Talk:Areni-1 shoe

Title inappropriate

The title of this article is inapropriate. Armenians didn't exist at the time the show was made, and the title is not used by secondary sources. The name is not a natural search term. I suggest Areni-1 shoe. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't know whether Armenians existed then or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.179.29 (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've considered Areni-1 shoe as well, but I think it's an even more unnatural search term than Armenian shoe. --Davo88 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenian shoe would remain as a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 05:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think the title "Armenian shoe" is a bit odd - it suggests that there's only this one shoe in the entire country. I've moved the article to Areni-1 shoe, since the artefact is probably associated more with the location than with the whole country (compare Neanderthal).  Sandstein  20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Areni-1 shoe is indeed more specific to the cave where it was found. Thanks for making the move. It is also good to see that the Areni-1 shoe was mentioned on Wikipedia's main page in the news. :)--Davo88 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 3500 BC is roughly the period to where the Proto-Indo-European language is usually dated. The proto-language could perhaps be up to about 1000 years older, but not significantly older. And given that Armenian is considered part of the "central core" of the Indo-European language family, unlike Anatolian and Tocharian, and possibly the Italo-Celtic languages, which could all have diverged from Indo-European earlier than that, there is even less wiggle room for Armenian specifically. So it makes no more sense to speak of Armenians around 3500 BC than it does to speak of Spaniards around 200 BC. Apart from the ethnogenesis being millennia later, and the self-designation as "Armenians", or haykʿ, and let's keep in mind that c. 3500 BC is well before writing proper is found anywhere in the world, there was also nothing that could be called "the Armenian language" at the time, not even in an extremely early stage, just like there was nothing that could be called "the Spanish language" in 200 BC – there was only Latin, and not even any trace of a spoken dialect specific to Hispania in that early period. (Even if Proto-Indo-European was spoken in what is now Armenia or the Armenian Highland after all, which is highly uncertain and even dubious, this would not change the conclusion. There was no "Italian language" in 200 BC, either: Plautus spoke Latin, and even a somewhat archaic form of Latin known as Old Latin. None of the labels for modern Romance languages and dialects makes sense in this period, which precedes, possibly by centuries, the gradual dissolution of Latin into regionally diverging informal spoken dialects that would later become the Romance languages and dialects.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Innapropriate news headline

This is currently 'in the news' on the main page, here it states that it was 'discovered' recently. In actual fact it was fiscovered two years ago, the reports were just published recently. This is a little misleading.

Actually, here, the article points out that it was discovered in 2008 and not with the report's publication. --Davo88 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

right or left

Now, is it a right or left shoe? Looks right to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.126.100 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its newsworthy until they find the match. Really.. You found one shoe? Pfft, I can do that. Its making sure you have both and your car keys before heading out the door to work that should be newsworthy. I'd like to see prehistoric humans do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.125.84 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)