Talk:Melikdoms of Karabakh
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should this not be the Melikdoms of Artsakh? They were ruled entirely by Armenians, on the territory of Artsakh and at the time of their existense, before their fall, had minimal populations of others. Did they call it Karabakh? Surely they would have called it Artsakh? Obviously, the article should explain that this is now in the area called Karabakh, but is it not a misnomer to refer to the area at this time in history as a name that neither the rulers nor the inhabitants would have used? Youngkyf (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Melikdoms of Karabakh
editWhat was the information I added that I didn't site? If so, change that, but reverting everything back is nonsense, please leave it as corrected and edit out whatever it is you think was not cited. Also, if you are going to claim that i added information without sources, say which. I absolutely fixed the really bad organization and chronologic order. If you don't, I am absolutely going to solve this at a higher level of resolution. Again, please keep the edit, and change the portion you say is not sourced so we don't have to go through the higher resolution process.Youngkyf (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Youngkyf: Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. You added brand new content to the page without citing any reliable sources and changed the context of existing content. The edits were thus far from just being "chronological" fixes. Hence, you were reverted. If you can cite reliable sources for the brand new content you want to introduce (such as the statement "However, instability in Persia and a distaste for Islamic dominance (...)"), there won't be any objections. LouisAragon (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Instability and a front against muslims is already mentioned on the page, it says "Rivalries among the meliks prevented them from becoming a formidable and a unified power against the Muslims but unstable conditions in Persia..." "against muslims" and "unstable condictions in Persia" So...? Nonetheless, you could have kept the entirety of my changes, it did take me a little time to correct the confusing order and syntax, and simply edited that part that you disagreed was sourced. So, I will ask again, please revert to my corrections, and simply conduct the minor edit that you disagree with, why would you destroy all of it? That's unfair and, considering the exact sentence on the page I HAVE NOT added "NEW" information.
Also, you could just tell me, is there anything else that you don't understand or think I have not sourced so that when I correct this again, it doesn't get reverted? Youngkyf (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- What about the other changes you introduced, such as this?[1]
| − | + | The beginning of the end of the five Khamsa Melikdoms came in the second half of the 18th century, when mixed Turko-Armenian, [[Melik Shahnazar II|Melik Shahnazar of Varanda]] allied himself with the Afshar-Oghuz Turkic Khan, [[Panah Ali Khan|Panah Ali Khan Javanshir]], against the other Armenian meliks which led to the disintegration of the autonomous Armenian Melikdoms of Karabakh into the de facto independent [[Karabakh Khanate]]. |
- These don't seem like simple fixes either. For instance, why does Melik Shahnazar II need to be introduced as "mixed Turko-Armenian"? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not different, not different information at all from the original? Do I need to copy and paste from the original again? Just like you didn't understand that saying "unstable situation" is the same as saying "instability"...I mean really, are you confused about this? Here is the paste from the original: You have to look at the next section under Karabakh Khanate, I just moved this up to the correct chronological place, surely you see that "IN THE MID 18TH CENTURY? The following is a direct past from the current/original, it was effectively repeated in my version under the Khanate portion, but needed to be moved because the chronology was bouncing around...In the mid-18th century, Panah Ali Khan Javanshir campaigned against the Melikdoms of Karabakh with the support of the Armenian prince Melik Shahnazar II Shahnazarian of Varanda, bringing the melikdoms under his suzerainty and establishing the de facto independent Karabakh Khanate. Melik Shahnazar II was the first to accept Panah-Ali Khan's suzerainty and provided the latter with the strategic fortress of Shushi (Shusha)
Because he is see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melik_Shahnazar_II, and just tell me i failed to site it, and I'll site it. Here are the sources Emin, Joseph; Apcar, Amy (1792). Emin, Joseph (ed.). Life and Adventures of Emin Joseph Emin, 1726-1809 (PDF). 2. Calcutta: Baptist mission Press. pp. 339, 343–344. Retrieved 2021-02-17.
Emin, Aspet. "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia" – via www.academia.edu.
Now, is there anything else? I honestly meant to source that and fumbled it. If you see anything else, do let me know please, either way so I will know when I can fix the very poorly written original? Thanks.Youngkyf (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Because he is see"
- Just because he is, doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. In addition, Emin's source is 300 years old and thus violates WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Here's what a modern specialist source says:
- "He allied with the Armenian melik, Shahnazar of Varanda, who had quarreled with the other four Armenian meliks and constructed the fort of Shushi as his main citadel." -- George Bournoutian. (2021) From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 287
- - LouisAragon (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is written using reliable sources amongst others, but also requires a good dosis of common sense. Almost every ruler in the world was mixed to a degree; its the ruler's identity and the perception of modern historians who can judge what they represented. For instance, almost all Ottoman sultans were born to non-Turkic mothers, yet we don't introduce them as the "Half Abkhazian Sultan Mehmed VI" or the "mixed Greek Sultan Mehmed IV". We just introduce them as Ottomans or as Turks because that's what historians tell us. Similarly, we don't say "the German Donald Trump"; we just say American. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Melik Shahnazar II is no different to this rule of consistency, and therefore has to be introduced an Armenian, because he is described as such by modern WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Youngkyf:, @LouisAragon:, gents, lets calm down. There many tools available in the Wikipedia to solve disputes. In my opinion, this topic requires deeper discussion. Bringing Ottomans as example does not make a point here, Marking as Ottomans is not about nationality, where marking as Armenian or Turkish is about nationality. Saying that Melik Shahnazar II should be either marked as Turko-Armenian, as he was, or no nationality of him should be mentioned in this article at all, as it has no DUEWEIGHT. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're replying to a 5 month old discussion which was ultimately concluded at WP:ANI. We follow what WP:RS says, which is not 'Turko-Armenian' but 'Armenian'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all my edits remain except that and that's really ok with me, because it specifically says his ethnic makeup on his individual Wikipedia page, although I might include several book images here that say it at a later date. Nonetheless, it does have weight as the conflict here is specifically between Turkic people and Armenians and he is very factually from both ethnic backgrounds. I gave examples of just a few examples where the description is included in other figures when relevant to the conflicts. Louisaragon mentioned not saying that Trump is German American, however it would be relevant if there was a direct conflict between Germany and America and he worked against American interests, it might not be BECAUSE he's half German, so we don't say, "he did it because he is half German" we just point out that he was, which is perfectly acceptable because it's a fact. It's not acceptable to say the reason unless there's specific evidence like a recording of him saying that he's supporting the Germans because he prefers his father's family etc. A fact is always ok to include. Deciding that has some meaning is irrelevant. I'm not fighting the issue of it's inclusion on this page because it is included on his individual page, because it is a fact that he is of mixed ethnic background, noble families always are. People frequently point out the Queen of England's blood relationship to the Romanovs. Doesn't make her secretly pro Russian. Something frequently pointed out about Obama, who is both half Kenyan and had a Muslim father, but also oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin laden. In this case it's pointed out to say that even a half Kenyan son of a Muslim with an Arabic Muslim name still killed Osama bin laden because the man was an evil terrorist and Obama's background is irrelevant to doing the right thing. Likewise, if you're Turkic Azeri, it might be seen as him doing a good thing despite being half Armenian. The exact opposite if you're Armenian. Look at Antiochus of Commagene and it points out he's Greek, Iranian, Armenian, and Jewish. He made a HUGE deal of pointing out his lineage on Mt Nemrud it's literally the most important thing he included and very relevant to history and determining kings and their dates and times of rule, especially in the absence of numismatic and other evidence. Youngkyf (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Youngkyf, I like to remind you of WP:REHASH and especially WP:TEXTWALL - you have been told various times by admins alike to kindly stop writing massive walls of text, as people aren't likely to read it and it just takes up too much space. Ultimately, we follow what sources say, not what users feel. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all my edits remain except that and that's really ok with me, because it specifically says his ethnic makeup on his individual Wikipedia page, although I might include several book images here that say it at a later date. Nonetheless, it does have weight as the conflict here is specifically between Turkic people and Armenians and he is very factually from both ethnic backgrounds. I gave examples of just a few examples where the description is included in other figures when relevant to the conflicts. Louisaragon mentioned not saying that Trump is German American, however it would be relevant if there was a direct conflict between Germany and America and he worked against American interests, it might not be BECAUSE he's half German, so we don't say, "he did it because he is half German" we just point out that he was, which is perfectly acceptable because it's a fact. It's not acceptable to say the reason unless there's specific evidence like a recording of him saying that he's supporting the Germans because he prefers his father's family etc. A fact is always ok to include. Deciding that has some meaning is irrelevant. I'm not fighting the issue of it's inclusion on this page because it is included on his individual page, because it is a fact that he is of mixed ethnic background, noble families always are. People frequently point out the Queen of England's blood relationship to the Romanovs. Doesn't make her secretly pro Russian. Something frequently pointed out about Obama, who is both half Kenyan and had a Muslim father, but also oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin laden. In this case it's pointed out to say that even a half Kenyan son of a Muslim with an Arabic Muslim name still killed Osama bin laden because the man was an evil terrorist and Obama's background is irrelevant to doing the right thing. Likewise, if you're Turkic Azeri, it might be seen as him doing a good thing despite being half Armenian. The exact opposite if you're Armenian. Look at Antiochus of Commagene and it points out he's Greek, Iranian, Armenian, and Jewish. He made a HUGE deal of pointing out his lineage on Mt Nemrud it's literally the most important thing he included and very relevant to history and determining kings and their dates and times of rule, especially in the absence of numismatic and other evidence. Youngkyf (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)