Talk:Martiros Kavoukjian

anon revert warring
75.51, you may want to look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you want to claim anyone is an "eminent historian", especially a person who was never even trained as a historian, and much less held tenure at an academic institution, you will have to cite reliable sources for the claim. --dab (𒁳) 06:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?
Sorry but some points in this article are dubious:

1. "He is best known for his national mysticist (??) account of Armenian prehistory in Armenia, Subartu And Sumer, self-published (?) in 1987 in both English and Armenian." Why mysticist? He is well known and respected historian for many Armenian historians included acad. Rafael Ishkhanian, prof. Levon Shahinyan, Dr. Anjela Teryan, Karapet Sukiasyan, Thomas Samuelian etc! Im not sure if the marked book's Armenian version self-published by Kavoukjian, and it is a fact that English version is published by Malkhassian Foundation (the author was only the iniciator as he was oppresed in Soviet Union and cant publishe this work in Soviet Armenia where he published some other works).


 * The people you mentioned happen to share such lunatic views.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the pejorative "Lunacy" is allowed in these discussions? 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Armenia, Subartu And Sumer - we need a separate article for this book. He have also more famous work called The origin of the names Armen, Hye, and Urartu, in the subway, 1973 we need to represent also this book as many historians influenced by this book.


 * The book itself is not notable enough to have its own article by any means.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3. and sorry, Im not sure the only quotation from P. Kohl and G. Tzetzkhladze is enough to classify Kavoukjian's work as pseudo-history! He is respected Armenian scolar and I even dont sure if he was a nationalist (the only work he done was related to ancient history, architects, he never included in any modern national events, movements, ideologies, and never wrote about them)...Andranikpasha 19:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more than enough. P. Kohl and G. Tzetzkhladze's book is a peer reiewed academic source.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Armenian-hypothesis assumes that Diakonov's outdated hypothesis is antecendent to the Armenian hypothesis, which in itself is an inaccurace. Diakonov did not have the opportunity to address the question in the modern context. Second, Diakonov was blasted in Russia for his biased analytics concerning the nation origins of the Caucasus and Armenian highland. That there are no English equivalents as such only demonstrate the politicized anti-Armenian climate that pretends objectivity while forwarding a very pro-Turkish agenda. Indeed, how freely can one "hypothecize" something as having been of Armenian origins if one is forced to maintain a relationship with a known revisionist government? 66.51.214.223 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Read this WP:Assume good faith • WP:Civility • WP:Etiquette while making reverts ok? Wait for the end of discussion as you're not the only person who can be right in any discussion! Andranikpasha 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * if he is a "respected scholar", how come we cannot cite any source for this article? Why do we have to rely on hearsay from "armeniapedia.org" attributed to one "Hagop Nalbandian"? Raising "WP:Civility" is just a weak attempt that this article has no justification for existing on Wikipedia, at all. Wikipedia has policies. The only source we can quote is a review debunking the book as unremarkable chauvinist pseudohistory. I suppose we can mention the book briefly at Armenian nationalism. Pending citation of real sources, I will just turn this into a redirect there for now. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, at first I added a reference where an Armenologist from Marseille asks good words about Kavoukjian as a scientist. Also I added references from Armeanian Proffesors and Dr-s who used and cited his books. So pls read at first the article to ask no references.

If you think he is not notable, then just delete this article. If a book was called once "chauvinist", it never means you can add all the article about a person, another "part" of article about that book (I cant understant what the user added it here??, maybe also to add the Mosul article here, as Kavoukjian was the mayor architect of that city, etc?). We (you) even didnt add Pseudohistory to the Denial of Armenian Genocide with a lot of scolar critics, whats the reason to do it here? Also as I know there is a difference between Nationalism and Chauvinism, anyways its hard to discuss any OR which seems to be obvious fact but hadnt even one reference directly calling the author an Armenian nationalist... Id just like to add I looked on some of your contributions to the Armenian articles where you made editions based on some authors POV and sometimes on OR (Id like to see a source asking the chauvinism and nationalism are similar terms). Id like to ask Im not agree with such a policies, as any Admin will be more factual, more reliable, try to operate with facts... Andranikpasha 11:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * your "Armenologist from Marseille" is in fact an archimandrite of the Armenian church. Try to show a little bit of good faith. it is clear as day that Kavoukjian cannot be taken seriously as a scholar for one minute. The question is merely, what is his notability in Armenian nationalism. I am prepared to recognize him as important enough to keep this title as a redirect to a discussion of Armenian nationalist historiography. If Kavoukjian is notable as an architect, by all means discuss him as an architect rather than as a crackpot author. As long as you try representing pseudohistory as academically notable, we have no debate at all. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, he's not mine... Yes, he is an Armenologist from Marseille, and an archimandrite of Armenian church: so what's the logic to delete only the first part from the article? Surely he is interested in Kavoukjian rather as Armenologist, than a Christian archimandrite:) "As long as you try representing pseudohistory as academically notable, we have no debate at all." - he never was called a pseudohistorian! Once a book by him was called "chauvinism", we will mark it, and his other works were used by a number of respected professors and Dr-s (any facts against them?), we will mark it too! nothing more! Andranikpasha 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

look, I have a hard time believing you are serious. What is your definition of "Armenologist", and how does this Marseille character qualify as one? I am sorry, but I have no patience to waste debating the obvious. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A definition of Armenology you can find for example here []. Andranikpasha 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dieter (dab (𒁳) ), it's understandable that Wikipedia policy requires to base articles on official source of references and I do agree with that as I always include a source of reference after my edits within articles I contribute. I'm not here to say, by the way, that this one doesn't need one, I'm just here to say that let's keep in mind that Armenia is yet to adopt vast internet usage as well as develop informative internet web sites such as the one that we need here for this article. So this is not the only known person, I'm sure, that one would have a difficult time finding a source for. However, two things that I could surely say is that Martiros Kavoukjian is mentioned in Armenian Encyclopedia (the one that I have is 1976 edition) as an architect mostly and also it is mentioned all the way at the end that "he also engages himself within scientific-theoretical research and has published a book "The Origin of the Names Armen and Hye and Urartu" in 1973 in Beirut" (this is in Armenian by the way). Second thing that I can say is that he has never been received for chauvinistic points of view. Perhaps if someone with Armenian fonts could try and search an info on Martiros Kavoukjian through an Armenian search engine, they might find a source we can use. Otherwise, I would prefer to see this article entirely erased rather than leave something as ridiclulous as we have now. A man, who was respected both as an architect and an orientalist-historian such as my grandfather does not have to have an article in wikipedia to prove who he was. Because we all know, Dieter. So stop fighting please over what wikipedia policy needs to be followed in order to keep this man's info having it look as pathetic as it currently portrays. That's not who he was.--Harout72 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

that's fine -- let us reduce this to what we actually have. I am willing to take your word that the 1976 Armenian Encyclopedia mentions Kavoukjian as an architect and author. So let us cut it down to this, together with such publication details of his books as we have. If in doubt, it is always a good idea to go back and work from what we can actually reference. dab (𒁳) 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * if Kavoukjian is in vol. 2 of the ASE (1976), I take it he is actually called Gawowkjian, with Գ . dab (𒁳) 08:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Dieter he is in the vol.2 on page 697 to be precise. And yes you're right it is spelled with a Գ. Գավուգչյան. (that's the third letter in Armenian alphabet which is pronounced as a sound "K" in western Armenian, and a sound "G" (as an Garry for example) in eastern Armenian (used in Armenia). --Harout72 22:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

sure. we should still transliterate it as a G per ISO (Naming conventions (Armenian)). --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if it would be useful to also include his first name written in Armenian, well, any how, I'll leave it here, it's up to you if you want to enter it within the article. This is the way it's spelled in ASE "Մարտիրոս".--Harout72 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability
This article has been tagged for ages. In order for it to pass WP:BIO, Kavoukjian must be shown to have been the
 * subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Alternatively, if we want to argue his book passes WP:BK, we need to show that
 *  The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

Nothing of the kind has been established. We have shown that Kavoukjian has been mentioned in passing in a couple of publications. This isn't sufficient. If the notability issue isn't finally addressed, I'll AfD the article. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Most of the lead section seems directed at establishing notability. Doesn't seem to be the right section for information about who cited the man. -- BenTels (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)