Jump to content

Talk:Gardman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mihranid

[edit]

Please do not add original research, Mihranids are well known to be Persian or Parthian. See Iranica: [1] Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section

[edit]

Brandmeister, there is no double standards at play here. You cannot compare one side, which has at least maintained scholarly integrity, to another which has flagrantly violated and mutilated it. Sources published in Azerbaijan, both during and after the Soviet era, are highly dubious, especially regarding this region and this time period. As Robert Hewsen has wisely cautioned:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. (Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291.)

They are clearly propagandistic in nature and I can only venture to guess that the author of the entry on "Girdiman" (lol) was either Ziya Bunyadov or one of his other acolytes. While Armenian sources may not be perfect, at least they are generally considered reliable by western scholars and are always recommended by them for reading up further on issues. Azerbaijani scholars have been implicated in such outrageous activities as systematically removing the names and places of certain regions and claiming that all Armenians are 19th century immigrants in the region, all so they can correspond to a nefarious agenda propounded by the state. We have discussed this issue several times previously and it's clear that such unreliable sources must be avoided. The Caucasian Albanian interlude, whatever it entailed, must otherwise have been very brief, as Hewsen as noted that by the fifth-sixth centuries, Albania had been thoroughly Armenianized.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historians are not infallible, but if you claim the high unreliablility and the need of additional reliable source, give some concrete, substantiated accusations. The author of Girdiman in Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia is uncredited, but it does not affect reliability imho as there are numerous uncredited entries in other encyclopedias worldwide. Caucasian Albania existed throughout many centuries before the fifth-sixth century Armenianization. Besides, if the region is historically shared by two countries (more or less), the academic sources from both sides should be cited, as I think. Otherwise both should be submitted to WP:RSN. Brandmeister[t] 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there's a difference between being infallible and intentionally falsifying and distorting material to advance one's own agenda. Is it any surprise that Azerbaijani Wikipedia's entry on Armenia begins with the 1828 Russo-Persian war and speaks about how the Russians "settled" the Armenians from in Iran to Armenia? What about the other 2,500 years of Armenia's history? One can have a field day picking apart what is wrong with that article but just the text and the tone show the symptomatic problems that are inherent in Azerbaijan's scholarship and why it should be avoided wherever possible.
Looking at the statements that have been inserted, it seems that none of them really require a source or are too controversial to source with such a contentious source, and an anonymous one at that. That Gardman now is located within the borders of modern Azerbaijan is plainly obvious; that its population adopted the Caucasian Albanian script sounds logical but given the fact it was a region ruled by an Armenian family, it seems unlikely and requires fuller documentation, if such even exists. Your own decision to distort the historical province's name, without discussion and without citing sources, reflects poorly on you and is reminiscent of Azerbaijan's own state policy to deny that Armenians ever had a historical presence inside its current boundaries. It's an actionable offense for the ArbCom so please do not do it again.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good policy to call every Azeri source unreliable, citing Armenian ones instead. There should be due weight, otherwise there is a POV-pushing. The Azeri Wikipedia has all the values other Wikipedias have, so I would rather abstain from total blaming. The fact that Girdiman was ruled by Armenian family does not make the realm Armenian, it just belongs to Armenian history in the same manner as to Azerbaijan one. And there is no distortion, this is just an Azeri spelling of the realm. Likewise, I see nothing like "without citing and sources" here, quite the opposite. Actually what I poorly imagine here are encyclopedia references being "the actionable offense for the ArbCom" :) Brandmeister[t] 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what other conclusion is one to come to when that is all they ever encounter? It's not just simply the Armenia entry. The entry on Gandzasar inaccurately describes that monastery as Caucasian Albanian. The same is even said about Goshavank and Mkhitar Gosh. The entry for Artashat neglects to mention its 2,000 year old history, is given the name "Qemerli", and is described as a part of "Qərbi Azərbaycan" ("Western Azerbaijan"), as is the only surviving Armenian temple, Garni. Its inherently close connection with Armenia has obviously been omitted. And, of course, dozens of other examples can and have been cited. It's clear why Armenian sources are given due privilege over their Azerbaijani counterparts.

The Azerbaijani spelling is obviously irrelevant for an ancient region and its connection to Azerbaijan lies only in geography, and a disconnected one at that. We don't have to provide any due weight when we still don't have any third party sources supporting the information you want to include.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gardman. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gardman&oldid=1207364962"