Talk:Alinja

Alinca village actually appears to be called Hanagha or Xanagah on modern maps. Correction, they must be next to each other. LonelyPlanet guidebook says the castle is above Xanagah. Meowy 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

 * The place has always been officially called Alinja, not Yernjak. Even in the Russian empire. Note that Brokhaus cyclopedia mentions Alinja river (Алинджа-чай): So Meowy please stop pushing the name of Yernjak. It is not officially called so, and never ever was. Aivazian is not a reliable source, and as far as I know the fortress dates to the 11th century. This is where Fazlullah was murdered, and it was a stronghold of Seljuk Atabeks of Azerbaijan in the 12th century.  Grand  master  08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am removing the factual accuracy disputed tag from the article. Grandmaster, you are not stating what there is in the article that is factually inaccurate and why it is factually inaccurate. What legitimate sources disagree with what the article is saying? Just saying "not a single non-Armenian source cited" is not a valid reason to insert a factual accuracy disputed tag. Also, Aivazian is an acknowledged expert on this region (one could almost say THE expert on this region), has studied, photographed, and measured its historical monuments, and has written dozens of books about Nachichevan's monuments. Meowy 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand Grandmaster's bafflement and shock either. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Azerbaijan spends so much time and energy on erasing the existence of Armenians who once lived in the territories they now possess, that ordinary Azerbaijanis who come across anything else see it as some nefarious scheme hatched by the Armenians to distort history. Certainly, statements like "stop pushing the name of Yernjak. It is not officially called so, and never ever was" are problematic and very symptomatic among some who think that the history of the region began with the Seljuk/Turkic/Mongol invasions. I mean, the history of Armenia on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia begins in 1828 (A.D.). The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, for any shortcomings it may have, is a fairly reliable source and one which is seen used in numerous Western publications.


 * The primary sources – i.e., those not published in Azerbaijan – clearly use the word "Yernjak". Anania Shirakatsi uses it, so does Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi, as does Stepanos Orbelian. I'm sorry if all this comes as a shock to you and upsets you and other Azerbaijanis Grandmaster but simply citing an author's last name and saying that that makes them unreliable reflects poorly upon you. I've stated this time and time again. You're going to have to do far better to voice your concerns if you want anyone else to hear them.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I said many times that it is not my opinion, the rules explicitly require using third party sources, and Armenian sources are not such when it comes to Armenia - Azerbaijan relations. Quoting the rule WP:RS once again: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How do we know that Shirakatsi or Draskhanakerttsi refer to this place? We need reliable secondary third party sources to interpret primary ones. Armenian Soviet Cyclopedia is as good as Azerbaijani Soviet cyclopedia. I can write quite the opposite to what Armenian one says referring to Azerbaijani cyclopedia. Note that Great Soviet Encyclopedia is also not considered reliable in most cases. The wiki rules require citing third party sources, so far you cited none. And Armenian sources are very well known for extreme nationalism, the are large and detailed researches about that. Thus, the tag remains until your cite reliable third party sources per wikipedia rules. -- Grand master  19:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is actually post-independence Azerbaijani-published sources that are well known for their extreme nationalism, often amounting to racism, and their blatant inventions. Though some of it began earlier, in the 1960s. Tell us what your Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia says. Meowy 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can cite books of Victor Shnirelman, Philip Kohl and even Robert Hewsen, which criticize Armenian nationalistic scholarship. There are plenty of Western published researches about Armenian nationalistic scholarship. If you need quotes, I can provide tons of them. And I don't care what Azerbaijani or Armenian Soviet cyclopedias say. Let's stick to third party sources, as per wiki rules. Grand  master  20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, it is quite interesting that Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia was published in the West, and Armenian was not:  Grand  master  20:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was you who brought up the Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia - now you "don't care" what it says. I'll take your reply to mean that either you don't have access to a copy of the Azerbiajani Soviet Encyclopedia, or its text actually agrees with the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, or its text doesn't even mention Yernjak/Alinca. Meowy 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should does not mean must. You again are citing vague generalities. Shnirelman and others criticize some Armenians for Urartu and the origins of the Armenians, not for this. I removed the tag because all you are saying is that the sources are unreliable - without actually what is so unreliable about them. Are you actually questioning Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, whose prestige as a scholar is widely acknowledged in the international sphere? You have no right to compare Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars? To quote Robert Hewsen:




 * Azerbaijani sources are a no-go.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And so are Armenian ones. Not third party. For Armenian nationalistic scholarship one can consult this book, page 155: . There are plenty more. Grand  master  20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this essentially irrelevant and meaningless discussion. Do you have any actual complaints with the article itself?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One point:'' "The long and arduous struggle between Smbat and Yusuf ended in Yernjak, where the latter put the former to death in 914'"' - is that claiming he died at Alinca/Yernjak? I thought Smbat was killed in Dvin. Meowy 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He was killed in Yernjak. His body was crucified, for everyone to see, at Dvin.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why Yernjak? I thought he surrendered to Yusuf during a siege at a place called "Blue Castle", location unknown (but there is a "Blue Castle" (Kapuyt Berd) near Kaghizman). How could "Blue castle" be Yernjak? The army of Yusuf was meant to be deep inside Smbat's territory and Smbat surrendered to prevent them going even deeper. Yernjak would have been at the margins of Smbat's territory. Meowy 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what happened: he surrendered to Yusuf at Kapuyt Berd and from there Yusuf took him to Yernjak (which he was besieging at the time). At Yernjak was holed up members of his family and Yusuf felt that Smbat's presence would convince them to give up as well. They both went there, however, Smbat refused Yusuf's request to call upon them to surrender and, because of this, Yusuf had the king beheaded at the spot. His headless body was taken back to Dvin and crucified there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a reference that says the same thing: "But that unfortunate monarch did not feel strong enough to continue resistance to the Moslem foe, and retired to the fort of Kapouyt (the Blue Castle), situated on the rocky heights east of Mount Massis. The Emir blockaded the place in 913. After a long siege, Sembat surrendered, on promise of safe conduct. In the meantime Gagik, still remorseful and repentant of his evil deeds, again offered Sembat his cooperation. Informed of this change of attitude on the part of Gagik, Youssouf treacherously seized Sembat and cast him into a dungeon at Douin. But that was not the last of the sufferings of the unhappy monarch. Youssouf laid siege to the fortress of Erentchak, in the province of Sewniq, and in order to compel its inhabitants to surrender, he ordered Sembat to be dragged in chains before the walls of the fort and subjected to torture. Sembat could have won his liberty had he renounced his Christian faith, but this he positively refused to do. The Emir finally condemned him to death. He was beheaded and the body taken to Douin and exhibited on a cross at the public center of the city (914)." Meowy  20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More here: a translation of Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc'i's "History of Armenia", p176 & 178. Meowy  21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the tag supposed to be disputing? Forget the sourcing for a minute. What is actually being challenged here? I'm not seeing any obvious redflags. Moreschi (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the claims that the castle was Armenian etc have no independent confirmation. Sources are all Armenian, with an obvious bias in this issue. As far as I know, the castle actually dates to a much later time. According to the rules, we must use third party sources, not related to the parties of the conflict. Therefore the tag is justified. Unless third party source are provided on the topic, the information from Armenian sources cannot be considered reliable and should not be presented as a fact. We cannot write a history of a country based on propaganda sources from another country it is in a state of war with. Argam Aivazian is an obvious propaganda source. And Armenian Soviet encyclopedia is plain ridiculous. Grand  master  06:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why I removed it. Nowhere above did the usual suspects indicate what's being disputed.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a preemptive strike by Grandmaster against what he is worried might be the start of a process of adding content to a number of Nakhchivan placename articles. Most of them are stubs, and most of that content would be about their Armenian past, since most of their past is Armenia-related. That's why he is attacking sources, not content. Meowy 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And as a response to Grandmaster's "the place has always been officially called Alinja, not Yernjak", see the map titled "Eastern Transcaucasia in the 10th Century" opposite page 79 of V. Minorsky's "Studies in Caucasian History", London, 1953, Just to the left of Julfa is marked "Ernjak (Alinja) river". Meowy 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that it is the official map from the 10th century. In the Russian empire and USSR it was called Alinja, and it is still called so now. And my concern about the use of non-neutral and non-third party sources has not been addressed. Instead, the party pushing the Armenian POV resorted to edit war to remove the tag disputing the neutrality and accuracy of the article. -- Grand master  12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean it's not an official map? Did you want Constantine Porphyrogenitus' signature at the bottom, to make it official? Alinja is simply the name Turkic groups gave to the castle and province when they moved into the region in the eleventh and following centuries.

All this makes for a very boring – and meaningless – discussion. The reason no one has responded to your generic questions is because they are so vague and general. Moreschi can't find any problems with the article. All you're doing is whining that the sources are Armenian and therefore unacceptable. Meowy has already provided the text of a tenth century Armenian historian (Y/Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi), who describes the events that took place at Yernjak castle in 912-914. I have provided the original text of the Ashkharhatsuyts, which mentions Yernjak as the first canton of Syunik. Either through accident or willful ignorance, you still have yet to address them. For that matter, do you question Aram Ter-Ghevondyan's authority as well? And Babken Harutyunyan's, whom Robert Hewsen has spoken highly of? You can complain all you want but it's obvious that this is an inconvenient truth for Azerbaijanis - it's very humiliating for their government to spend so much energy and effort to deny the existence of the Armenians in their present-day territories, only to have their lies exposed in such a simple manner.

This may be very upsetting for you Grandmaster - but tough luck. If your only excuse is that "Armenians are liars and are unreliable", without citing any actual problems in the text, then leave this and similar articles alone. I'm not going to bother to respond to these inane complaints again unless the disruption, such as the addition of frivolous tags, continues.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less, although I would have worded that more gently, Marshall. Grandmaster, unless you have RS we can use that contradict the information already in the article, I fail to see precisely what we are supposed to be doing here. If you have such sources, please present them and they can be worked with and discussed. Conversations based on discussions of sourced material are at least unlikely to descend so rapidly into pointless exchanges of bile. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)