text:
Adélaïde d'Orléans

Louise Marie Adélaïde Eugénie d'Orléans (23 August 1777 – 31 December 1847) was a French princess, one of the daughters of Philippe d'Orléans, known as Philippe Égalité during the French Revolution, and Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. She was titled Mademoiselle de Chartres at birth, Mademoiselle d'Orléans at the death of her older twin sister in 1782, Mademoiselle (1783–1812), Madame Adélaïde (1830). As a member of the reigning House of Bourbon, she was a princesse du sang.

Biography
Adélaïde and her older twin sister Françoise were born at the Palais Royal on 23 August 1777 to Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans and Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. Françoise died in 1782, aged four. She was raised according to the liberal principles of her governess, Madame de Genlis, principles which also became her own political conviction. She received an excellent but also very hard and strenuous education; to harden herself, she learned to sleep on a hard bed and arise at six every day. She was deeply attached to her governess, and her mother's demand that de Genlis be replaced, though without success, was reportedly a cause of great worry for her. She was considered for marriage to the Duke of Angoulême, but the plans were prevented by queen Marie Antoinette. Later on, she was also considered for marriage to the Duke of Berry, which did not materialise either.

During the French Revolution, de Genlis on at least one occasion took her to the radical Cordelieres Club. In 1791, her father asked de Genlis to take her to England for her safety. The year after, he summoned them back to prevent Adelaide's name from being placed on the list of émigrés. When they arrived, however, de Genlis discovered that Adélaïde was already on the list and that her father, whose political situation had deteriorated, asked her to take Adélaïde out of the country again.

Adelaide received painting lessons from Pierre-Joseph Redouté and produced some highly regarded botanical studies as a result.

Life in exile
In 1792, she left France with de Genlis to the Austrian Netherlands and then to Switzerland, where she was placed in a convent in Bremgarten. During the Terror her father was guillotined, and her mother was banished to Spain. Sometime in the spring of 1794, Adélaïde moved to the home of her aunt, the Princess of Conti. They moved to Bavaria in 1798 and thereafter to Bratislava, and in 1801, she joined her mother in Barcelona in Spain. Her relationship with her mother was not good, as she disapproved of her mother's relationship with chancellor de Folmont.

On 25 November 1809, she and her mother attended the wedding of her brother Louis Philippe to Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily in Palermo on Sicily. After the wedding, she did not return with her mother to Spain, but preferred to live with her brother and sister-in-law at Palazzo Orléans in Palermo. She was described as completely devoted to her brother and his family: united with her sister-in-law in their mutual love and concern for him, and a second mother to his children.

Return to France
After the fall of Napoleon in 1814, she returned with her brother and his family to Paris and settled with them in Palais-Royal. During the Bourbon Restoration, Palais-Royal was described as a center of high society social life in the capital, and reportedly, despite the fact that custom dictated that she as an unmarried "spinster" was expected to live in the background, it was she rather than her more reserved sister-in-law who took the role of hostess.

She was described as firm, intellectual, and frank, and she was a leading force in the family councils of the House of Orléans. Her loyalty to her brother has been described as due to the fact that, early separated from her family, she was treated with reserve during her exile because of the political actions of her father during the revolution, and her brother was the first person she could lavish her affection upon. Louis Philippe, in turn, relied upon her intelligence and loyalty, made her his confidant and listened to her advice, and consequently, she came to exert great political influence upon him. Being brought up a liberal, she supported the idea of a constitutional monarchy and a representative government.

She was not on good terms with the reigning Bourbon family; because of their reactionary ideas, and also because the hostility shown by them toward the Orléans line, and to her particularly by Marie Thérèse of France. Adélaïde rather than her brother are described as the active head of the Orléans fraction, and she had the active desire and ambition to make him monarch. In her apartment at Palais-Royal, she hosted a salon which became the center of liberal opposition toward the regime, and by use of her great personal fortune, she supported the liberal press and various political actors, artists, intellectuals and influential figures to gather support for her brother, among them Talleyrand.

July Monarchy
When Louis-Philippe became King of the French in the reign known as the July Monarchy (1830–1848), she was known as Madame Adélaïde. All her life, she was his loyal advisor or, in 19th century parlance, his "Egeria". It was she who, reportedly, encouraged him to accept the crown during the July Revolution, and her influence continued undisturbed during his reign. When tumult followed the publication of the Ordinances in 1830 and erupted in the July revolution in Paris, the Orléans family was at the country estate Neuilly.

Adélaïde convinced Louis-Philippe that the moment was right for him to place himself as the leader of the opposition against the absolute monarchy of Charles X, and present himself as the candidate of a constitutional monarchy, in between the unpopular absolute monarchy and the republicanism. In this, she defeated the view of her sister-in-law Maria Amalia, who was loyal to the reigning older branch. When rumors arrived that the royalists were going to arrest Louis-Philippe, he evacuated to Raincy and the children were sent to Villiers-Coterets, but Adélaïde and Maria Amalia remained at Neuilly. When a delegation reached Neuilly and offered Louis-Philippe the crown, Maria Amalia refused the offer on behalf of herself and her spouse as an insult, reproaching Scheffer and Thiers for insulting them by having made it. Adélaïde, however, accepted it with the argument that her brother would do anything to prevent the country he loved from anarchy. Thiers accepted the answer of Adélaïde rather than the one from Maria Amalia with the words: "Madame, you have given the crown to your family". After this, several other visits followed from people asking Louis-Philippe to accept the crown: to all, Maria Amalia answered that Louis-Philippe was an honest man and thus could not do it, while Adélaïde contradicted her by stating, that the offer should be made to Louis-Philippe by the chamber of deputies; and if he should hesitate, she would herself go to Paris and accept the crown for him. Soon after, the Chamber of Deputies called Louis-Philippe to Paris to formally present him their offer. It has been estimated that he accepted the crown largely because of Adélaïde.

At 6 August 1830, she and her sister-in-law were present at the tribune on the ceremony at the chambers in Paris when Louis Philippe was declared King of the French. She and her sister-in-law visited those who had been wounded during the revolution, and supported them financially. In October 1830, a mob broke into the Palais-Royal, and repeated attempts were made to execute the ministers of the former regime, which was refused by Louis-Philippe. When marshal Gerard remarked that it would be difficult to save them, she replied: "Well Monsieur, then we will all perish in the attempt". During his reign, Louis-Philippe visited her daily, discussed the matters of state and family with her, and followed her advice. Her death was therefore regarded as a great loss not only on an emotional but also a political scale.

Adélaïde d'Orléans died on 31 December 1847, two months before Louis Philippe's abdication on 24 February 1848. She is buried in the Orléans family necropolis in the Royal Chapel of Dreux.

title: Adélaïde d'Orléans


text:
Talk:Memphis, Tennessee

Culture section
I feel as though Memphis deserves a culture section, it is a very unique city in America, including sites like Elvis’ Graceland. The Egyptian connection is somewhat unique as well: the massive bass pro shop pyramid, the University of Memphis’s renowned Egyptology department, and even the facade to their zoo is an Egyptian homage. Let me know what you think and how this section could potentially be filled out Utopiayouser (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * City of West Memphis Skyline Behind the Interstate 40 Hernando DeSoto Bridge.jpg

Wolf River
Why is no mention of this river made in the article? It flows through the city to the Mississippi River. - - Prairieplant (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Memphis, Tn Product Exports (2020).svg

New infobox image
I just wanted to preemptively voice my support for the new infobox image. Definitely an improvement. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Memphis, Tennessee


text:
Saturn (rocket family)

The Saturn family of American rockets was developed by a team of former German rocket engineers and scientists led by Wernher von Braun to launch heavy payloads to Earth orbit and beyond. The Saturn family used liquid hydrogen as fuel in the upper stages. Originally proposed as a military satellite launcher, they were adopted as the launch vehicles for the Apollo Moon program. Three versions were built and flown: the medium-lift Saturn I, the heavy-lift Saturn IB, and the super heavy-lift Saturn V.

The Saturn name was proposed by von Braun in October 1958 as a logical successor to the Jupiter series as well as the Roman god's powerful position.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy identified the Saturn I SA-5 launch as being the point where US lift capability would surpass the Soviets, after having been behind since Sputnik. He last mentioned this in a speech given at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio on the day before he was assassinated.

To date, the Saturn V is the only launch vehicle to transport human beings beyond low Earth orbit. A total of 24 humans were flown to the Moon in the four years spanning December 1968 through December 1972. No Saturn rocket failed catastrophically in flight.

Summary of variants
All the Saturn family rockets are listed here by date of introduction.

Early development
In the early 1950s, the US Navy and US Army actively developed long-range missiles with the help of German rocket engineers who were involved in developing the successful V-2 during the Second World War. These missiles included the Navy's Viking, and the Army's Corporal, Jupiter and Redstone. Meanwhile, the US Air Force developed its Atlas and Titan missiles, relying more on American engineers.

Infighting among the various branches was constant, with the United States Department of Defense (DoD) deciding which projects to fund for development. On November 26, 1956, Defense Secretary Charles E. Wilson issued a memorandum stripping the Army of offensive missiles with a range of 200 mi or greater, and turning their Jupiter missiles over to the Air Force. From that point on, the Air Force would be the primary missile developer, especially for dual-use missiles that could also be used as space launch vehicles.

In late 1956, the Department of Defense released a requirement for a heavy-lift vehicle to orbit a new class of communications and "other" satellites (the spy satellite program was top secret). The requirements, drawn up by the then-unofficial Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), called for a vehicle capable of putting 9,000 to 18,000 kilograms into orbit, or accelerating 2,700 to 5,400 kg to escape velocity.

Since the Wilson memorandum covered only weapons, not space vehicles, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) saw this as a way to continue the development of their own large-rocket projects. In April 1957, von Braun directed Heinz-Hermann Koelle, chief of the Future Projects design branch, to study dedicated launch vehicle designs that could be built as quickly as possible. Koelle evaluated a variety of designs for missile-derived launchers that could place a maximum of about 1,400 kg in orbit, but might be expanded to as much as 4,500 kg with new high-energy upper stages. In any event, these upper stages would not be available until 1961 or 1962 at the earliest, and the launchers would still not meet the DoD requirements for heavy loads.

In order to fill the projected need for loads of 10,000 kg or greater, the ABMA team calculated that a booster (first stage) with a thrust of about 1500000 lbf thrust would be needed, far greater than any existing or planned missile. For this role they proposed using a number of existing missiles clustered together to produce a single larger booster; using existing designs they looked at combining tankage from one Jupiter as a central core, with eight Redstone diameter tanks attached to it. This relatively cheap configuration allowed existing fabrication and design facilities to be used to produce this "quick and dirty" design.

Two approaches to building the Super-Jupiter were considered; the first used multiple engines to reach the 1500000 lbf mark, the second used a single much larger engine. Both approaches had their own advantages and disadvantages. Building a smaller engine for clustered use would be a relatively low-risk path from existing systems, but required duplication of systems and made the possibility of a stage failure much higher (adding engines generally reduces reliability, as per Lusser's law). A single larger engine would be more reliable, and would offer higher performance because it eliminated duplication of "dead weight" like propellant plumbing and hydraulics for steering the engines. On the downside, an engine of this size had never been built before and development would be expensive and risky. The Air Force had recently expressed an interest in such an engine, which would develop into the famed F-1, but at the time they were aiming for 1000000 lbf and the engines would not be ready until the mid-1960s. The engine-cluster appeared to be the only way to meet the requirements on time and budget.

Super-Jupiter was the first-stage booster only; to place payloads in orbit, additional upper stages would be needed. ABMA proposed using either the Titan or Atlas as a second stage, optionally with the new Centaur upper-stage. The Centaur had been proposed by General Dynamics (Astronautics Corp.) as an upper stage for the Atlas (also their design) in order to quickly produce a launcher capable of placing loads up to 8500 lb into low Earth orbit. The Centaur was based on the same "balloon tank" concept as the Atlas, and built on the same jigs at the same 120 in diameter. As the Titan was deliberately built at the same size as well, this meant the Centaur could be used with either missile. Given that the Atlas was the higher priority of the two ICBM projects and its production was fully accounted for, ABMA focused on "backup" design, Titan, although they proposed extending it in length in order to carry additional fuel.

In December 1957, ABMA delivered Proposal: A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program to the DoD, detailing their clustered approach. They proposed a booster consisting of a Jupiter missile airframe surrounded by eight Redstones acting as tankage, a thrust plate at the bottom, and four Rocketdyne E-1 engines, each having 380000 lbf of thrust. The ABMA team also left the design open to future expansion with a single 1500000 lbf engine, which would require relatively minor changes to the design. The upper stage was the lengthened Titan, with the Centaur on top. The result was a very tall and skinny rocket, quite different from the Saturn that eventually emerged.

Specific uses were forecast for each of the military services, including navigation satellites for the Navy; reconnaissance, communications, and meteorological satellites for the Army and Air Force; support for Air Force crewed missions; and surface-to-surface logistics supply for the Army at distances up to 6400 km. Development and testing of the lower stage stack were projected to be completed by 1963, about the same time that the Centaur should become available for testing in combination. The total development cost of $850 million during the years 1958-1963 covered 30 research and development flights.

Sputnik stuns the world
While the Super-Jupiter program was being drawn up, preparations were underway for the first satellite launch as the US contribution to the International Geophysical Year in 1957. For complex political reasons, the program had been given to the US Navy under Project Vanguard. The Vanguard launcher consisted of a Viking lower stage combined with new uppers adapted from sounding rockets. ABMA provided valuable support on Viking and Vanguard, both with their first-hand knowledge of the V-2, as well as developing its guidance system. The first three Vanguard suborbital test flights had gone off without a hitch, starting in December 1956, and a launch was planned for late 1957.

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union surprised the world with the launch of Sputnik I. Although there had been some indications that the Soviets were working towards this goal, few in the U.S. military and scientific establishment considered these efforts seriously.

When asked in November 1954 about the possibility of the Soviets launching a satellite, Defense Secretary Wilson replied: "I wouldn't care if they did." The public did not see it the same way, however, and the event was a major public relations disaster for the US. Vanguard was planned to launch shortly after Sputnik, but a series of delays pushed this into December, when the rocket exploded in spectacular fashion. The press was harsh, referring to the project as "Kaputnik" or "Project Rearguard". As Time magazine noted at the time:

 * But in the midst of the cold war, Vanguard's cool scientific goal proved to be disastrously modest: the Russians got there first. The post-Sputnik White House explanation that the U.S. was not in a satellite "race" with Russia was not just an after-the-fact alibi. Said Dr. Hagen ten months ago: "We are not attempting in any way to race with the Russians". But in the eyes of the world, the U.S. was in a satellite race whether it wanted to be or not, and because of the Administration's costly failure of imagination, Project Vanguard shuffled along when it should have been running. It was still shuffling when Sputnik's beeps told the world that Russia's satellite program, not the U.S.'s, was the vanguard.

Von Braun responded to Sputnik I's launch by claiming he could have a satellite in orbit within 90 days of being given a go-ahead. His plan was to combine the existing Jupiter C rocket (confusingly, a Redstone adaptation, not a Jupiter) with the solid-fuel engines from the Vanguard, producing the Juno I. There was no immediate response while everyone waited for Vanguard to launch, but the continued delays in Vanguard and the November launch of Sputnik II resulted in the go-ahead being given that month. Von Braun kept his promise with the successful launch of Explorer I on 1 February 1958. Vanguard was finally successful on March 17, 1958.

ARPA selects Juno
Concerned that the Soviets continued to surprise the U.S. with technologies that seemed beyond their capabilities, the DoD studied the problem and concluded that it was primarily bureaucratic. As all of the branches of the military had their own research and development programs, there was considerable duplication and inter-service fighting for resources. Making matters worse, the DoD imposed its own Byzantine procurement and contracting rules, adding considerable overhead. To address these concerns, the DoD initiated the formation of a new research and development group focused on launch vehicles and given wide discretionary powers that cut across traditional Army/Navy/Air Force lines. The group was given the job of catching up to the Soviets in space technology as quickly as possible, using whatever technology it could, regardless of the origin. Formalized as Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) on February 7, 1958, the group examined the DoD launcher requirements and compared the various approaches that were currently available.

At the same time that ABMA was drawing up the Super-Jupiter proposal, the Air Force was in the midst of working on their Titan C concept. The Air Force had gained valuable experience working with liquid hydrogen on the Lockheed CL-400 Suntan spy plane project and felt confident in their ability to use this volatile fuel for rockets. They had already accepted Krafft Ehricke's arguments that hydrogen was the only practical fuel for upper stages, and started the Centaur project based on the strength of these arguments. Titan C was a hydrogen-burning intermediate stage that would normally sit between the Titan lower and Centaur upper, or could be used without the Centaur for low-Earth orbit missiles like Dyna-Soar. However, as hydrogen is much less dense than "traditional" fuels then in use, especially kerosene, the upper stage would have to be fairly large in order to hold enough fuel. As the Atlas and Titan were both built at 120" diameters it would make sense to build Titan C at this diameter as well, but this would result in an unwieldy tall and skinny rocket with dubious strength and stability. Instead, Titan C proposed building the new stage at a larger 160" diameter, meaning it would be an entirely new rocket.

In comparison, the Super-Jupiter design was based on off-the-shelf components, with the exception of the E-1 engines. Although it too relied on the Centaur for high-altitude missions, the rocket was usable for low-Earth orbit without Centaur, which offered some flexibility in case Centaur ran into problems. ARPA agreed that the Juno proposal was more likely to meet the timeframes required, although they felt that there was no strong reason to use the E-1, and recommended a lower-risk approach here as well. ABMA responded with a new design, the Juno V (as a continuation of the Juno I and Juno II series of rockets, while Juno III and IV were unbuilt Atlas- and Titan-derived concepts), which replaced the four E-1 engines with eight H-1s, a much more modest upgrade of the existing S-3D already used on the Thor and Jupiter missiles, raising thrust from 150,000 to 188,000 lbf (670 to 840 kN). It was estimated that this approach would save as much as $60 million in development and cut as much as two years of R&D time.

Happy with the results of the redesign, on August 15, 1958, ARPA issued Order Number 14-59 that called on ABMA to:

 * Initiate a development program to provide a large space vehicle booster of approximately 1 500 000-lb. thrust based on a cluster of available rocket engines. The immediate goal of this program is to demonstrate a full-scale captive dynamic firing by the end of CY 1959.

This was followed on September 11, 1958, with another contract with Rocketdyne to start work on the H-1. On September 23, 1958, ARPA and the Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC) drew up an additional agreement enlarging the scope of the program, stating "In addition to the captive dynamic firing..., it is hereby agreed that this program should now be extended to provide for a propulsion flight test of this booster by approximately September 1960". Further, they wanted ABMA to produce three additional boosters, the last two of which would be "capable of placing limited payloads in orbit."

By this point, many in the ABMA group were already referring to the design as Saturn, as von Braun explained it as a reference to the planet after Jupiter. The name change became official in February 1959.

NASA involvement
In addition to ARPA, various groups within the US government had been considering the formation of a civilian agency to handle space exploration. After the Sputnik launch, these efforts gained urgency and were quickly moved forward. NASA was formed on July 29, 1958, and immediately set about studying the problem of crewed space flight, and the launchers needed to work in this field. One goal, even in this early stage, was a crewed lunar mission. At the time, the NASA panels felt that the direct ascent mission profile was the best approach; this placed a single very large spacecraft in orbit, which was capable of flying to the Moon, landing and returning to Earth. To launch such a large spacecraft, a new booster with much greater power would be needed; even the Saturn was not nearly large enough. NASA started examining a number of potential rocket designs under their Nova program.

NASA was not alone in studying crewed lunar missions. Von Braun had always expressed an interest in this goal, and had been studying what would be required for a lunar mission for some time. ABMA's Project Horizon proposed using fifteen Saturn launches to carry up spacecraft components and fuel that would be assembled in orbit to build a single very large lunar craft. This Earth orbit rendezvous mission profile required the least amount of booster capacity per launch, and was thus able to be carried out using the existing rocket design. This would be the first step towards a small crewed base on the moon, which would require several additional Saturn launches every month to supply it.

The Air Force had also started their Lunex Project in 1958, also with a goal of building a crewed lunar outpost. Like NASA, Lunex favored the direct ascent mode, and therefore required much larger boosters. As part of the project, they designed an entirely new rocket series known as the Space Launcher System, or SLS (not to be confused with the Space Launch System part of the Artemis program), which combined a number of solid-fuel boosters with either the Titan missile or a new custom booster stage to address a wide variety of launch weights. The smallest SLS vehicle consisted of a Titan and two strap-on solids, giving it performance similar to Titan C, allowing it to act as a launcher for Dyna-Soar. The largest used much larger solid-rockets and a much-enlarged booster for their direct ascent mission. Combinations in-between these extremes would be used for other satellite launching duties.

Silverstein Committee
A government commission, the "Saturn Vehicle Evaluation Committee" (better known as the Silverstein Committee), was assembled to recommend specific directions that NASA could take with the existing Army program. The committee recommended the development of new, hydrogen-burning upper stages for the Saturn, and outlined eight different configurations for heavy-lift boosters ranging from very low-risk solutions making heavy use of existing technology, to designs that relied on hardware that had not been developed yet, including the proposed new upper stage. The configurations were:

Saturn A

 * A-1 – Saturn lower stage, Titan second stage, and Centaur third stage (von Braun's original concept).
 * A-2 – Saturn lower stage, proposed clustered Jupiter second stage, and Centaur third stage.

Saturn B

 * B-1 – Saturn lower stage, proposed clustered Titan second stage, proposed S-IV third stage and Centaur fourth stage.

Saturn C
Contracts for the development of a new hydrogen-burning engine were given to Rocketdyne in 1960 and for the development of the Saturn IV stage to Douglas the same year.
 * C-1 – Saturn lower stage, proposed S-IV second stage (similar to the actual Saturn I).
 * C-2 – Saturn lower stage, proposed S-II second stage, proposed S-IV third stage.
 * C-3, C-4, and C-5 – all based on different variations of a new lower stage using F-1 engines, variations of proposed S-II second stages, and proposed S-IV third stages (with C-5 being similar to the actual Saturn V).

Apollo program
The challenge that President John F. Kennedy put to NASA in May 1961 to put an astronaut on the Moon by the end of the decade put a sudden new urgency on the Saturn program. That year saw a flurry of activity as different means of reaching the Moon were evaluated.

Both the Nova and Saturn rockets, which shared a similar design and could share some parts, were evaluated for the mission. However, it was judged that the Saturn would be easier to get into production, since many of the components were designed to be air-transportable. Nova would require new factories for all the major stages, and there were serious concerns that they could not be completed in time. Saturn required only one new factory, for the largest of the proposed lower stages, and was selected primarily for that reason.

The Saturn C-5 (later given the name Saturn V), the most powerful of the Silverstein Committee's configurations, was selected as the most suitable design. At the time the mission mode had not been selected, so they chose the most powerful booster design in order to ensure that there would be ample power. Selection of the lunar orbit rendezvous method reduced the launch weight requirements below those of the Nova, into the C-5's range.

At this point, however, all three stages existed only on paper, and it was realized that it was very likely that the actual lunar spacecraft would be developed and ready for testing long before the booster. NASA, therefore, decided to also continue development of the C-1 (later Saturn I) as a test vehicle, since its lower stage was based on existing technology (Redstone and Jupiter tankage) and its upper stage was already in development. This would provide valuable testing for the S-IV as well as a launch platform for capsules and other components in low earth orbit.

The members of the Saturn family that were actually built were:
 * Saturn I – ten rockets flew: five development flights, and five launches of boilerplate Apollo spacecraft and Pegasus micrometeoroid satellites.
 * Saturn IB – nine launches; a refined version of the Saturn I with a more powerful first stage (designated the S-IB) and using the Saturn V's S-IVB as a second stage. These carried the first Apollo flight crew, plus three Skylab and one Apollo-Soyuz crews, into Earth orbit.
 * Saturn V – 13 launches; the Moon rocket that sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, and carried the Skylab space station into orbit.

title: Saturn (rocket family)


text:
Talk:Koji Kondo

NES sound hardware
"Kondo found himself in a totally different environment at Nintendo. Suddenly, he was limited to only three 'instruments' (melody, harmony, and percussion) due to the system's primitive sound chip. Though he and Nintendo's technicians eventually discovered a way to add a fourth channel (normally reserved for sound effects), his music was still severely limited on the system."

I feel this is inaccurate. I have made music on the NES myself and I know it has five channels, not four: two pulse waves (melody and harmony), a triangle wave (bass), noise (percussion), and DPCM (sampled instruments, usually percussion but can be, say, voice clips). I'm guessing the channel that had to be "discovered" was the DPCM channel, since, e.g., Super Mario Bros. used all the other four channels (many earlier games didn't use the noise channel but they were usually ports of arcade games that didn't use percussive sounds). Super Mario Bros. 3 used all five channels. I'm going to revise this now. --Furrykef 14:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the correction. Always nice to have people with actual expertise look after the rest of us! Amcaja 19:33, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I second that comment :) - Fredrik (talk) 19:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Opinions on Earthbound
I removed the following paragraphs:

"A great example for fans (or otherwise) of Koji Kondo, who criticise for lack of style development / evolution, would be the soundtrack from Nintendo's 1994 hit RPG EarthBound. The music in this game is definitely different, to say the very least, and strays away from what most people who may be used to Koji's work would expect."

"The musical styles enjoyed and used by Koji Kondo, are probably most noteable on the Super Famicom (SNES) title 'EarthBound' (Nintendo/Hal Laboratories - June 27th, 1994 (US release)). In this RPG set in modern-day times, as many players and fans will tell you, the musical score was one of the most enjoyable, hard-hitting aspects of this game. The soundtrack was enough to inspire fans worldwide, and create somewhat of a 'cult following', for Koji and his music. Alot of the main themes and overworld tunes for this game were actually converted from actual western music songs/albums, (note: Paula's theme and Runaway 5 theme, 'Because I love you', 'Smiles and Tears' (used as close of game theme)), and converted to NES sound channels. Sometime after this game caught on in the USA, there was an orchestrated version of this game soundtrack composed, and made available on the internet. Unfortunately, it seems as if this album of sorts has vanished for good. (cooey-at-cooey.org for anymore info regarding this game and it's soundtrack)."

The reason is that this is unsourced personal opinion. If a source is added, we can reinstate this, working to reword it to follow the neutral point of view policy. —Amcaja 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace
I honestly have no idea where the guy was born. But if someone wants to change it, please cite your source. Thanks! — Amcaja 12:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sound Support and Advising
These days, Kondo has done either of these roles in most games, only really working as a composer on a few. Is it okay to state in the Soundtracks listing whether he has been credited as these roles? --Chicobo329 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Games he supported or advised on: Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Vs. Donkey Kong, The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (thanks for correcting me on that one, Brian!), The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (in Special Thanks), The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages (in Special Thanks), Mario Kart Super Circuit. His role in the Smash Bros. games are also either support or advising (Hirokazu Ando did most of the work as actual composer, not Kondo) --Chicobo329 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

neutralized one sentence
Original version (as of 5/30/06):

"...due to the system's primitive sound chip"

Edited version:

"...due to limitations of the system's sound chip"

The word "primitive" is not neutral and is relative. The sound chip had limitations. -R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.43.142.237 (talk • contribs).
 * Good call. Thanks for the summary. — Amcaja 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I also edited a few bits and pieces for grammar and flow...very minor. -R

Citation frenzy
I don't think one needs a citation in order to judge the category of any artistic work - it is common knowledge that needs no reference.

I am referring to the 'Andalusian flair' that characterizes the Gerudo Valley theme. If one listens to the song, there is very little need for a citation to exorbitantly "confirm" that it has Spanish influences.

 * Disregarding the question of whether or not a citation is needed, I personally think "Andalusian flair" is not specific enough. The Gerudo Valley theme is clearly written as a flamenco guitar piece.
 * Exactly why a citation is needed. We are not supposed to be interpreting such things; professional reviewers and musicologists are. Thus, we need to find someone in a reliable source who describes the song in such a way and add a citation to that person's opinion. — Amcaja 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. It should be noted, then, for consistency, that the main Ocarina of Time article does refer to the Gerudo music as flamenco, presumably also without citation. Vogelfrei 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

change of format
i think someone should take into consideration that this is not a discography but an encyclopedia entry, the fact that 3/4 of the page is an album listing might need to be reconsidered

 * I would concur... Although it looks like a lot of work went into the list of albums and games, it makes up most of the article. I don't want to step into a wasp's nest if this has been discussed and re-hashed before, but is this info really all that necessary in this format?  If it needs to be in wikipedia, then perhaps there's another place for it. ----Steve 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems as if it could be it's own article, Koji Kondo's Discography. --207.179.172.220 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct year of birth?
There is a mismatch in the year (1960 vs. 1961) of birth between different language versions. Which one is correct?
 * It's 1961, per the Ocarina of Time Re-Arranged Album liner notes. Dissident93 06:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

mario galaxy sountrack

 * Composed by Mahito Yokota (1.2.4.5.6.9~12.14~17.19~26)
 * Koji Kondo (7.8.13.18)
 * Originally composed by Koji Kondo, re-arranged by Mahito Yokota (3.27.28)

 * 1. Overture	1:23
 * 2. Starbit Festival	1:29
 * 3. Attack! Koopa's Fleet	1:19
 * 4. Catastrophe	0:54
 * 5. Peach's Castle is Stolen 0:32
 * 6. Into the Galaxy 1:25
 * 7. Egg Planet 2:41
 * 8. Rosetta's Comet Observatory 1 2:27
 * 9. Honeybee Kingdom 2:37
 * 10. Stardust Road 3:21
 * 11. Battlerock 3:20
 * 12. Grass Beach 2:21
 * 13. Rosetta's Comet Observatory 2 2:24
 * 14. Koopa Jr. Appears 2:54
 * 15. Teresa Waltz 2:52
 * 16. Floater Land 3:11
 * 17. Wind Garden 3:44
 * 18. Rosetta's Comet Observatory 3 2:44
 * 19. Nemesis King Koopa 3:14
 * 20. Hell Prominence 4:08
 * 21. Galaxy Plant 2:27
 * 22. Battle for the Grand Star 2:25
 * 23. Dawn ~A New Morning~ 0:56
 * 24. Birth 1:56
 * 25. Super Mario Galaxy 4:03
 * 26. Purple Comet 3:02
 * 27. Blue Sky Athletics 1:10
 * 28. Super Mario 2007 2:19

can someone get a source of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.37.199 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for Paul McCartney statement
Can anyone provide a source for the statement that Kondo "can count such talent as Paul McCartney among his admirers"? That's a pretty big statement to make without any sort of sourcing. Gatotsu911 (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discography
Why is Duck Hunt not listed under Discography? According to Duck Hunt, he collaborated with Hirokazu Tanaka on Duck Hunt's music/sound. I would be Bold and add it to the Discography; however, I thought it might be good to know if Duck Hunt's article is inaccurate before adding that information. Thanks, 67.182.237.57 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one addressed my post, I made the change myself. (I put it under 1984 (since that's when it debuted in Japan), and listed his role as composition, as well as showed Hirokazu Tanaka as his "co-worker") Please adjust the information that I added if it is inaccurate. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Kondo only joined Nintendo in April 1984 – the month the game was released – I guess the possibility that he co-composed its music is pretty slim. I therefore removed Duck Hunt from his credits, and Koji Kondo from the respective article. Sources for his involvement in Golf, Family BASIC and Soccer would be good here, too, as I've never seen him associated with those, and in this interview, he says his first Nintendo project was Family BASIC. Prime Blue (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prime Blue, I was unaware that Kondo joined Nintendo at that time. My bad. Yeah, that's funny to think that he PROBABLY DIDN'T work on a game the same month it was released. Sorry about the trouble. Good work checking up on sources; thanks for pointing that out and making the necessary changes to both articles. Keep up the good work. I'll try to be on the lookout for any sources that validate his work with the three video games you mentioned, but will at the same time admit that you'll probably find them much easier--it's obvious that you know quite well how to find good solid sources. I am very lacking in that ability. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No biggie, definitely not your fault there. His early discography is kind of shrouded in mystery still, so it's only natural that some games are attributed to him which he did not work on. That's not even to say that he did not work on Duck Hunt, I've just never come across a source for his involvement in it. Will be clearer once more sources turn up. Prime Blue (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is true; you can't necessarily rule that out. It is kind of exciting to think there are still many sources waiting to be discovered/explored that will bring many of these mysteries to light. It will be interesting to see what new information will be gleaned from these sources. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Koji Kondo. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72971
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.originalsoundversion.com/koji-kondo-talks-ocarina-of-time-gives-details-on-skyward-sword/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811172047/http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/twilightprincess/inside04.jsp to http://www.zelda.com/universe/game/twilightprincess/inside04.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007211957/http://archive.videogamesdaily.com/features/koji_kondo_iv_p1.asp to http://archive.videogamesdaily.com/features/koji_kondo_iv_p1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Koji Kondo. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72971
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929062439/http://www.1up.com/news/mario-music to http://www.1up.com/news/mario-music
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.originalsoundversion.com/koji-kondo-talks-ocarina-of-time-gives-details-on-skyward-sword/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Better infobox picture?
He looks like a Disney character in this 2015 shot, not a Nintendo figure. Something free must exist out there where he's simply facing the camera against some generic backdrop. Mustn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's unfortunately a bad image, but it's the most modern one we have that we can use freely. The one it replaced was from 2006, and there really are not any other options unless we get permission from somebody else (which is rarely done on Wiki). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For a guy who wrote his most memorable stuff in the '80s and '90s, the difference between 2006 and 2015 seems rather pointless. If the one it replaced lacks Minnie ears, count me in. He probably hadn't changed much in those nine years, as a grown man. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , more recent photos are preferred though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By some editors, sure, but Kirk Douglas currently opens with one from 65 years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the WWF Women's Tag Team Championship belt is only pictured because I asked some guy on the Internet nicely for it, it's certainly possible, rare or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, seriously, Minnie ears. Check out my adjustment of the crop. I gave it a shot because you all said there's no better free one, and I really don't see how it could be worse. I honestly think at least a few people who lack full literacy in the megacorporate mob could assume that Nintendo and Disney are related. I would have uploaded a new file if I knew how to overlay the old file without editing every article. — Smuckola(talk) 04:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Hadn't even considered that approach. He looks taller now, as well, but not unrealistically so. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Koji Kondo


text:
José Alfredo Jiménez

José Alfredo Jiménez Sandoval (19 January 1926 – 23 November 1973) was a Mexican singer-songwriter, whose songs are regarded as the basis of modern regional Mexican music and rancheras. During his lifetime, he wrote over a thousand songs, which have been covered by various artists.

Biography
Jiménez was born in Dolores Hidalgo, Guanajuato, Mexico. He was discovered in 1948 by singer Miguel Aceves Mejía. According to Mejía, Jiménez did not play an instrument, and did not even know the Spanish word for "waltz" or what keys his songs were in.

One day in 1948, Miguel Aceves Mejía and some friends arrived for dinner to a restaurant called La Sirena, in Santa Maria de la Rivera. The clerk came to him and asked: “Don Miguel. I'm a waiter because of necessity, but I compose songs. Would you like to hear some? Maybe you like them.” The waiter was José Alfredo Jiménez.

Miguel asked Jiménez to look for him at the Radio Station XEW, where he had an audition called Amanecer Ranchero together with the Mariachi Vargas and Rubén Fuentes. A few days later, Jiménez arrived at XEW and started singing a capella his songs “Ella” and some more. Don Miguel was impressed and promised to support him and record his songs. He recorded "Ella, "Yo", "Serenata huasteca" and "Tu Recuerdo y yo."

After this, he composed more than 1,000 songs. Among the most famous are "Yo", "Me equivoqué contigo", "Ella", "Paloma querida","Que se me acabe la Vida ", "Tú y la mentira", "Media vuelta", "El Rey", "Sin sangre en las venas", "El jinete", "Si nos dejan", "Amanecí en tus brazos", "Llegando a ti", "Tu recuerdo y yo", El hijo del pueblo", "Cuando el destino", "El caballo blanco", "Llegó borracho el Borracho" and "Que te vaya bonito", as well as "Camino de Guanajuato", where he sang about his home state of Guanajuato.

In addition to his own recordings, many of his songs have been recorded by renowned artists from around the Spanish-speaking world, most notably by the following artists: Selena, which she sang "Cuando Nadie Te Quiera", Miguel Aceves Mejía, Enrique Bunbury, Antonio Aguilar, Tania Libertad, Luis Aguilar, Lola Beltrán, Vikki Carr, Gualberto Castro, Rocío Dúrcal, Alejandro Fernández, Pedro Fernández, Vicente Fernández, Los Relámpagos del Norte con Cornelio Reyna y Ramón Ayala, Los Tigres del Norte, Manolo García, Little Joe Hernández & The Latinaires, Julio Iglesias, Pedro Infante, the Mexican rock group Maná, Luis Miguel, Jorge Negrete, Sunny Ozuna & The Sunliners, María Dolores Pradera, Javier Solís, and Chavela Vargas. In addition, Joaquín Sabina paid homage to Jiménez with his song, "Por el Bulevar de los Sueños Rotos" ("On the Boulevard of Broken Dreams"). The country artist Luke Tan recorded a disc of his favorite Jiménez songs in Spanish, including some English translations.

Like many of his contemporary stars, such as Jorge Negrete, Pedro Infante, and Javier Solís, Jiménez died young. He was only forty-seven years old when he died in Mexico City, of complications resulting from cirrhosis of the liver.

One of his last appearances on Mexican television occurred in 1973, just months prior to his death, where he introduced his last song, "Gracias", accompanied by his wife, singer Alicia Juarez. It was his way of thanking the public for all of the affection they had shown him throughout his career as one of the most prolific and highly regarded composers and singers Mexico has ever produced.

Tribute

Jiménez is buried in his hometown of Dolores Hidalgo, Guanajuato. His tomb, the "Mausoleum of José Alfredo Jiménez", is in the shape of a traditional shawl and sombrero, much like the ones Jiménez would wear during his performances.

Studio albums

 * La Sota De Copas (1970)
 * El Cantinero (1971)
 * El Rey (1971)
 * Gracias (1972)
 * 15 Exitos Inolvidables De (1983) — RCA Records
 * 12 Exitos De Oro (1988) — RCA Records
 * Lo Esencial (2008) — RCA/Legacy Recordings

Partial filmography

 * Los huéspedes de La Marquesa (1951)
 * Here Comes Martin Corona (1952)
 * El enamorado (1952)
 * Ni pobres ni ricos (1953)
 * Los aventureros (1954)
 * Tres bribones (1955) – Cantante
 * Camino de Guanajuato (1955) – José Alfredo Martínez
 * Pura Vida (1956) – El mismo
 * La fiera (1956) – Cantante
 * La feria de San Marcos (1958)
 * Guitarras de medianoche (1958) – José Alfredo
 * Ferias de México (1959)
 * Mis padres se divorcian (1959) – Cantante (uncredited)
 * Cada quién su música (1959)
 * El hombre del alazán (1959)
 * Juana Gallo (1961) – Nabor, el caporal
 * Las hijas del Amapolo (1962)
 * La Sonrisa de los Pobres (1964)
 * Escuela para solteras (1965) – El desesperado
 * Audaz y bravero (1965) – Cantante
 * Me cansé de rogarle (1966)
 * Arrullo de Dios (1967)
 * El caudillo (1968) – Borrego
 * La chamuscada (1971) – Revolucionario
 * La loca de los milagros (1975) – (final film role)

Other

 * Jiménez, José Alfredo. 1 de Abril del 2002. Publication Somos, Group Televisa S.A de C.V. "Promotor con buen Estrella". Pages 62–63

title: José Alfredo Jiménez


text:
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?  -- Ե րևանցի  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. -- Ե րևանցի 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)

 * 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:
 * 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.)
 * 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)
 * Secondary sources:
 * 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.
 * 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”.
 * 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.
 * As mentioned above, the Jews, the Greek Orthodox Christians, and the Armenian Orthodox Christians are the only recognized minorities in Turkey.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * “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.
 * 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.
 * Officially, the government recognizes Armenians as a minority but as used in Turkey, this term denotes second-class status. [...]
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.

 * 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 : 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. 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 . 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. 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: Which one is correct?
 * 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.

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

title: Talk:Armenian language


text: User talk:66.167.132.38

title: User talk:66.167.132.38