Talk:Koriun

ethnicity of Koryun
On Georgian ethnicity of Koryun, whose name means little lion, see some of the following mostly Armenian authors:


 * 1) G.Alishan. "Haypatum", Vol. I, Venice, 1901, p. 48 (in Armenian).
 * 2) G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban), "From the Agaphangelos sources", Ararat publishing, 1896, p. 430 (in Armenian).
 * 3) O.Torosyan, "Bazmavel", 1897, pp. 32-34.
 * 4) G.Fintiglyan, "Koryun", u.s., pp. XVIII-XXII и XXXIV.
 * 5) A.Saruhan, "Georgia and Armenians", Vienna, 1939, pp. 233-245 (in Armenian).
 * 6) S. Weber (Koriun. Beschreibung des Lebens und Sterbens d. hl. Lehrers Mesrop. Ubersetzt und mit Einleitung versehen von Dr. Simon Weber: Ausgewaehte Schriften d. armenischen Kirchenvaeter, I Band, Eznik. Koriun. Hatschachapatum, 1927, SS. 181—233 [Bibliolhek d. Kirchenvater].)


 * Sources need to be verifiable. WP:V.--Eupator 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They all are, for example from these Armenian editors of Koryun's "Life of Mashtots", Sh.V.Smbatyan and K.A.Melik-Oghajanyan, who specifically discuss all those Armenian scholars who say Koryun was an ethnic Georgian (in Russian, footnotes 15-21: http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/korun/intro.html).


 * I see no such thing.--Eupator 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very unfortunate -- and what you don't see? References to the works cited? Or discussion of Georgian ethnicity of Koryun while citing all those works? Or don't see the page at all? Or something else? --AdilBaguirov 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A few points. No original research, includes that we do not make judgements whether something is true or not. If there are various conflicting sources, mention them as such. What would be an acceptable solution is to say something along the line of "It is claim that blah di blah di blah (sources), although this is disputed (sources). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question for Eupator. What sources do you have about his ethnicity? Or what sources do you have that contradict these sources? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ,, . See any mention of what this guy claims? His source (one that you translated) speculates on why Koryun was appointed Bishop of Georgia.--Eupator 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just ask questions, and I just try to help in resolvng this edit war. I agree with you, the source he provided does not say he is georgian, but the bishop of georgia. So, yes, I agree with you, there are no sources that confirm it, and the sources you provided claim what you indeed assert. (Although the first source is not accaptable per WP:RS, as that can be seen as a partisan source). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, footnote 23 is a rebuttal of the previous footnotes :) --Eupator 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first source Eupator finally could pull off is not acceptable, as neither is the third one, which is just a paper uploaded and for sale, without any name. Meanwhile, the second source does not mention the ethnicity of Koriun -- and cites other non-Armenian authors. Hence, Eupator was unable to counter anything. Meanwhile, once again, all my sources are from credible Armenian (!) sources -- I repeat, they are from Armenian sources, not from independent or sources that are expected to diverge with that of Armenians. There is simply no proof that Koryn was ethnic Armenian, and much scholarship on why he was or could have been Georgian instead (which is not unheard of in Armenian historiography -- their very first writer, Agaphangelos, was not ethnic Armenian either, but Greek from Rome) --AdilBaguirov 07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected and WP:RS
Gentlemen, I have protected the page because of the slow edit warring that was going on. I would suggest that you discuss the issue here. Provide reliable sources (just a name is not enough, cite the boook, article or what ever in detail) for you claims and counter claims. Just inserting and removing stuff is not going to work, and is very annoying. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "original research" or otherwise unreliable research on my part. I have provided all the sources on this talk page already -- what else do you need? Even one such source is enough -- and I've provided almost a dozen, with URLs, all from either Armenian, or Jewish, or Byzantim, or Soviet-Russian *authoritative* sources (i.e,. from well-known authors and editions). If the Armenian editor dislikes this, it is not grounds to ignore this well-known evidence. Once again, upon the first request I've already provided all the references and one has to simply follow those links to verify it. Thus, my edit has to be restored. If Russian is not understood, perhaps a Russian speaker can help. Otherwise, I'd like to request mediation since it is both unfair and not right for the Armenian editor to exlude this information from ... Armenian sources! --AdilBaguirov 23:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection is not an endorsement of the content. But revert warring is not the solution to the problem. One way is to ask the opinion by other editors through WP:RFC, and if that fails, go to WP:RFM. But not just back and forth between two versions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the constant reverts were done by user Eupator -- despite me fully citing everything, giving more than necessary sources from different eras, authors, countries, etc. He cannot deny anything -- and he cannot pretend that this evidence does not exist. So I am not sure why should I evern have to go into RFC or RFM -- any unbiased editor with see it through. Same is true of the Tigranes II Great page -- it is simply outrageous that user Eupator constantly reverts the inconvenient verifiable truth. --AdilBaguirov 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I count reverts from both sides, and I am not looking for the moment who is right in the content dispute, because just revert warring is disruptive and in the end does not resolve the issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the sources provided claim any Georgian ethnicity. It's funny that Georgians and Armenians have never heard of this but some turk thinks otherwise.--Eupator 23:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then my question for AdilBaguirov would be, could you provide the actuall sentences that claim this (in whatever language they are written, if I can not read it, I have a friend who reads those languages). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * now this Armenian user is clearly engaging in lying and falsifications. These sources clearly show that Koryun was Georgian -- that's why he became a episcope in Iberia (Georgia), that's why he didn't attend Armenian Church events, that's why his book is so difficult to read for Armenians, as it was not Koryun's native language. And who is "some Turk" (capitalize the name of nationality, unless grammar is different where you are from)? --AdilBaguirov 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kim, I've provided above both the actual bibliographic references of the books, mostly by Armenian authors, and a summary from a intro chapter by an modern Armenian scholar looking at each of them. They all are, for example from these Armenian editors of Koryun's "Life of Mashtots", Sh.V.Smbatyan and K.A.Melik-Oghajanyan, who specifically discuss all those Armenian scholars who say Koryun was an ethnic Georgian (in Russian, footnotes 15-21: http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/korun/intro.html). --AdilBaguirov 00:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if I am correct, the section that links to the footnotes 15-21 would be the section that provides the answer? That would be
 * [«Из них (т. е. отроков, собранных на учение) и я, недостойный, вступил в сан епископа; среди них первый Самуэл, муж святой и благочестивый, стал епископом при царском дворе»][15].


 * Понимая текст настоящего отрывка в этом аспекте. многие арменисты — армяне и европейцы, начиная с конца XVIII века по сей день, утверждают, что Корюн был возведен в сан епископа для иверов. Из числа этих ученых-арменистов упомянем здесь следующих: М. Чамчьяна, Г. Зарбадаляна, Б. Саргасяна. Г. Алишана и др., а известный арменист Г. Тер-Мкртчян (Миабан) откровенно пишет: «Мы знаем, что Корюн был епископом иверов или иверских армян, а по моему мнению, даже, быть может, ивером (грузином) или по крайней мере грузинским армянином... во всяком случае, трудно иначе понимать сказанное Корюном о себе»[16]. Такое толкование поддерживают и Алишан[17], О. Торосян[18], В Фынтыглян[19], Сарухан[20], S. Weber[21] и др.
 * Correct? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Using an online translator I get this:
 * ''[« From them (t. e. The adolescents collected on the doctrine) and I, unworthy, has entered a dignity of bishop; among them the first Samuel, the husband sacred and pious, became bishop at an imperial court yard »] [15].


 * Understanding the text of the present fragment in this aspect. Many armenisty ? Armenians and Europeans, since the end of XVIII century to this day, approve, that Korjun have been erected in a dignity of bishop for iverov. From among these scientists-àðìåíèñòîâ we shall mention here the following: M. CHamchjana, Zarbadaljana, B.Sargasjana. Alishana, etc., and are known armenist Rubbed-?¬OO?n? (Miaban) frankly writes: « We know, that Korjun were bishop iverov or iverskih Armenians, and in my opinion, even, perhaps, iverom (Georgian) or at least the Georgian Armenian... Anyway, it is difficult to understand differently told Korjunom about itself » [16]. Such interpretation support and Alishan [17], O.Torosjan [18], In Fyntygljan [19], Saruhan [20], S. Weber [21], etc.
 * I understand, that this is a rough translation, please correct where needed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The online translation is pretty good, and I am surprized that Eupator can once more blatantly assert anything. For starters, right after this passage, there is another one, which includes footnote 22, where Armenian editors Sh.V.Smbatyan and K.A.Melik-Oghajanyan look in more details at the arguments of another Armenian scholar and key authority on Koryun (which is how they call him), Dr. G. Fintigliyan. I translate it as well below. Secondly, the key sentence is the last one and second half of the preceeding sentence from the paragraph you translated: "а известный арменист Г. Тер-Мкртчян (Миабан) откровенно пишет: «Мы знаем, что Корюн был епископом иверов или иверских армян, а по моему мнению, даже, быть может, ивером (грузином) или по крайней мере грузинским армянином... во всяком случае, трудно иначе понимать сказанное Корюном о себе»[16]. Такое толкование поддерживают и Алишан[17], О. Торосян[18], В Фынтыглян[19], Сарухан[20], S. Weber[21] и др."

The correct translation is as follows: "[w]hile the well-known/famous Armenologist G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban) frankly/openly writes: «We know, that Koryun was the bishop of Iberians or Iberian Armenians, but in my opinion, even, perhaps, Iberian (Georgian) or at least Georgian Armenian... Anyway, it is difficult to understand differently what was told by Koryun about himself» [16]. Such interpretation is supported by Alishan [17], O.Torosjan [18], G.Fyntygljan [19], Saruhan [20], S. Weber [21], and others."

Thus, as you can see, these two Armenian scholars -- I stress again, Armenian, not independent or Turkish, Azerbaijani, etc. -- themselves name five (5) scholars, including one European and non-Armenian, as agreeing with "well-known" G.Ter-Mkrtchyan. Furthermore, the next paragraph looks in more details at the argument of G.Fintigliyan. Whilst the two Armenian editors do not want to conceed, and try to disagree, they end their thought with: "Вопрос о происхождении Корюна еще не выяснен окончательно. Этот спорный вопрос удастся разрешить после академического издания текста Корюна со всеми разночтениями списков." (this is the second sentence after footnote 27). It's translation is as follows: "The question about origin of Koryun is not yet known definitively. This point of controversy will be possible to resolve after the academic edition of the text of Koryun with all the different manuscripts/lists reconciled". Also, elsewhere, they admit that the basis for their edition was an edition by prof. M.Abegyan, who disagreed with Koryun being Georgian.

Here's the second paragraph which ends with footnote 22:

"Persisting particularly zealously on Iberian origin of Koryun is the known/famous connoisseur of this monument, G. Fyntyglyan. Not calling into question the authenticity of the afore-cited fragment, he brings a row of interesting arguments and contentions, supporting this hypothesis of his. We shall consider some of them. G.Fyntyglyan notarizes, that the name of our author - Koryun, which in translation means the Lion cub, causes certain perplexity. This name, which is rare amongst Armenians before X century, was popular/prevalent in Iberia in the manner/style of Kirion. Therefore, he supposes that the nameform of Koryun is only, so to speak, a mutation of an Iberian name Kirion. Hereinafter, in the opinion of the researcher, the foreign origin of Koryun is particularly noticeable in those events, when he speaks of Armenians, Armenian country, Armenia and Armenian public-officials [politicians]. He never calls them/it as about his native land, "our country", about "our king or catholicos", "our Armenia", but always speaks about as if a foreign [non-native] country, folk, etc., always from a third-person perspective. Only once in printed text, sometimes also in lists/manuscripts we see [***in Armenian] - "ashhars payots", which can mean either "our Armenian country", "our country Armenia", or "this Armenian country", but bearing in mind the single [only] occurrence of such usage, it should most likely be understood as "this Armenian country", or "this country Armenia"; very often we meet the expressions "about their own [its] folk", "their own Armenian country", they worry about (Saak and Mashtots) "its own folk", "about their own [its] country", but not "about my folk", or "about my country". This hypothesis of his he supports with such discourses, as if Koryun speaks of Armenian country with contempt, about "orphan/waif, disorderly places"  and  "unamendable places of Gohtna", which is residing "under influence of the pagan legends and devilish worship to satan", enumerates regions  "with wild dispositions and beast instincts" and so on.

The cause of perplexity in the venerable researcher is also caused by the circumstance that Koryun, this beloved pupil and associate of Mashtots, did not take part/participation in work of such cathedral Armenian Church with participation of the mundane/secular powers, as in Shaapivane (443 - 444 AD) and in Artashat (449 AD). However, this he without much problems explains with the fact that Koryun was initiated as a bishop/episcopate rank in Iberia and for Iberia, and consequently, was then there.

"If we shall acknowledge Georgian origin of Koryun", he writes, "then without much problems will it explain his absence, since then it was not felt for the need of the invitation of him to the cathedral, convened for internal improvement of the Armenian country".(22)"

Thus, it shows that my edit was completely valid, as a string of Armenian, as well as European, scholars have either insisted or at least allowed for the possibility, of Koryun being Georgian. And once again, there were many foreign-born Armenian-language scribers and chroniclers -- some of them were not Armenian at all. Just like we write in English today, but are of different ethnic origin. Hence, the page on Koryun must include his ethnicity, and user Eupator should also appologize for his childish behavior and attempts to supress evidence and deny it strauss-style, by pretending he doesn't see it. --AdilBaguirov 09:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the section you pointed at is not giving the answer, and that is where I based it on. Second, stop with wording like "blatant lies" and related to discuss the other editor, discuss the content. Now I will have a look at the text itself and make my own opinion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading your translations, and the ones I made myself, I do not see that your insertion of of Georgian ethnicity is warranted. At best, there is some discussion about it as the conclusion of the text says: "The question about origin of Koryun is not yet known definitively.", while the remainder of the text first describes the arguments of a scholar in favour, and than discusses these debuinking them at least partially. Anything you do beyond this is original research, and concluding that he is Georgian is not based on what I read, but based on your interpretation of that text. Wikipedia is NOT the place to resolve those issues, as that is in violation with the no original research policy. We document, nothing more. Based on the text above, I can see that inclusion of the fact that this discussion about his etnicity exists among scholars, is warranted, but only when kept in proportion to the remainder of the text. As such, make a suggestion for one sentence or maybe two that describe this issue. And keep in mind, no original research, aka no interpretation of yourself. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided the whole URL link for everyone to read all the arguments for and against, and wanted to have only one line about the ethnicity anyway, nothing major or long. The Armenian editors gave more than enough names to show that there are major discussions and opinions on this issue, and that a substantial number of Armenian and European scholars who maintain he was Georgian and bring some good arguments. In the end, the two editors have to conceed with: "The question about origin of Koryun is not yet known definitively". In other words, they could not fully "debunk" the opinions of those scholars, only tried to put some dents and show their reluctance to agree, which is understandeable.


 * The line you and I translated I think is fairly definitive: "[w]hile the well-known/famous Armenologist G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban) frankly/openly writes: «We know, that Koryun was the bishop of Iberians or Iberian Armenians, but in my opinion, even, perhaps, Iberian (Georgian) or at least Georgian Armenian... Anyway, it is difficult to understand differently what was told by Koryun about himself». So if this scholar -- and those who agreed with him -- could openly write about Koryun's ethnicity, why can't we at Wikipedia?


 * Anyway, the proposed short one-line is as follows: "According to some scholars (cite the 6 bibliographies outlined above in the Talk page), Koryun was an ethnic Georgian". --AdilBaguirov 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I read the same line (We know, that Korjun were bishop iverov or iverskih Armenians, and in my opinion, even, perhaps, iverom (Georgian) or at least the Georgian Armenian... Anyway, it is difficult to understand differently told Korjunom about itself), it reads to me that the author discusses whether he was also the bishop of the georgians. If it boils down to the interpretation of this sentence, I will ask a friend of me, who is a russian scholar to interpret the sentence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, both the quote, and the two Armenian editors who described and cited this in their academic translation of Koryun, make clear that what is meant by G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban), along with "Alishan [17], O.Torosjan [18], G.Fyntygljan [19], Saruhan [20], S. Weber [21], and others", is that Koryun was ethnic Georgian. Here's the translation of the paragraph again, in which I guess the preceeding line that is not in your translation is important for understanding the context:

1) In original, Russian: "а известный арменист Г. Тер-Мкртчян (Миабан) откровенно пишет: «Мы знаем, что Корюн был епископом иверов или иверских армян, а по моему мнению, даже, быть может, ивером (грузином) или по крайней мере грузинским армянином... во всяком случае, трудно иначе понимать сказанное Корюном о себе»[16]. Такое толкование поддерживают и Алишан[17], О. Торосян[18], В Фынтыглян[19], Сарухан[20], S. Weber[21] и др."

2) The correct translation is as follows: "[w]hile the well-known/famous Armenologist G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban) frankly/openly writes: «We know, that Koryun was the bishop of Iberians or Iberian Armenians, but in my opinion, even, perhaps, Iberian (Georgian) or at least Georgian Armenian... in any case, it is difficult to understand [any] differently what was said by Koryun about himself» [16]. Such interpretation is supported by Alishan [17], O.Torosjan [18], G.Fyntygljan [19], Saruhan [20], S. Weber [21], and others."

In other words, he clearly says that it is already an established fact that Koryun was a bishop in Georgia, yet in his opinion -- supported by bunch of other scholars -- he was also an ethnic Georgian or at the very least Georgian Armenian." Then he lists reasons why he makes this conclusion, and the two Armenian editors didn't even try to counter-argue them all -- only partially.

In the end of that section, the editors reluctantly conclude: "The question about origin of Koryun is not yet known definitively..."

I most welcome and encourage you to consult with a native Russian speaker and have this resolved as soon as possible. My translation is precise and accurate, and better than any machine translations (I have several such programs, and translated often, so I know their capabilities and faults). As I said, Vehipedia article includes the wording suggested by me. --AdilBaguirov 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be incorrect since not one scholar seems to think so.--Eupator 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems this sentence, along with all others, need to be re-read: "[w]hile the well-known/famous Armenologist G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban) frankly/openly writes: «We know, that Koryun was the bishop of Iberians or Iberian Armenians, but in my opinion, even, perhaps, Iberian (Georgian)..." --AdilBaguirov 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Вопрос о происхождении Корюна еще не выяснен окончательно. Этот спорный вопрос удастся разрешить после академического издания текста Корюна со всеми разночтениями списков.


 * The issue of Koryun’s origin is not finally settled. This disputed issue can be resolved after academic publication of Koryun’s text with inclusion of all conflicting manuscripts.


 * What you mean by "not one scholar seems to think so"? His ethnicity is disputed. Grandmaster 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any dispute. Translate this:

У Фынтыгляна имеются и другие доводы, подтверждающие его гипотезу, но они носят второстепенный характер и нуждаются в дополнительном обосновании.

Некоторые из доводов упомянутого исследователя мало убедительны. Довод о том, что Корюн нигде армянскую страну, Армению и т. д. не упоминает как свою, родную страну, а всегда о ней говорит в третьем лице, как о чужой стране, и т. д. неубедителен, потому что он в таких же выражениях повествует и об Иверии, иверской стране, народе... Невольно возникает вопрос, почему же см и о «своей» родине повествует в третьем лице? Следует здесь вспомнить, что в первой половине V века некоторые армянские авторы об Армении к обо всем том, что касается армян, повествовали также в третьем лице, например, Фавстос Бузанл в своей «Истории Армении» и др.

Пренебрежительное отношение Корюна к нравам и обычаям некоторых районов Армении, якобы подтверждающее гипотезу нашего исследователя, также не может стать непреложным доказательством иностранного (грузинского) происхождения автора «Истории Маштоца». Ведь Корюн точно так же говорит и о нравах жителей иверских и агванских гаваров. В данном случае устами Корюна говорит патриот, любящий свою родину, отчизну, болеющий душой за родной народ. Разве не такими были и другие армянские писатели V века, в частности великий Мовсес Хоренаци. Вспомним его «Плач».

Далее. Отсутствие Корюна на армянских собоpax второй половины 40-х годов V века без труда можно объяснить и преждевременной смертью нашего автора...

Из всей аргументации Г. Фынтыгляна о грузинском происхождении Корюна самым веским является вышеупомянутый отрывок текста «Истории».

Впрочем и этот отрывок вызывает определенные сомнения. С конца прошлого столетия выдвинуты были разные конъектуры данного отрывка. Так. еще в конце 90-х голов известный филолог-арменист Норайр Бюзандаци категорически отверг подлинность его, «считая его, без сомнения, искаженным», и предложил следующую конъюктуру: *** — «из них (т. е. из учеников) нашлись достойные возвестись в сан епископа»[23].

Конъектура Hорайра Бюзандаци[24], несмотря на возражения Г. Фынтыгляна, дала импульс арменоведам-филологам для гиьых интерпретаций данного текста. Из них считаем необходимым отметить здесь мнения видных ученых, aрменистов-филологов: М. Абегяна[25], Т. Авдалбекяна[26], Н. Акиняна[27]. --Eupator 11:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange - it seems like we all read the same text, but someone must be misunderstanding it. The passage above is like I said an attempt to dent the opinion of the above-mentioned scholars, and both Armenian editors conceed that they disagree only with "part" of their arguments. It took a whole century until 1990s, when another Armenian scholar decided to simply reject the passage that was inconvenient, and offer his own -- which was gladly taken up by other researchers (over strong objections by Dr. Fyntygliyan), including the two editors (who admit their book is based on his contention). This is probably symptomatic and shows the way business is run in Armenia's scholarly community as of late.


 * Meanwhile, it does not deny the fact that: "[w]hile the well-known/famous Armenologist G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban) frankly/openly writes: «We know, that Koryun was the bishop of Iberians or Iberian Armenians, but in my opinion, even, perhaps, Iberian (Georgian) or at least Georgian Armenian... Anyway, it is difficult to understand differently what was told by Koryun about himself» [16]. Such interpretation is supported by Alishan [17], O.Torosjan [18], G.Fyntygljan [19], Saruhan [20], S. Weber [21], and others."


 * And no less important, after my and Eupator's paragraphs comes this one, which shows that both editors, despite attempts, were unable to resolve it even for themselves and had to concede that:


 * Вопрос о происхождении Корюна еще не выяснен окончательно. Этот спорный вопрос удастся разрешить после академического издания текста Корюна со всеми разночтениями списков.


 * "The issue of Koryun’s origin is not finally settled. This disputed issue can be resolved after academic publication of Koryun’s text with inclusion of all conflicting manuscripts."


 * Hence, the proposed short one-line is justified: "According to some scholars (cite the 6 bibliographies outlined above in the Talk page), Koryun was an ethnic Georgian". --AdilBaguirov 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing above makes that claim. Nothing. Your source speculates, based on the fact that he was appointed Bishop of Georgia. Which is not even a Western source from a well known scholar or book, that is preferred in Wikipedia. No solid fact just speculation. If your source is uncertain, than how on earth are you proposing that some scholars suggest Koryun was an ethnic Georgian? Who are these guys anyway? Not to mention that during Koryun's time the Georgian and Armenian Churches were in full communion and separated only in 550, which makes the appointment of Koryun in Georgia perfectly reasonable. You're going to have to try harder or produce a Western source that doesn't just speculate.--Eupator 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but there is plenty of solid references and very clear, unambiguous references that Koryun was ethnic Georgian in the opinion of many scholars. As of Western scholars -- first there is no such requirement. Second, one was given -- S.Weber. Third, the two Armenian editors write that Koryun's Georgian ethnicity it is supported by many European scholars. Fourth, what don't you like about Armenian scholars like Dr. Fintigliyan or Ter-Mkrtchyan? That's the ultimate, when Armenians themselves admit that Koryun was not Armenian, but Georgian. There is no need for more sources -- all sources given are world-class, authoritative and verifiable. Certainly much more than you've produced so far if I am not mistaken. --AdilBaguirov 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When you provide a verifiable source that claims that Koryun was an ethnic Georgian without buts or if's then we will continue this discussion, until then I say have a nice day.--Eupator 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your objections are noted, but hardly sufficient -- one cannot erase and ignore not one, not two, not three, but multiple scholars from different times and countries all saying the same thing. And also, Vehipedia correctly reflected this fact as well, http://www.vehi.net/wiki/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BD, hence I do not think Koryun's Georgian ethnicity can be supressed from Wikipedia: "Некоторые исследователи (Г. Фынтыглян, Г. Тер-Мкртчян, S. Weber) высказывали предположение, что Корюн был ивером (грузином)". --AdilBaguirov 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe. According to you, Koryun was Georgian, Tigran was Parthian, and let me guess, Levon Ter-Petrossian is Azerbaijani? Hakob 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just the messenger. The scholars who admit Koryun's Georgian ethnicty and Tigranes' Parthian are Armenians.--AdilBaguirov 05:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied in the text above. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so when will the edit about Koyun being ethnic Iberian (Georgian) appear in the page? all evidence has been presented and it is clear that this is the opinion of more than one scholar, with strong facts presented by them that have not been disproven fully by any dissenter. --AdilBaguirov 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When pigs can fly, Wikipedia is not a bordello like Azeri institutions full of descendants of Shumer and Akkad. Read again what Kim van der Linde said.--Eupator 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went through the talk page and Adil's url. Adil's proposal (that some scholars believe Koryun was Georgian) is clearly not supported by the evidence. The problem is that the article mentions the names of a few Armenian historians, but we simply don't know what these historians exactly said or concluded. The only directly quoted historian--Ter-Mkrtchyan--states that Koryun was a bishop of "Georgians or Georgian Armenians." He then merely speculates the possibility that Koryun could have been either Georgian or an Armenian living in Georgia. Of course anything is possible, and the historian makes no conclusion that Koryun was Georgian.

All we know about the other authors is that they talked about the same thing--we don't know whether they concluded that Koryun was Georgian--all we know, they could have thought that he was Armenian from Georgia, or they could have discussed the hypothesis and rejected it.

The author of the article itself does not conclude any Georgian ancestry--in fact he blasts the hypothesis with arguments.

In sum, Adil's source does not support saying that either Koryun was Georgian, or that even some historians believe so.

As far as the author's statement that "the question of Koryun's ethnicity is not resolved" is concerned, there is no basis for including that statement in the article either. First, that's only that particular person's opinion, and under NPOV standards, we don't take one scholar's opinion as fact. Second, under Undue Weight subrules of NPOV, we don't include opinions held by a tiny minority (in this case, basically one person--the author of the intro). Third, let's keep in mind that the author most likely wrote the intro in the 1960's (with the translation), and the historians mentioned by Adil lived in 1700's-1930's. Clearly, the author's statement can't be interpreted as representing the state of scholarship now.

I also want to note that Adil has shown a pattern of proposing statements unsupported by his own sources, doing so quite often on other Armenia-related articles as well, including the Nagorno-Karabakh and Tigranes the Great articles.--TigranTheGreat 09:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
This article has been protected for over a month now, and little discussion has taken place. I'm unprotecting, but ask all editors to read Kim's comments first:


 * Provide reliable sources (just a name is not enough, cite the boook, article or what ever in detail) for you claims and counter claims. Just inserting and removing stuff is not going to work, and is very annoying. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the sources and information presented in the academic edition of Koryun's "Life of Mashtots" by two Armenian scholars, Sh.V.Smbatyan and K.A.Melik-Oghajanyan, a number of Armenian and European scholars maintained that Koryun was an ethnic Georgian (see, in Russian, footnotes 15-21 ). Specifically, the scholars and their works cited are:
 * G.Alishan. "Haypatum", Vol. I, Venice, 1901, p. 48 (in Armenian).
 * G.Ter-Mkrtchyan (Miaban), "From the Agaphangelos sources", Ararat publishing, 1896, p. 430 (in Armenian).
 * O.Torosyan, "Bazmavel", 1897, pp. 32-34.
 * G.Fintiglyan, "Koryun", u.s., pp. XVIII-XXII и XXXIV.
 * A.Saruhan, "Georgia and Armenians", Vienna, 1939, pp. 233-245 (in Armenian).
 * S. Weber (Koriun. Beschreibung des Lebens und Sterbens d. hl. Lehrers Mesrop. Ubersetzt und mit Einleitung versehen von Dr. Simon Weber: Ausgewaehte Schriften d. armenischen Kirchenvaeter, I Band, Eznik. Koriun. Hatschachapatum, 1927, SS. 181—233 (Bibliolhek d. Kirchenvater).) --adil 07:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blah blah ...Same recycled crap. Ypu have my response above the page. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What a response! What is "crap" -- the works by Armenian scholars? --adil 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. You know what exactly.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All I know is that a great number of specialists, scholars, deem Koryun to have been of Georgian origin. And no one, particularly not unqualified anons, should call that "crap" --adil 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Per sources above, Koryun was an ethnic Georgian, and this should be reflected in the article. --adil 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what the purpose of this discussion page is? You haven't bothered responding to all the arguments against your pov interpretations yet you insist on revert warring. Open an RFC.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your jokes are not funny Eupator -- I've presented more sources that all of you combined, whilst you haven't presented any new sources that would dispute the Georgian ethnicity of Koryun. In any case, under Verifiability clause, my info must be reflected and you cannot remove it. --adil 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) As per sources above, Koryun was an ethnic Georgian. There is nothing to add to this simple fact -- all the bibliography and quotes are listed. --adil 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hakob, don't repeat the mistakes of your predecessors, and don't delete verifiable academic info. Meanwhile, all your corrections were preserved. --adil 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Desperate Editors
I feel sorry about Turkish, Azerbaijan, and Georgian editors seeing how hard they try to steel Armenian history and then again their getting paid by the government, and one of those government presidents is Azerbaijani. He was so Illiterate on history to go ahead and say that Yerevan is Azerbaijani land. And the Wikipedia for them is a way for them to play dirty games. But I wont worry those people because no matter how much money they spend and resources they cannot change the history. Even sometimes they look silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianbyDNA (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)