Talk:Arminiya

• Support the merge proposal. VartanM (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merge it to "Islam in Armenia" 71.105.97.180 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest making the primary title of this article Principality of Armenia, far more scholarly references. I can hardly find any to emirate.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ostikanate of Arminiya → Arminiya – WP:COMMONNAME "Arminiya" is, by far, the most common name of the province. See below. Երևանցի ^talk 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Google BooksReply

• "Arminiya" - 2,780 results
• "Arab rule in Armenia" - 76 results
• "Arab rule of Armenia" - 23 results
• "Emirate of Armenia" - 4 results
• "Armenian Emirate" - 2 results
• "Ostikanate of Arminiya" - 1 result

Comment: The problem is that Arminiya is not equal to Armenia, as the province did not encompass just Armenia, but also Albania, i.e. modern Azerbaijan, and the Diyar Bakr in the Jazira. An article on Arab rule in Armenia ought to be written focusing specifically on "in Armenia"aspect, but this article is about "Armenia (Caliphate province)" rather than the former. Constantine ✍ 19:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, the term "Armenia" isn't defined. The area from Kura River and around Lake UrmiatoMalatia, Sebastia and Cilicia has been called Armenia at some point in history. If the Arabs chose to call the province that included Iberia and Albania "Arminiya" when during that period the term "Armenia" referred to that Arab province and not the the traditional territory known as Armenia (i.e. the Armenian Highlands). I think the best possible solution is moving this article to Arminiya (province). Google Books gives us 441 results for "Arminiya" "province". --Երևանցի ^talk 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I beg to differ on the definition of Armenia, from Roman times until the migration of the 11th century, "Armenia" was pretty much the Arsacid Kingdom plus some vague Armenian-inhabited border territories, certainly not Cilicia for instance, and usually neither Armenia Minor, which was specifically distinguished from Armenia Magna. Anyhow, if we retain the name "Arminiya" in this article's title, I see no reason to add any disambiguation at all. This would be a clear case of primary usage IMO. Constantine ✍ 20:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the record (thanks Yerevanci for reminding me), I support a move to Arminiya. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. The term "Arminiya" is best disambiguated. The present title does a fine job. Srnec (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"The present title does a fine job"? There is only one mention of "Ostikanate of Arminiya" in Google Books. Let me interpret that for you. It means that this term is not academic, therefore should not be used in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. And why should "Arminiya" be disambiguated, when it's only used in this context? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I still suggest Principate of Armenia akin to Principate of Iberia with an additional Arab rule in Armenia like Arab rule in Georgia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is a possibility to consider. Actually, I don't think we need "Principate of Armenia" (it isn't a used term [1]). --Երևանցի ^talk 19:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Semantics. See Principality of Armenia: [2]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem is it is also used for pre-royal Cilician Armenia and can also refer to the marzpanate period.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• User:MarshallBagramyan what do you think? --Երևանցի ^talk 04:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Support Both names are equally correct, but ostikanate is somehow a stange term in English. And it is rarely used in English acad. literature. Arminiya is enough - it includes the concept of Ostikanate. And there was no other state / province called Arminiya. Хаченци (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment: I've always thought Aram Ter-Ghevondyan to be the expert on this period. His book, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, was translated into English in 1976 and is available for viewing online here. He discusses the formation of Arab administrative divisions in Armenia. There is also his article, available unfortunately only in Armenian:『Դիտողություններ «ոստիկան» բառի մասին』[Observations on the word "ostikan"]. Patma-Banasirakan Handes 4 (1962), pp. 243–48. Arminiya is the name the Arabs used, but perhaps "Ostikanate of" will help avoid confusion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Support per WP:CONCISE. The proposed title already redirects here. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article contains red links. Arabic Wiki articles are available for some of them:

• Habib ibn Maslama al-Fihri
• al-Ash'ath ibn Qays al-Kindi [ar]

--Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The lead and the title specifies that this article covers Arminiya, which included the principalities of Armenia, Iberia and Albania but the article itself ONLY covers Armenia and there is a separate article for the Principality of Iberia which was part of Arminiya under Arab dominion?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arminiya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203008/http://rbedrosian.com/ostikans.htmtohttp://rbedrosian.com/ostikans.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715122343/http://rbedrosian.com/ghew4.htmtohttp://rbedrosian.com/ghew4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The title of ishkhan has no relation with the Turkic/Mongolian word 'khan', as the attestion of the word predates the arrival of the Turks. Otherwise sources such as Jones, Lynn (2007). Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght'amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership wouldn't have used the term, as it would be anachronistic. Moreover, this is also what the source says; "The title ishkhan ishkhanats‘, rendered as ‘presiding prince’ or ‘prince of princes’, appears for the first time in John Catholicos’ account in reference to Bagarat Bagratuni, uncle of the future king Ashot I" - page 2, note 3. The author John Catholicos (Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi) lived before the arrival of the Turks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply