Talk:Zakarid dynasty

Mkhagrdzeli Kurds does not mean non-Iranian
Kurds are an Iranian people just like Swedish or English people are Germanic. Being Kurdish does not mean non-Iranian. Kurdish means all Iranians who live in northwestern Persia. Sharishirin (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zakarids have nothing to do with Kurds, the original medieval Armenian texts say they came from Korduk (Armenian province south of Lake Van, now - Hakkari in Turkey). This does not mean they were modern people called "Kurds." It is the same mistake made by the Armenian writer Raffi who claimed that Mamikonians originated from China (he mixed up China and the Chen (Armenian name for Pontos/Lazistan). Pitael (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Provide your sources and add it to the article; but do not remove sourced material. Sharishirin (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, just want to point out that according to the book 'Tamta's World', it's actually the Armenian historion Kirakos Gandzaketsi that called them Kurds. Vardan Arewelts'i's also did so, by the way. It may be added to this article that their ancestor was said to have breaken away from the Babirakan khel (tribe). Cheers. Znertu (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Princes of Zakarian dynasty of possibly Yazidi origin
The provided source is not a result of scientific work or some kind of research, it's a political report, published in 2003 about current political and social condition of Yazidi people in Georgia. As Georgian Orthodox church officially disputes the nationality of Zakarid dynasty being Armenian, with pretext to push forward demands for churches built in Zakarid Armenia, using publications by Georgian nationals to cast doubt on Zakarids Armenian nationality further disputes the reliability of the source.

Removing the edit about their Yazidi origin together with the source. Please provide reliable, scientifically backed source. Discuss it here before adding questionable content. Hayordi (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reworking
The article needs some serious revision. There are many ethnocentric theories of origin in Armenian, Georgian, and Kurdish sources, and some Armenian sources exaggerate the status of the family to a near-imperial level. I'll try to compile and reconcile the available sources to rewrite the article in the near future. I do hope that I'll enjoy positive input from those interested in the subject, although I understand the difficulty of this task given the pervasive ethnonationalism in modern Caucasian history writing. --KoberTalk 16:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Steverci, if you want to mention the Arsruni theory in the article, please provide a reliable source for that. There are many theories regarding the family's origin. Once properly sourced, we can mention them all. For your knowledge, the Zachariads' Kurdish origin is not a Georgian theory. That may be an exaggeration, but the family did have some Kurdish roots, probably through earlier intermarriages. I'll add sources on that later. --KoberTalk 16:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am busy with other things at the moment, but I will get around to this. But I do assure you that The Kurdish rumor comes from the Georgian Orthodox Church, who deny the origins of all one third of Iberian noble families that are Armenian. As you can see by looking up this has already been discussed here. I'll get the sources for this later, but for now here's a quote from the Library of Congress that should give you an idea why:


 * "And, from then on, it is the line of David Soslun. So, they did some DNA testing and they belong to the line of David Soslun belongs to the Q1 or something like this line.  It's something which tells the Georgians that their royal families are of Armenian origin, the origin of the Bagratids and then from an Ossetian.  It's really something, very difficult for them to swallow."


 * I was thinking of putting this on the Bagratoni article. Would you have a problem with that? --Steverci (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but what are you talking about? I don't understand what is the link you are referring to. I presume it is a transcript of some obscure meeting which does not qualify as a reliable source. Honestly, I don't really understand what you are trying to prove. We all know the fact that the Georgian Bagratids had Armenian and Alanian blood even without even opening your ludicrous link. I hope this is not the best source you can find to advance your point.


 * Anyway, the Bagratid issue has nothing to do with the Zacharids. As for the "rumor coming from the Georgian Orthodox Church", your assumption is false. Please come back with sources. As you can see, the Kurdish theory, as given in the current version, is sourced and none of these sources has anything to do with the Georgian church.--KoberTalk 17:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually before I go dig up the sources, I've been thinking: Assuming there is a Kurd/Yazidi ancestor, is that even enough to warrant a header place, let alone a mention? Because the sources agree it is an Armenian family. By that logic we need to put "Armenian" on every single Bagratoni article. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please mind WP:OTHERSTUFF and focus on the current discussion. We don't need to put "Kurdish" on every single Mkhargrdzeli-related article, but it should be mentioned in the main article on the family. I do agree that more clarification should be brought in and more should be said about the origin in its proper section without giving preference to fringe theories in the lede. That's why I'm contemplating a complete rewrite. --KoberTalk 08:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Too many sources in lead and other problems
There's too many sources in the lead, and per WP:WHYCITE: we shouldn't have any sources in the lead at all. Also, very common alternative names are being removed. This is borderline disruptive. There dozens if not hundreds of sources that refer to the Zakarids as Zakarians. The readers should be aware of this. Also, with this edit, you are attempting to make a purely Georgian victory when clearly the sources say (page 108) that Tamar's forces were under the Zakarians who utilized both Armenians and Georgians during their battles thus making it a Armeno-Georgian victory. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, I would suggest you actually reread the policy you are referring to. "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead."


 * The article is actually a stub and its lead contains much of the info which, theoretically, should be discussed in details elsewhere in the article. That's why there are so many sources in the lead. WP:WHYCITE does not justify removal of the references. Second, Georgia ruled over an multiethnic region at that time. Armenians did contribute to Tamar's military successes, but there were also Kipchaks, Alans, etc. The country that actually achieved these victories was the Kingdom of Georgia. Third, please stop posting irrelevant messages on my talk page.--KoberTalk 16:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My version is not so different than yours. I just want a reduced amount of citations in this article. What you're being a victim of is WP:CITEKILL. You have 5 sources when we just need 1 for that claim and it looks like you're keeping them there to make some sort of WP:POINT. This is, as I said earlier, borderline disruptive. Armenians contributed to many of Queen Tamar's successes and this cannot be denied. There's a plethora of sources that leads us to believe that.


 * "At the epogee of their power, under Queen Tamar (1184- 1213) and Zakarid generals, the Armeno-Georgian armies overran fortresses..."
 * "Under Queen Tamar (1184-1213), the Armeno-Georgian armies surged ahead reclaiming one after another fortress..."
 * " The highpoint of the age came when the Armenian generals Ivane and Zakare Zakarian, leading armies of Georgians and Armenians,"
 * "When the Georgian Bagratids achieved their apogee under Queen Tamar (1184−1213), the Armenian Zakʿarid brothers Zakʿarē and Iwanē were appointed as the commanders of the Armeno-Georgian armies."
 * " Tamar had two excellent generals, the Armenian brothers Ivane and Zakare Zakarian."


 * And so many more. So please do not continue this path and just say it was the Georgian army when sources deem it otherwise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the "overkill of sources" on this stub page, you know whats actually "borderline disruptive"? Blatantly edit-warring over content changes and additions as made by a CU blocked sockpuppet,- when its not your first time either. I noticed that EtienneDolet is very keen about fully reinstating sock material of this sockmaster just like that, but is right there on spot to revert edits made by other unrelated sockpuppets whose edits don't fit with his view. Read about WP:DENY, if you have not. About WP:WHYCITE; it doesn't state anything about the needed exclusion of references in the lede. Especially for topics of this area, which are so often subjected to ethno-nationalistic editing, and with the article being in a stub state, I don't see why the quantity of reliable sources would be a foremost issue right now. They can and should oviously be removed later on when the article has been expanded and, taking this matter as a foremost example, the ethnic origin of the family has thoroughly been covered in the body for example. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Origins
This is kind of confusing and very disturbing. So we know that the Zakarids are from the Pahlavuni, which themselves are from the Kamsarakan, and those are from the House of Karen, truely Parthians. How then does it come that the introducing text describes them as Armenian or Kurdish? --Parthavian (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Title
It's Zakarids or Mkhargrdzeli. Pick one. I prefer the former, but the latter seems actually a bit more common in English RS. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)