right to manage educational institutions as enshrined in the Treaty of Lausanne. [...] Private language teaching courses teach ‘traditionally used languages’, elective language courses have been introduced in public schools and universities are allowed to teach minority languages. (Kaya, Nurcan (2015-11-24). "Teaching in and Studying Minority Languages in Turkey: A Brief Overview of Current Issues and Minority Schools". European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online. 12 (1): 315–338. doi:10.1163/9789004306134_013. ISSN 2211-6117.)
   3. The population of Armenian Turkish citizens living in Turkey is unclear, with estimates ranging up to 70,000. With a legal minority status in Turkey as defined by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 for all non-Muslim minority groups, they are entitled to “an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein”. (Uras, Umut. "Vox Pops: Life as an Armenian in Turkey". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-10-07.)
   4. Turkey signed the Covenant on 15 August 2000 and ratified it on 23 September 2003. However, Turkey put a reservation on Article 27 of the Covenant which limited the scope of the right of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion or to use their own language. This reservation provides that this right will be implemented and applied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This implies that Turkey grants educational right in minority languages only to the recognized minorities covered by the Lausanne who are the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews. (Toktas, Sule (2006). "EU enlargement conditions and minority protection : a reflection on Turkey's non-Muslim minorities". East European quarterly. 40: 489–519. ISSN 0012-8449.)
   5. As mentioned above, the Jews, the Greek Orthodox Christians, and the Armenian Orthodox Christians are the only recognized minorities in Turkey. (Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "Refworld | Turkey: A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation". Refworld. Retrieved 2023-10-07.)
   6. The legal status of Armenians designed by the Treaty of Lausanne gave them the opportunity to establish their own schools, religious and secular organizations, to teach younger generations the Armenian language, to publish books and newspapers in Armenian, to worship in their churches etc. These regulations helped them to live as a community, to maintain their cultural values, i.e. to prolong Armenian identity. (Akbulut, Mustafa; Özer, Zeynep Bağlan; Gürses, Reşide; Taşkın, Banu Karababachapter=TÜRKİYE ERMENİLERİNİN KÜLTÜREL KİMLİKLERİNİ KORUMASINI SAĞLAYAN FAKTÖRLER, eds. (2011). 38. ICANAS (Uluslararası Asya ve Kuzey Afrika Çalışmaları Kongresi), 10-15 Eylül 2007, Ankara, Türkiye: bildiriler: kültürel değişim, gelişim ve hareketlilik =: International Congress of Asian and North African Studies 10-15 September 2007: papers: cultural change, growth and mobility (PDF). Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Yayınları. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu. ISBN 978-975-16-2433-8.)
   7. Lozan Barış Andlaşması’nın “Azınlıkların Korunması” başlıklı III. Bölümü (37-44. maddeler) “gayrimüslim” esasına dayalı bir azınlık anlayışı benimsemiştir. Sözkonusu Andlaşma ve ekleri 23 Ağustos 1923 tarih ve 341-344 sayılı kanunlar ile iç hukukun bir parçası haline getirilmiştir. Uygulamada Lozan Anlaşması’na yönelik iki temel eleştiri yapılmaktadır. Bunlardan birincisi, azınlık statüsünün Türkiye’deki tüm gayrimüslimlere tanınmasına karşın pratikte bunun sadece Ermeni, Musevi ve Rumlarla sınırlı tutulması ve diğer Müslüman olmayan azınlıkları (Süryani, Keldani, Nasturiler....gibi) dışlamasıdır. [...] Zira 5580 sayılı Özel Öğretim Kurumları Kanunu, azınlık okullarını, “Rum, Ermeni ve Musevi azınlıklar tarafından kurulan, Lozan Andlaşması ile güvence altına alınan ve kendi azınlığına mensup Türkiye Cumhuriyeti uyruklu öğrencilerin devam ettiği okul öncesi eğitim, ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim özel okulları” şeklinde tanımlamaktadır. Mesela Süryanilerin kendi dillerinde eğitim yaptıkları okullar bulunmamaktadır. Azınlık okulları diğer azınlık grubuna mensup öğrenci kabul edemeyecekleri ve ebeveynlerden en azından birinin sözkonusu okula kabul edilebilecek topluluktan olması gereği nedeniyle uygulama Süryaniler için sıkıntılara neden olmaktadır. (Ergi̇n, Ayşe Dicle (2010-03-01). "AZINLIK DİLLERİNİN KULLANIMI KONUSUNDA TÜRKİYE NEREDE DURUYOR?". Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 59 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1501/Hukfak_0000001590. ISSN 1301-1308.)
   8. For the founders of the new Turkish Republic, the Treaty of Lausanne once and for all ended the “minorities question” by dividing the population into three non-Muslim minorities enjoying minority rights and a Muslim—soon to be Turkish—majority. [...] The only exception, of course, would be the non-Muslim minorities (Greek, Jewish, Armenian) given special linguistic and cultural rights under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. ("IX. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE KURDISH LANGUAGE". Human Rights Watch. 1999. Retrieved 2023-10-08.)
   9. “Mother tongue” education is mostly limited to Turkish teaching in Turkey. No other language can be taught as a mother tongue other than Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew, as agreed in the Lausanne Treaty, see below. [...] In order to guarantee civic, religious, educational, commercial, judicial, and political rights of Armenian, Greek, and Jewish people living in Turkey, clear-cut and strict stipulations were made in the Treaty of Lausanne. [...] Like Jews and Greeks, Armenians enjoy the privilege of an officially recognized minority status. [...] No language other than Turkish can be taught at schools or at cultural centers. Only Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew are exceptions to this constitutional rule. (Yagmur, Kutlay. "Languages in Turkey - (Minority issues in a historical perspective)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help))
   10. Turkey continues to accept only three non-Muslim groups as minorities: Armenians, Rum Orthodox Christians (Greeks) and Jews. This means that other non-Muslim groups and ethnic minorities, such as Alevis, Assyrians, Circassians, Kurds, Laz and Roma, are not officially recognized, limiting the exercise of some political and cultural rights by these groups. Even minorities with official recognition cannot exercise their rights fully, as Turkey limits their rights to those guaranteed in the Lausanne Peace Treaty (signed in 1923 between Turkey and the Allied forces following World War I). [...] Since the foundation of the state, the only protection for minorities has been that set out in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Turkey has been violating the Treaty since it was adopted, not least by restricting its scope to Armenians, Jews and Rum Christians. Minorities excluded from the Treaty of Lausanne rights have been banned from using their languages in schools and in media, and from fully exercising their religious rights. [...] The status of minorities in Turkey is established by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which defines minorities on the basis of religion. It envisions full citizenship rights for non-Muslims and places on the Turkish government a number of affirmative obligations. The Treaty establishes the supremacy of its provisions in the Turkish legal system. Although Lausanne grants minority status to all non-Muslims, in practice, Turkey has restricted the scope of the Treaty to Armenians, Jews and Rums. ("Turkey - World Directory of Minorities & Indigenous Peoples". Minority Rights Group International. 2015-06-19. Retrieved 2023-10-08.)
   11. Officially, the government recognizes Armenians as a minority but as used in Turkey, this term denotes second-class status. [...] ("Armenians". Minority Rights Group. 2015-06-19. Retrieved 2023-10-08.)
   12. Unilaterally, a rigid policy was adopted and the number of minorities that could be classified as a minority under the Treaty was reduced and fixed at only three. As a result, the new minorities of the State from then onwards were the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jews. [...] the distinction is not based on religion at all, but ethnicity. (Bulut, Eduard Alan (2018-01-23). Minorities in Constitution Making in Turkey. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-0750-0.)
   13. Selon eux, la Turquie, au lieu de prendre en considération les évolutions de la notion et du droit des minorités dans le monde, reste figée dans des conceptions qui remontent à la création de la République en 1923, et interprète de surcroît d’une manière incomplète le traité de Lausanne : les droits reconnus aux non-musulmans ne sont ainsi pas pleinement respectés, la Turquie ne les reconnaissant qu’à ses citoyens juifs, grecs et arméniens, alors qu’elle les nie à ses autres citoyens non-musulmans tels que les Syriaques, les Chaldéens et les Assyriens. Certaines lois et dispositions de la Constitution de 1982 se trouvent à l’origine de ces applications restrictives. (Billion, Didier (2010). "La délicate gestion du fait minoritaire en Turquie". Confluences Méditerranée. N°73 (2): 149. doi:10.3917/come.073.0149. ISSN 1148-2664. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help))
   14. Quant à la situation en Turquie, l’existence des minorités en Turquie correspond en fait à deux dimensions : les minorités reconnues dont le statut est régi par le Traité de Lausanne en 1923 ; c'est-à-dire les grecs, les arméniens et les juifs et les minorités non reconnues [...] Malgré l’adoption de l’ensemble de trois critères (ethnique, religieux et linguistique) dans la définition de minorité dans tous les autres traités de paix de l’époque, le Traité de Lausanne ne reconnait que la qualité d’être non musulman comme critère dans la détermination de minorité. [...] Au niveau d’application, le Traité de Lausanne a été violé à diverses échelles175 : premièrement ; la portée du traité est restreinte à trois communautés minoritaires historiques (grecque, arménienne, juive) et d’autres citoyens non musulmans (syriaques, nestoriens, chaldéen) ne peuvent pas se bénéficier des droits reconnus ("Droits Des Minorites En Turquie Sous L'optique Du Traite De Lausanne Et Du Conseil De L'Europe - ProQuest". Marmara Üniversitesi. Retrieved 2023-10-08.)
4. Difference vs situation in Iran: yes, I reverted the edit regarding Iran. I hope this at least shows my good faith: I'm not trying to artificially increase the number of countries where Armenian is recognized. As stated in the sources cited in the article, the difference is that in Iran, Armenian is merely allowed to be used but does not receive formal status. Whereas the infobox is for "Recognised minority language in", which according to {{Infobox language}} means "This is intended for legal protection and similar de jure recognition, not simply being listed on a census and other de facto recognition.".

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wall of text. Your sources do not even mentiond such thing. It's your interpretation. They talk about protection of minorities.

Did Turkey adopt the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages? There is no such thing as minority language in Turkey. It's only Turkish. Languages like Circassian, Kurdish, etc. are today given in Turkey as well, yet this does not mean minority language. Whole section about minority status is wrong here.

And it's incorrect to claim primary sources aren't valid. You can use it for straight statements. However, I'm not using anything, I'm removing it. You can verify yourself the text. It does not mention such thing, not your sources do tell, even if there are telling such thing, it's a wrong interpretation. We shouldn't take opinions as facts. Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

All the above sources say that Armenians are officially recognized as a minority and that this includes their linguistic rights. (Turkey did not sign the ECRML but that's totally unrelated.) I don't understand your point of view. Should I start an RfC? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. There is no indication for minority language status. Read my comment above again. Turkey is not a signatory of European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Also I see that you've added the same thing to Hebrew. I wonder if those sources really used the word "Hebrew"? I thought it was Judaeo-Spanish that Turkish Jews spoke, not Hebrew. It shows how wrong your edits are. Beshogur (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is totally unrelated to the ECRML, I don't know why you keep bringing up this point. Turkish Jews speak Ladino yes but under the Treaty of Lausanne it is Hebrew that is protected. Again, read the above RS. ({{tq|No other language can be taught as a mother tongue other than Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew, as agreed in the Lausanne Treaty})). I'll start the RfC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read Lausanne Peace Treaty. The treaty does not mention the word "Hebrew". There is no such indication on their language. Again, your additions for other countries; it either appears in its constitution or they signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Lausanne is not even law of Turkey, yet Lausanne does not even mention such thing. Read the article on minority status above (my first sentences).

No other language can be taught as a mother tongue other than Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew, as agreed in the Lausanne Treaty is the author's opinion. Lausanne does not mention such thing like "no other language tgab Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew". It's literally the same case with Iran. I told you. Yet, even if it explicitly stated such thing, it didn't, it doesn't mean a minority language, since it should either appear in your constitution or you should sign the treaty. Rest is pure speculation.

I'll start the RfC Thanks if you do it. And thanks for your effort. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Lausanne is not even law of Turkey? What? This proves you have zero legal knowledge. Treaties are part of the law of signatory countries. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes it isn't. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives Greece right to expand their territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, while Lausanne says 3 nautical miles. Laws can replace laws. Another example. Lausanne mentioning demilitarizing of the straits. Beshogur (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The above comment confirms your total lack of legal knowledge.

As RfCs are time consuming, I'll follow the guidelines and wait a bit to launch one. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Lausanne isn't the Turkish constitution. That's what I'm saying. Based on the treaty, you can't make such extraordinary claims like No other language can be taught as a mother tongue other than Armenian, Greek, and Hebrew, as agreed in the Lausanne Treaty that's not even explicitly stated there.. Beshogur (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Lausanne isn't the Turkish constitution.: tabii canım :) But it's more complex, see Monism and dualism in international law or page 3 here. For instance, as explained page 4 here: "In some states at least some international law has constitutional status (typically, human rights treaties). In some states international law has the same status as ordinary legislation. In some states international law may be above legislation but below the constitution or below legislation (i.e. a statute can override it for domestic purposes)." In any case, international treaties like the treaty of Lausanne are part of the "laws" of a country. For the the Treaty of Lausanne it's explicit in article 37 under "Protection of Minorities": Turkey undertakes that the stipulation's contained in Article 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulation's, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.

Then you're right again: Armenians are not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne. But something doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned to be protected by law. And when it comes to the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turkish government interprets the Treaty as covering Armenians, Greeks, and Jews and their linguistic rights. That's what secondary sources say. (If you want other primary sources, you can read the court decisions I linked above.) This new high-quality secondary RS centered on the topic explains things clearly:

• Oran farther points out that the rights set out for the four categories are stated to be the ‘fundamental law’ of the land, so that no legislation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations or prevail over them (article 37). [...] According to the Turkish state, only Greek, Armenian and Jewish non-Muslims were granted minority protection by the Lausanne Treaty.133 An examination of the treaty demonstrates that there are no specific references to Armenians, Jews, or other non-Muslim groups such as the Nestorians, Chaldeans, or Assyrians. Except for Greeks, the other groups do not appear in the treaty, even though they had presented submissions to the conference. However, article 42(3) of the Lausanne Treaty mentions the protection of ‘churches, synagogues, cemeteries’, which implies that places o f worship of all non-Muslim minorities are protected. It nevertheless remains difficult to explain the Turkish state’s selective approach towards some non-Muslims, as others were not afforded the protection of Lausanne by the Turkish state.1 [...] Except for non-Muslim populations - that is, Greeks, Jews and Armenians - none of the other minority groups’ language rights have been de jure protected by the legal system in Turkey. (Bayır, Derya (2016). Minorities and nationalism in Turkish law. Cultural diversity and law. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-59551-1.)

Other new secondary sources

• In the Lausanne treaty, people of the republic were defined through a religion based definition, similar to the Ottoman concept of millet (nation). For example, the non-Muslim minorities such as Armenians, Greeks, and Jews were recognized as minorities, and their language rights were identified in articles 39, 40, and 41. (Uzum, Melike; Demir, Nurettin (2017-10-24). "Minority Language Education and Policy in Turkey: The Case of Cankiri Poshas". Journal of Universality of Global Education Issues. 4. ISSN 2575-9388.)
• The situation for the non-Muslim communi- ties in Istanbul changed considerably with the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. They were granted privileges unknown to any other ethnic or linguistic group in Turkey by Articles 3842 of the Treaty of Lausanne, but they were now isolated. [...] those schools where the principal language of instruction is one of the officially recognized minority languages play a key role for language maintenance. Whereas both Greeks and Armenians lost no time in exercising their linguistic rights, the Jews renounced them on the assumption that the equality of all citizens, irrespective of race or creed, guaranteed by the Turkish Consti- tution, made such rights redundant (cf. Shaw 1991, 287f). As a result Judaeo-Spanish is not taught in the two Jewish minority schools, but classes in Hebrew are offered. (Strauß, Johann (2008-07-14), "European Turkey", European Turkey, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1554–1560, doi:10.1515/9783110151541.2.14.1554/pdf, ISBN 978-3-11-020324-0, retrieved 2023-10-08)
• Dans le Traité de Lausanne (→ art. 187) l’Etat turc reconnut la permanence de la minorité linguistique grécophone, mais pas sur un pied d’égalité avec la langue officielle. Les droits linguistiques dont elle devait jouir, se limitaient à un nombre restreint de prérogatives, surtout dans le domaine de la culture et de l’éducation (→ art. 187). (Strauß, Johann (2008-07-14), "Turc—grec", Turc—grec, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1560–1565, doi:10.1515/9783110151541.2.14.1560/html?lang=en, ISBN 978-3-11-020324-0, retrieved 2023-10-08)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think this means "minority language"? Also if I'm not mistaken, Jews in Turkey spoke Ladino, not Hebrew. Hebrew can not be a minority language. Education language =/= minority language. Which means these sources are simply wrong. Your source also says there are other non-Muslim groups, which proves my point. Yet, I think, even if there was such mention, this does not mean a minority language. Minority languages are either defined by constitution or by laws passed by the parliament. Most of Lausanne is obsolete, and they aren't superior to Turkish laws. I would also like to here other people as well. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on Armenian first here please. Your comment shows again your lack of legal understanding. It's fine, but at least trust secondary RS instead of only relying on your own interpretation of the legal text. The above RS says: Except for non-Muslim populations - that is, Greeks, Jews and Armenians - none of the other minority groups’ language rights have been de jure protected by the legal system in Turkey. If I turn the negative sentence into a positive one it means "the Armenian minority group’ language rights have been de jure protected by the legal system in Turkey" Which is the definition of a legally recognized minority language. Then the meaning of this recognition may vary by countries: in some it's education, in others it's about the media, etc. The rights given by the state can be very large or very limited: it doesn't matter, here we just say that there is some sort of official recognition. Then the article can explain in details what this recognition entails in practice. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Beshogur, I think A455bcd8 has a point here and I think you're putting too much emphasis on your interpretion of the Treaty which is a WP:PRIMARY problem. I think the clause of Lausanne that you quoted at the beginning of this thread is the right one. Even though Armenians aren't explicitly referenced, secondary sources would have told you that the Turkish government has historically accepted that it nevertheless impliedly refers to to Armenians, Greeks and Jews (but only to them). The language rights are quite limited though - just educational purposes etc. See Toktas, Sule (2006). "EU enlargement conditions and minority protection : a reflection on Turkey's non-Muslim minorities". East European quarterly. 40: 489–519. ISSN 0012-8449.: Turkey signed the Covenant [ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ] on 15 August 2000 and ratified it on 23 September 2003. However, Turkey put a reservation on Article 27 of the Covenant which limited the scope of the right of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion or to use their own language. This reservation provides that this right will be implemented and applied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This implies that Turkey grants educational right in minority languages only to the recognized minorities covered by the Lausanne who are the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews. (my emphasis) DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinion @DeCausa. Please note that this is precisely the source that was reverted by Beshogur. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Any indication that minority language on wikipedia template means educational language? All of those on the infobox are ratifications, thus legit stuff, while this is not. It's very ambigious sentence, does not even mention these three languages. That's how these sources interpret.

Also see my source: There are no special provisions about Armenians in the Lausanne Treaty. The status of Armenians left in Turkey was regulated in the 37th and 45th Articles of the Lausanne Treaty like other non-Muslim minorities. Apart from these minority rights, with Articles 30, 31 and 32, the application right in two years was given for everyone who wanted to switch to Turkish nationality. The articles where the status of minorities is dealt with in Lausanne Treaty are as follows ... Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say. The secondary sources are quite clear on the position. I can't see anything in your post which contradicts what I said. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Any indication that minority language on wikipedia template means educational language?", yes, the field is intended for the "list of countries in which it is a recognized/protected minority language. This is intended for legal protection and similar de jure recognition, not simply being listed on a census and other de facto recognition." per {{Infobox language}}. It's exactly the case here: Armenian is de jure recognized and protected as a minority language.

Your source does not contradict that the linguistic rights of Armenian speakers are de jure recognized and protected by the Republic of Turkey. Also, I think it's a weak source: although it's written by a scholar, it's published on the website of a research project that accepts any article: We present the articles that we have received from the historians and scientists that have accepted our call to our readers by separating them into certain categories. The articles that were collected were not in any way subject to a preliminary definition or preference. We have tried to put forward the available knowledge on this subject by publishing almost all of the articles that we have received except for those articles that were not accepted for technical reasons. Of course this work that we have carried out is not complete yet. The subject needs to be shed light on in may aspects. Therefore, we will continue to add those articles that we receive on our web site. (About the project) so it looks like a case of WP:SELFPUBLISH to me. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh, this is a Marmara University website, founded in 1883. I used the source to quote the particular article. Still I don't see any de jure recognition. This implies that Turkey grants educational right in minority languages only to the recognized minorities covered by the Lausanne who are the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews is literally the author's opinion. Beshogur (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I know what Marmara University is... It doesn't matter. It's not a peer-reviewed paper or a book published by a reliable publisher. It's just a blog of a project. Being hosted by the website of Marmara University does not make it RS. And again: it does not contradict what we said. I provided dozens of reliable sources. You stick to your own interpretation of the Treaty. A WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR problem. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I put this website for the particular article. And we're going to stick to some random authors' interpretation/opinions of the treaty? The treaty clearly does not mention this, and you're keep pushing it. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Treaty referred only to the “non-Muslim minorities”.11 Though they are not explicitly named as such in Lausanne, they are Armenians, Jews and Greeks, the traditional groups of the Ottoman “millet” system.12 However, some legal experts argue that, theoretically all the minorities of Turkey are under Lausanne’s umbrella.13

So we're still going to take this speculation? This author tells how it is. Beshogur (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not speculation! It's reliable sources reporting how the Turkish government interpret and apply Lausanne. Here's another one: The only minorities recognized by the Treaty of Lausanne were non-Muslims, which Ankara continues to interpret as applying only to Jews, Armenians, and Greek Orthodox Christians. Kurds (along with other groups such as Alevis, Arabs, and Laz) were deemed part of the Turkish nation[1]. The issue your source is referring to is the push to extend the recognition beyond Jews, Armenians and Greeks, which the Turkish government is resisting - but the government accepts it applies to Jews, Armenians and Greeks. Human Rights Watch are explicit on this: the Turkish government accepts the language rights of the Jewish, Greek and Armenian minorities as being guaranteed by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. But the government claims that these are Turkey's only minorities, and that any talk of minority rights beyond this is just separatism see Questions and Answers: Freedom of Expression and Language Rights in Turkey. New York: Human Rights Watch. April 2002.. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding Turkey rejects this, right? But the government claims that these are Turkey's only minorities, and that any talk of minority rights beyond this is just separatism Beshogur (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Turkey accepts it that Lausanne gives the rights to Armenians (and Greeks and Jews) but not to others like Kurds. Are you clear on that now? DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This recent centered RS sums up the various points we discussed, including issues related to separatism:

The fact that Turkish constitutional law takes an even more restrictive approach to minority rights than required under the Treaty of Lausanne was recognised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its concluding observations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of Turkey. The CERD noted that “the treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly prohibit the recognition of other groups as minorities” and that Turkey should consider recognising the minority status of other groups, such as Kurds. In practice, this means that Turkey grants minority rights to “Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities while denying their possible impact for unrecognized minority groups (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Arabs, Syriacs, Protestants, Roma etc.)”. Thus, the Turkish reservation purports to grant Turkey the freedom to limit a right intended for all persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities – in other words, a right which “establishes and recognises a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups” – to just one elevated subset of one category of minorities, namely particular non-Muslims. Furthermore, Turkey has issued the same reservation to other important international instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that connection, Turkey purports to exempt itself from the obligation to respect the rights of children belonging to minority groups other than the Greek, Armenian and Jewish communities. This includes the obligation, contained in Article 29(c), to ensure that the education of the child shall be directed to, inter alia, the development of respect for the child’s cultural identity and language. [...] Nothing in Turkey’s explanation indicates the level of importance that it attaches to the reservation. However, in its combined second and third periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey highlights that the state’s “supreme interests” require minority rights to be used “as a sign of respect for ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” rather than “as a tool for separatism and secessionism”. To that end, Turkey reports that “it is essential that current practices are sustained”. The report indicates that Turkey considers its current practices relating to minority rights essential to the avoidance of separatism and secessionism, and that its current practice is part of its supreme interests. This demonstrates that Turkey attaches a very great deal of importance to its reservation to Article 27. (Phillips, Thomas James (2020-12-16). "The (In-)Validity of Turkey's Reservation to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 27 (1): 66–93. doi:10.1163/15718115-02701001. ISSN 1385-4879.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just posting it here for the record, here are some decisions from the Constitutional Court of Turkey about the issue (cited by Bayır 2016):

• SBP 1995: Bir kez daha ve kısaca belirtmek gerekirse, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Lozan Barış Antlaşması ve Türkiye ile Bulgaristan Arasındaki Dostluk Antlaşması hükümlerine göre azınlık oldukları kabul edilen Rum, Ermeni, Musevi ve Bulgar'lardan başka azınlık yoktur.
• 2002/201: İptal konusu 4771 sayılı Yasa'nın 8. ve 11. maddeleriyle, hukuk sistemimize "yabancı dil" ibaresiyle birlikte "günlük yaşamda geleneksel olarak kullanılan farklı dil ve lehçe" kavramı girmiştir. Bu şekildeki bir deyim veya aynı anlama gelen bir ifade, Anayasa'nın 26. ve 42. maddelerinde bulunmadığı gibi diğer hükümlerinde de yer almamaktadır. Hernekadar Bölgesel ve Azınlık Dilleri Avrupa Sözleşmesinde, vatandaşların geleneksel olarak kullandıkları farklı dil ve lehçeler belirtilmekte ise de, sözü edilen bu Sözleşmeye Türkiye imza atmamış ve bu sözleşmenin tarafı olmamıştır. Bu nedenle, Anayasa'nın 42. ve 2923 sayılı Yasa'nın 2. maddesinde yer alan "milletlerarası andlaşma" kapsamında bulunmamaktadır. Sonuç olarak belirtmek gerekir ki, yukarıda sayılan her iki Yasa'da belirtilen "Milletlerarası andlaşma" kapsamında Lozan Andlaşmaşı ve Türkiye ve Bulgaristan Arasındaki Dostluk Andlaşmaşı dışında bu anlamda ülkemiz için Milletlerarası Andlaşma mevcut değildir. Bu nedenle 4771 sayılı Yasa ile getirilen yeni düzenlemelerle hukukumuza girmiş olan "vatandaşların geleneksel olarak kullandıkları farklı dil ve lehçeleri" ifadesi Anayasa ve Milletlerarası Andlaşmalarda yer almadığı gibi Anayasal dayanağı da bulunmamaktadır. (dissenting opinion)
• 2009/4
• 2010/82

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Remember the discussion about the name of Turkey? There is nothing wrong about primary sources when using straight quotes. Most of those sources talk about minority status of these three ethnic groups (yet Lausanne talks about "non-Moslems"). It's pure speculation made by these authors. Beshogur (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about primary sources when using straight quotes.: no, not when it comes to the law, even more so on complex legal issues such as international law. And in any case not if there's a dispute between contributors. We rely on reliable secondary sources. And reliable sources are clear. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Indo european language?

Why armenian language is vested within the language family called indo european language despite being just 1 branch, make it a language isolate? 182.2.137.92 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you questioning whether Armenian is an Indo-European language or are you questioning whether it is an isolate? DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

i think in my brain, the armenian is considered a language isolate with no similiarity and connections to indo european languages family. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:285E:FE91:A2CF:E723 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed your edit which I reverted. It is a member of the Indo-European language family. That family is divided into a number of branches each with a number of languages eg the Balto-Slavic branch splits into Russian, Polish, Bulgarian etc. However, the only language on the Armenian branch is the Armenian language. It is an isolate because it is the only language on that branch of the Indo-European language family. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

According to me there is no reason to classify armenian as a single branch of indo european languages family? 2404:8000:1027:2C72:285E:FE91:A2CF:E723 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry "according to me" is not something that works in Wikipedia. Reliable sources classify it as an Indo-European language and that's what we follow. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of Eastern and Western Armenian

The article says both:

• There are two standardized modern literary forms, Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian, with which most contemporary dialects are mutually intelligible.
• Although Western and Eastern Armenian are often described as different dialects of the same language, many subdialects are not readily mutually intelligible.

Which one is correct?

Do we have better (recent scientific) reliable sources on the mutual intelligibility? Those we currently source are weak:

• Rouben Paul Adalian 2010: he's a historian, not a linguist
• Ara Baliozian 1975: old source and he's not a linguist either
• George L. Campbell 2003: looks OK
• Sanjian, Avedis K. (1996): it's an in passing remark in a book about writing systems

I found:

• Bernard Comrie 2008 notes that: "Armenian, spoken primarily in Armenia though also in the Armenian diaspora originating in eastern Turkey, is another branch of Indo-European consisting of a single language, although the differences between Eastern Armenian (spoken mainly in Armenia) and Western Armenian (spoken originally mainly in Turkey) are considerable, and there are two written languages."
• Bert Vaux: "Homshetsma is generally treated as a dialect of western Armenian. The two are generally not mutually intelligible, however,"
• According to this article there are cases of non mutual intelligibility and Western Armenian speakers living in Armenia tend to switch to Eastern Armenian to make sure they're understood.
• In A grammar of Iranian Armenian, Bert Vaux et al. note: "There are two standardized dialects that are mutually intelligible after significant exposure: Standard Western Armenian (SWA) and Standard Eastern Armenian (SEA); henceforth Standard Western and Standard Eastern."
• Keith Brown 2010: "The relationship between the two modern literary dialects is somewhat complicated; there are many grammatical differences [...] and lexical differences [...], and most Western speakers have difficulty understanding Eastern, but many Eastern speakers are relatively comfortable with the Western dialect. This asymmetry in mutual intelligibility most likely results from the fact that large numbers of speakers of Western dialects fled to Eastern Armenia following the Russo-Turkish war in 1828 and the Turkish Genocide in 1915—1920, whereas before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 most Western Armenians had little or no exposure to Eastern Armenian. The fact that there is some mutual intelligibility in both directions can also be linked to the fact that the literary dialects tend to borrow the same forms from Classical Armenian, and (at least in recent decades) employ the same newly coined words." (p. 70) (later republished in the 2013 Encyclopedia of Linguistics published by Taylor & Francis)

Based on the above sources I suggest the following text: There are two standardized modern literary forms, Eastern Armenian (spoken mainly in Armenia) and Western Armenian (spoken originally mainly in modern-day Turkey and, since the Armenian genocide, mostly in the diaspora). The differences between them are considerable but they are mutually intelligible after significant exposure. Some subdialects such as Homshetsi are not mutually intelligible with other varieties.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As no one reacted: I did it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Thanks for the explanation, a455bcd9 (Antoine), regarding the infobox. Are you going to reinstate the information removed in an existing/new subheading since the content is still topic related? Or shall I? I just don't want to duplicate our efforts. Archives908 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll do it now, sorry I should have done it at the same time, but there wasn't a section about status and usage: I'll add it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Archives908 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)