Talk:Tigranakert of Artsakh

Aghdara

Official and internationally accepted name of Mardakert is Aghdara. I don't think one must bring evidence to prove this, that would be ridiculous. If someone have any counter-arguments againts internationally accepted names, please publish them here. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

Im amazed by the POV attitude of this article. There are only 3 sources, and 2 of which are actually about the ruins and both are Armenian media sources. This makes the article POV, therefore I added the tag. Mursel (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How do we know the ruins real name was Tigranakert? This is typical state propaganda by Armenia, there are no sources which indicate that the native name of the ruins are indeed Tigranakert. The chosen name is propaganda based. It would be better to rename the article to Karabakh ruins or something similar. Mursel (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tigran the Great was known to have constructed several cities that he named after himself. This one corresponds to the one of a possible two he built in Artsakh. Robert Hewsen thinks this Tigranakert was built by Tigran's father, Tigran I, which sounds a little more probable but I have never seen any scholar dispute that these cities were built during the reign of the Artashesian kings. "Karabakh ruins" just sounds silly and your railing against the article as "typical Armenian state propaganda" is an unfortunate remark that cannot be accepted as a legitimate complaint.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My complaint is that all the sources are Armenian based. An article as controversial as this cannot be based exclusively on Armenian sources. The name Tigranakert is based on Robert Hewsen, Armenian sources, claims. And the fact is that this is all speculation so far. So unless there neutral sources which confirm the authenticity of the city-ruins, this article should be renamed to something else. If you dont agree with Karabakh ruins, what other suggestions for a name change do you have? Mursel (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making such a fuss over ethnic heritage Neftchi - Tuscumbia has been topic banned twice for making such remarks and is now facing a third ban. Do you want a complaint filed against you as well? Robert Hewsen is a respected historian and a specialist in the period of ancient and early medieval Armenia. His opinion is sound and he cannot be discredited as easily as a newspaper article. This is not speculation; like I said above, no one has seriously questioned the veracity of their claims. The excavations have revealed churches, towers, temples and other structures. Those cannot just blandly be called "ruins" and I actually am quite content with the current title. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall you cannot make threat against other users, consider this your final warning. And dont change the subject and just adress my arguments. Mursel (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am saying this for your own good Neftchi. You've been in the red for quite a long time and I'd hate to see your departure. Now, after reviewing more of the secondary literature, I discovered that the first literary references to this Tigranakert are found in the History of Sebeos, who says that the Emperor Heraclius fought against the Persians here during the first half of the seventh century. Apparently, the city fell into ruin several centuries later, was rechristened "Shahbulagh" by the Muslims, and has arrived to us in the present state. That pretty much clears up the mystery.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt make a link between these ruins and the so called Tigranakert. It could be anything and its up for speculation and interpretation. I looked over the Hewsen source and it doesnt mention these specific ruins and talks about the general history of the region. The only source which places a name in the ruins is ArmeniaNow - and even they appear to make a speculation. Thats why this title is POV, there are no sources which name these these specific ruins as Tigranakert and this appears to be original research. Mursel (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the best guess that scholars can come up with and we have to accept that - based on a reading of the primary source material, we know that two Tigranakerts were constructed in this region: one in Utik' and the other in the province of Artsakh. The one in Artsakh fell into ruin by the time Panah Khan built a fort near the ruins, and the Armenian melik's continued to refer to them as "Tngrnakert". The archaeologists have identified structures that date to the Hellenistic period, which can only mean that this city was founded by one of the Artashesian kings, either Tigran I or Tigran II. This article does a good job in giving a chronological narrative of why it took so long for these ruins to be discovered. Please be more specific in your critique Neftchi; I am having difficulty seeing any justification in using the terms "speculation" and "original research".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So you admit its a guess, not an established fact. But this article reflects it as a historical fact. This is a misleading and POV based article. Thats why I re-added the POV tags. I suggest this article take a realistic approach and not be based on guesswork based on POV researchers. The fact is that none of this is based on neutral sources. There also is no direct link between these ruins and the so called Tigranakert, there also is no neutral sources linking these two together. Its all guesswork, but it shouldnt be reflected as a historical fact. If you dont agree we can ask for a 3rd party opinion. Mursel (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an educated guess - a hypothesis - but one that is established on facts and one that has been accepted by everyone (well, except in Azerbaijan). To be honest, your arguments are just too vague and not specific enough. Do you dispute the competence of scholars like Robert Hewsen? Would you go so far as to call him unreliable if you considered him to not be neutral? Unfortunately, Neftchi, your objections are unconvincing and given your past behavior of making inappropriate interpretations of primary and secondary sources, this seems more like a case of IDONTLIKEIT, for which, I'm afraid, there is no remedy. If you have nothing more specific to add, I will have to remove the tags once again.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How could I be more clear. There are no sources linking the two together. Even Hewsen doesnt mention these specific ruins! You admit that its gueswork, but the article reflects it as an established historical fact. Hewson talks about talks about the general history of the region, not about these ruins! The only source which has a name for the ruins is ArmeniaNow - and even they appear to make a speculation. If you dont show a source which links these ruins to the mentioned Tigranakert then the title of this article is POV and ungrounded. One could argue naming these ruins Tigranakert is political motivated as can even be seen from the provided source ArmeniaNow: “The struggle for the self-determination of Artsakh evolved and will evolve around the discussion of various historic and cultural values and arguments. Let’s remember, the Artsakh liberation war began first of all because of the question of ownership of Gandzasar Monastery and Dadivank.” So it has an obvious political background, but such state-propaganda is not for Wikipedia. A more neutral context is required with a more accurate title. I have suggested to rename this article to "Karabakh historical ruins" or something similar. Mursel (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The text reads: ...although some scholars, such as Robert Hewsen and Babken Harutyunyan, have posited that this particular Tigranakert may have been founded by Tigranes the Great's father... The source makes no mention of "this particular Tigranakert". Also I would like a quoute from the Hewsen source in which he describes the 4 Tigranakert cities and their possible locations. I have been unable to find them. Mursel (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the pages cited in Hewsen's book (2001). I don't have it with me right now, but in pages 58, 73, and map 62, he clearly identifies two Tigranakerts in Artsakh and Gardman, but backdates their founding to Tigran I. It is only reasonable that if Hellenistic ruins were were discovered dating to this period that they should be linked to the two kings who did so much to further its influence in the region, i.e., Kings Tigran I and Tigran II. Further references are made by Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian, and Claude Mutafian in their book The Caucasian Knot, accessible here. Your suggested title change is too awkward and vague to be taken into consideration, but nothing can be modified because a single editor is offended that reality does not conform to his own version of history.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Marshal your evaluation of sources and their reliability is not based on the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I checked the sources and I cant find it, so please cite Hewsen's book (2001), where he identifies two Tigranakerts in Artsakh and Gardman. What other suggestions for title change do you have, obviously the current one is guesswork not sourced. Mursel (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hewsen (p. 58)

We learn that in Utik' there were two localities named Tigranakert. These, however, should not be associated with Tigranes the II the Great (95-56 B.C.) but, following Harut'yunyan, were more likely foundations of his father Tigranes I (123-95 B.C.). One of these Tigranakerts survive as the site called Tetrakerte at modern Shahbulag; the exact location of the second or "other" Tigranakert is not certain but appears to have been in Gardman somewhere in the valley of Samxor River.

The two other references by Hewsen to Tigranakert are found on map 62 on page 73. The caption on the map writes: "Though not attested until the seventh century, these two Tigranakerts were probably founded by Tigranes I (p. 123-95 B.C.).

I don't think there should be any more doubt in this; enough sources by the pen of scholars have been introduced.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Marshal do you not understand English? Where is the source that links it to THIS specific ruins. The context reads: although some scholars, such as Robert Hewsen and Babken Harutyunyan, have posited that this particular Tigranakert may have been founded by Tigranes the Great's father.. I ask you provide a source which lays direct link to this particular ruins. Mursel (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the literary material and Hewsen's map, which places the site at roughly the same coordinates of the map in this article. The inference is clear enough and I'm not going to hold your hand constantly just because you cannot or do not want to accept the reality of the facts. Asking these overly absurd questions betrays your disingenuous approach to improving this article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag should be removed since the reference on p. 58 in Hewsen's atlas explains it all. THIS specific ruins are on p. 58. Emotions like "Marshal do you not understand English?" are unacceptable and violate the civility code. Winterbliss (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Armenian sources?

@Solavirum: [1] What's wrong with using Armenian sources? It's no secret that this area was ruled by the Kingdom of Armenia and whatnot. If it was Armenian sources about the the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for example, then yes your concerns would be understandable, but this? Robert H. Hewsen whose work is used a lot here, is a very reputable historian who has done loads of work, his Armenian background doesn't change any of that. And what other sources should we use? Please explain. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, doesn't using Yerevan-based academic sources, such as Petrosyan, Harutyunyan, Hakobyan, and an Armenian media outlet, Asbarez, give a huge weight to the article? Last time I checked Azerbaijani sources were not allowed in articles about its history because Baku-based sources were regarded as biased. Because, in any case, they are not Western sources, which are regarded more reliable than Yerevan or Baku-based sources. Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get stuff right. As for Hewsen, he is the only reliable source in the whole article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: That's because those Baku-based sources are revisionistic/biased and thus not supported by scholarship. They claim Nizami Ganjavi and whatnot was Azeri. Ofc not all the sources here seem WP:RS, but thats deffo not due to being Armenian. Petrosyan seem good as well - his work is cited by Matthew P. Canepa, Giusto Traina and Richard G. Hovannisian. The other cited work simply reports on the excavations done in the city, which shouldn't be hurtful - although academic work would indeed be preferred. What's so special about this article that made you made post the tag? The historicity of this city isn't really controversial; it was Armenian, of generally minor importance, and we mostly only have sources by Armenian authors about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, the same can be said about Yerevan-based sources too. Not claiming that Baku-based sources has international relevance or anything, but, until their reliability is confirmed, Yerevan-based sources I've mentioned above must be questioned as well. You can remove the main tag without my objection if you add tags to the other sources. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I've removed the non-reliable stuff from the History section. Petroysan and Hewsen are now only used there. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, yeah, it seems better now. Thank you for your attention. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

How do we even know that this place is actually called Tigranakert? There's no independent source to confirm that, and no archeological finds with the name of Tigranakert on it. It is nothing but a claim from politically motivated Armenian authors, with no independent verification. It should not be stated as a fact, but only as a claim from the Armenian side, in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 09:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No independent sources? What happened to Petroysan and especially Hewsen and Canepa then? A vast amount of southern Caucausus, especially pre 363/387, was part of Armenia and its ancient history, whether people like it or not. HistoryofIran (talk)

All Armenian. Was there a verification from a reliable source with no connection to Armenia? How do we know that this place was called Tigranakert? Based on what evidence? Grandmaster 20:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's pretend for a second that Armenian sources aren't allowed, which is what you are seemingly implying. What about Canepa then? How did he suddenly become Armenian? Anyways, Hewsen is a highly reputable independent historian, there's no denying that. Petroysan seems pretty legit as well, considering his work regarding Tigranakert is used by several historians, including Canepa. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Another source (Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions p. 169, note 34); "One may call to mind, for example, the city of Tigranakert in Artsakh, where in recent years archaeological excavations have been carried out". I'll gladly expand this to a GA if people are going to try to deny simple historical facts. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Still extremely questionable to claim this as a fact. Very few sources on the subject to claim a scientific consensus. No archeological finds with the name of the city on it. Should be presented just as opinion of some scholars, but not as an established fact. Grandmaster 22:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Erh, no. This seems like a WP:JDL case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really. WP:NPOV is a more appropriate reference here. If you look at the sources you mention, other than extremely biased Petrosyan, none is a dedicated source that conducted a study of the subject. The other sources only make a passing remark about this place. How is it possible to claim a scientific consensus on such a flimsy basis? Grandmaster 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Petrosyan "extremely biased"? Multiple sources use him, which goes without saying that makes it more important than what you think about of him. Even if they make a passing remark about the city, it still goes to show that it actually existed. There are no rules that state we a need a source that throughly goes into a subject to show that it actually existed. If that was the case, a LOT would be needed to removed/changed on this site. If you have nothing to bring to the table other than your own personal opinion, then I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Petrosyan clearly is not a third party source. History in the region is used to justify claims to the land, therefore we cannot rely on sources from one side. And because the subject is so obscure and there is no other source that actually investigated the issue in detail, it is not possible to claim as fact that this place is indeed called Tigranakert. There's simply not enough evidence for such a claim, due to an obvious lack of independent verification. Grandmaster 16:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, all opinion nothing to back it up, not to mention dismissal of several good sources. I'm out of here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Edition

Dear all, I add also known according to some scholars as in the Article, because it's not confirmed fact in scientific world. Some scholars accept it and we should show it, no more. I haven't canceled but back this sentance, because HistoryofIran put the source also and I should keep it.--Aydin mirza (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how you write in a lead, or at least not in this case. 'Also known as' does not imply that the name is universally known in sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, suggest the another form, pls, because "also known as" exactly imply that is equil meaning, it's unknow if it's in the sources or in media. I say it as user of wikipedia, for me it's not clear. and this project for the users. --Aydin mirza (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't though, so no, I don't have to. Please read WP:COMPENTENCE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

it's not answer, sorry. reg WP:COMPENTENCE, I've read, I learn it by heart. Explain me, pls, how should we, user, understand the expression "also know as"? if no arguments, except "I don't like it", "I don't have to", I'm going to back my contribu;ions. as I can see, your treating in this discussion belongs to WP:JDLI. it's place called recently and known in non-scientific world. so, we should note that "according to ...known as".

I literally already explained it to you, I don't what else you expect me to say. You are now threatening to be disruptive, don't; I would advise you to request a WP:3O. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It is known in academic literature as Tigranakert of/in Artsakh to distinguish it from the other Tigranakerts. Where is the confusion there? However, "Tigranakert-Artsakh" is certainly NOT the standard phrase used. It is either "Tigranakert of Artsakh" or "Tigranakert in Artsakh". And HistoryofIran, Hamlet Petrosyan, in numerous articles, has described the basilica church that he excavated in 2009 as an early-Christian basilica church not an "Armenian" church, so please stop restoring the word "Armenian". 78.149.46.96 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No one has ever stated that "Tigranakert-Artsakh" is the "standard phrase used", however it is indeed used as well per the sources. Also, the source clearly says "Armenian" and not "Christian", so please don't alter sourced information. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Per what sources? If it is in the lede it has to be in the vast majority of sources, not just one. As for the fake-news ""Armenian" church content, I will delete all your "sources" and add credible academic ones. General low-grade online news websites are not suitable sources for archaeology; the excavators' achaeological reports and articles written by the head excavator are suitable sources. Go ask the Reliable Sources noticeboard if you have doubts about this. Hamlet Petrosyan has always been careful to avoid contaminating his research by never making unfounded claims just to please propagandists/nationalists.

There's no such rule that says it has to be in vast majority of sources, unless it was to be the name of the actual article. First off, those are not my "sources", and sure, if your "sources" are actually credible academic ones, I won't object. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hand over to Azerbaijan?

Hello. The headline reads, The site was within territory that came under the occupation of Armenian forces after the First Nagorno-Karabakh war and was made part of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh until November 2020 when it was handed over to Azerbaijan as part of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement.

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement did not provide for the handover takeover process. The statement dealt with the return of administrative districts to Azerbaijan. As a result, there was no handover-takeover between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Please correct the sentence accordingly. Iron Archer (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC).