Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Armenian historiography


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Strong consensus to delete, supported by OR and POV concerns. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Armenian historiography

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete I've read this article two times over and I'm still trying to understand what the purpose of its creation is. It's essentially an irrelevant, disconnected, hodgepodge collection of certain scholars criticizing sources originating from Armenians all under the vague banner of "Criticism of Armenian historiography." What exactly does the reliability of the 7th century History of Taron have to do with the Iron Age kingdom Urartu's connections to Armenia? It digresses once more and shifts to a vague and poorly written section on the criticism of Soviet Armenian scholars, then the medieval author Movses Khorenatsi and then questions why Armenians are not infatuated enough with the date May 28 as they are with September 23. The reliability of the scholars further dampen the usefulness of the article: an obscure Polish (historian? archaeologist?) is cited to support, once again, vague claims, and even moreso when it cites a highly unreliable author numerous times, Turkkaya Ataov, who is a vicious denier of the Armenian Genocide.

How any of this falls under such a vast banner as "Falsification of history" and is placed in the same box as Holocaust Denial and neo-Stalinism is beyond me but it does certainly provoke thought as to what its supposed to demonstrate. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can go on but I think the silliness of this article is practically self-evident. If someone is criticizing a historian from the seventh century or a city built in the first century B.C. or a kingdom from the Iron Age, it can go on its respective article; desperately grasping for straws on anyone who criticizes Armenian historians and then lumping them into a single article to thus show their unreliability reeks of POV and it's tragic that Brandmeister, its creator, has taken such lowly steps to demonstrate this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A collection of dubious minority POV quotations with a possible purpose of anti-Armenian propagand. Some of the sources like Suny are included in the same Armenian historiography. Gazifikator (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't wonder, given who is prodding the article. Another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it is not "certain scholars", but even Armenian ones or of Armenian heritage, such as Suny, not to mention the third-parties. Indeed, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I have much more to write. The criticism clearly detected several forgeries in particular, so it falls under the falsification of history template pretty well. And I don't think that Turkkaya Ataov or even just knowledgeable man can't debunk the misattribution and fake caption for quite notable painting. brandспойт 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Why am I not surprised that Brand created this article, his obsession with smearing anything Armenian seems to have no bounds. How on earth is a 9th century alleged geneological forgery by Photios I of Constantinople fall under the banner of modern revisionism? I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Brand here then goes on to place the article under the header for Holocaust denial in this template, see the diff . What was the rush? Sickening. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking solely about revisionism. If there are forgeries (even Armenian authors confirm that), they can be naturally in the criticism. The Holocaust denial is criticized as justly as Armenian historiography. brandспойт 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, how could I be so mistaken... The content of this bogus article doesn't even match the lead. You placed the article under the topic of Holocaust denial in that template without paying any attention obviously. You should have at least placed it next to "Censorship of images in the Soviet Union‎", not that it would matter anyway.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Baku87 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A contributing article with objective sources, there is no reason for deletion.
 * Merge and Delete. If the historiographers are notable, than the criticism should go on their pages or the subjects-being-investigated-by-the-historiographers' page, etc. The article in its current state is a hodgepodge list of criticisms that violates WP:coatrack. I don't think there is enough notable content to justify a whole separate article on criticisms alone when there isn't even an article on Armenian historiography. Sifaka   talk  17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge information and Delete as per Sifaka. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Armenian history is rich enough that discussing random criticism of scholars analyzing different chunks of it qualifies as indiscriminate. Ray  Talk 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in fact is large enough to not to be merged into any of the suitable article. I see nothing of coatrack as it currently defined: I can hardly imagine that the forgeries, dating criticism and improper attributions, confirmed by several scholars independently, are tangentially related biased subject with regard to the criticism of Armenian historiography. Neither do I think that the article runs against the fundamental NPOV policy, as defined in WP:COAT. "There isn't even an article on Armenian historiography" is not a valid argument as well, otherwise what hinders you from creating the page?


 * Regarding indiscriminate collection, you should read WP:INDISCRIMINATE first, it says that the articles just should not be plot summaries, lyrics databases, lists of statistics and news reports. That's all. brandспойт 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of its content seems virulently POV, most of the rest is unrelated trivia gathered from here and there. The purpose of its creation is pretty clear in its "other issues" subsection: spread propaganda aimed at denying the Armenian Genocide and Nagorno-Karabakh propaganda produced by Azerbaijan, and give that propaganda a spurious veneer of respectability. There might be a valid case for an "Armenian historiography" entry, with a "criticism" subsection within it. But I bet little of the content in this current entry would survive scrutiny and end up in it. Meowy 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Like the nominator described above, I too am curious to know what this page wishes to accomplish. Specific criticism of historiography probably falls within the reach of the articles on the authors who posited those positions. Notable nationalistic positions could be included within the context of an article covering nationalism, and I see two articles existing on the particular subject: Armenian nationalism and Armenian national awakening. We're falling into the trap with the potential of creating a domino effect. It can be said it will be inevitable that someone will soon create a Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography and where will it stop then? I share the concerns of Sifaka when he/she states that there isn't even an article on Armenian historiography. Lastly, I'm a little troubled with this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template:Falsification_of_history&diff=prev&oldid=287826964, which places the criticism of Armenian historiography on par with Holocaust denial. What meaning does this article's author wish to convey?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question on what this page wishes to accomplish is quite simple: we are writing encyclopedia. It is not some scattered non-notable scholars or a 'collection of dubious minority POV quotations', but a continuous stream by Alfred von Gutschmid, Arnold J. Toynbee, Ronald Suny, Bruce Metzger, Erich Feigl, Victor Schnirelmann etc. If someone wishes to create Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography, let it be, I have nothing against, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Regarding the proper place in template, I agree with Eupator to fix the article under Soviet historiography. brandспойт 11:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Erich Feigl himself is a well-known revisionist, with his Denial of Armenian Genocide and anti-Armenianism. The report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center called Feigl's book, "A Myth of Terror: Armenian Extremism", "a revisionist publication" that "abounds with misleading details". He is a documentary film producer by his profession and an amateur author. Gazifikator (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That of course does not make his non-genocide statements wrong, neither disqualifies him to judge the historiography - Feigl was a Prof., acclaimed by Genocides.eu as "one of those rare authors who knows practically each village in eastern and southeastern Turkey, Hakkari and Zagros, west and northwestern Iran and Azerbaijan, as a result of not only travelling, but researching" . A Myth of Terror touches the real phenomenon and the same site writes: "The preparatory work was already well underway when a shocking event (the murder in Vienna on June 20, 1984 of the Turkish labour attache, Erdogan Özen, who was a personal friend of the author) led Erich Feigl to produce an extensive film expose of this "myth of terror", which had already claimed so many innocent lives. After more than a year's work on the films, Professor Feigl wrote his book "A Myth of Terror,"... which exposes the roots and strategic aim of Armenian terrorism. After that, ASALA ceased terrorist activities..." brandспойт 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a "Soviet historiography" article, but no "Criticism of Soviet historiography" article. Why? Because, even for that important subject, there is no need for such an article - it can all be placed within the "Soviet historiography" article. Regardless of its current lamentable content, there cannot be a legitimate argument for having a "Criticism of Armenian historiography" when there is no "Armenian historiography" article. Meowy 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Armenian voting here is natural, but each particular historiography is usually a big subject, more or less. The giant Soviet historiography, as well as phantasmal Soviet history is quite ambiguous 'cause it was an artificial umbrella term for many nations. The issue of Armenian historiography in particular is ongoing - from the late antiquity forgeries to modern critics. I still don't get your legitimate argument - be bold and create one, no one hinders you from. Nonetheless, the criticism is still important for we naturally have Armenian history. brandспойт 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing admin. The nominator Marshal Bagramyan has not provided any related policy for deletion. Given the vote stack above and WP:IAR, I think the current true cast is 2 'keeps' vs. 2 'deletes' and would like to ask the closing admin to weigh the pros and cons. Thanks in any case. brandспойт 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The only two votes to keep are from notorious, anti-Armenian users, one of whom is the creator of the this propagandist and unencylopedic poor excuse for an article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add, that a good chunk of the article is almost a verbatim copy from probably the most racist and anti-Armenian web site out there. I'm referring to the paragraph by scumbag Turkkaya Ataov regarding Vereshchagin's painting. I wont even link to that site here, simpy google "Turkkaya Ataov" and the first result will be self explanatory. It's very interesting to see what sort of literature inspires Brandmesiter to create such an article. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After carefully evaluating the arguments presented by both sides, I must admit that I am wholly unconvinced by Mr. Brandmeister's reasoning and logic and have consequently changed my vote to delete this article instead. The usage of even some of the so-called historians such as Feigl, who appended his name on a work called Armenian Mythomania and describe Armenians as having a 'compulsion to embroider the truth, exaggerate or tell lies', I believe, is enough to show on what shaky grounds this article stands on.


 * Just to set the facts straight and clear up a few of Mr. Brandmeister's misconceptions: The Apotheosis of War was never actually meant to portray as an actual picture of massacred Armenians - it's merely a known distortion by the Turkish historian Turkaya Ataov. You propound the belief that Wikipedia is not a battleground Mr. Brandmeister, but how are you helping this discussion when you baselessly attack Armenians for conspiratorially working to delete the article you created and make provcative statements such as 'Armenian voting here is natural'? With the exception of Baku87, no one, as of yet, has been persuaded by your fallicious arguments.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'The so-called historians such as Feigl?' If you think the others like Toynbee are 'the so-called historians', then I'm sorry. If you don't trust Feigl, there are many other scholars to choose from. And 'never actually meant'? Who challenges that? And how do am I supposed to know that there is a distortion? Known by whom? So far I believe Ataov is right since no credible arguments are presented, just your particular notion that this is the so-called 'known distortion'. Lastly, there is no provocative statements, it is just natural that Armenian users would more likely vote for deletion that's why I requested the check against vote-stacking. brandспойт 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article was written for the intent and purpose to feed someone's hatred of Armenians. IF this article had been seriously written to show Criticism of Armenian historiography, Brandmeister would have at least mentioned, Mikayel Chamchian, Elishe, Koriwn, Ayrivank, and the 1958 Conference attended by Charles Dowsett. Instead, this article mentions Photius, who isn't Armenian, and merely used Armenian genealogy for his own purposes. The first reference as listed has NO page number. The 3rd reference presumably mentions forgery(forged) twice, yet on page 79 the word forgery does not exist! The 9th reference states, "The History on the move notes, that "the leaders of the present Republic were so unprepared for independence that they were unable to create a new flag, a new coat of arms and a new national anthem".[9] In particular the coat of arms was adopted in a dubious, underhanded manner, as a measure of shortsighted political expediency.[9]". Which has NOTHING to do with Armenian historiography. The 10th reference doesn't have the correct name of the book(the correct name is, "New Testament studies", and merely states a misconception(by whom is the relevant question) as Armenian historiography(which at this point I'm curious if the creator of this article even KNOWS what historiography means!). The 12th reference appears to be a blog, which I'm sure there are more reliable sources available on such a crucial subject as Criticism of Armenian Historiography. All in all, a poorly written, poorly researched, and even more poorly sourced, hated-driven article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone forges Armenian historiography, like did Photios, then sooner or later the others will give credit to that unless it becomes dismantled. Regarding the 3rd reference, here is the Google Books scan of page 79. I would like good faith to be assumed here to see no such things as I'm curious if the creator of this article even KNOWS what historiography means!. If I did not know the word 'historiography', I would not rather use it, right? Also I would like to inform you that a big, big, big part of info in Wiki is in progress, something is being trimmed, something is being added and so on. You suggested Mikayel Chamchian, the 1958 conference etc.? Ok, will be added. I don't believe that the concerns with particular places in such topic constitute a valid argument for deletion since this is not how Wiki works. Deletionism should have its bounds. brandспойт 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As many have noticed already, this article contains a collection of completely unrelated issues lumped in under an incorrect title for very dubious reasons. One can effortlessly strip down this article to a line or two and then redirect it to an exisiting relevant article, merging the few lines (if any) that can be salvaged.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let people judge. The recent issue of Moses of Khorene is a good example and the third-party opinion confirmed, that "there is clearly an ongoing scholarly debate over the date". As to Photios, see also the Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography, p. 349. Still I hope that there are only few unmasked forgeries and this is one of the core issues the criticism deals with. Anne Elizabeth Redgate in turn testifies, that the authenticity and chronology of Photius' Armenian correspondence are problematic . brandспойт 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They already have, other than you and another Azeri, everyone else voted to delete this article. As for Photius, i'm not sure you even understand that issue. From the seventh to tenth centuries most notable Byzantines were of Armenian descent, wholly or partially including Photius. Most of them were actually related to old Armenian noble families but others were merely descendants of deported peasants. In order to gain favor with Basil I, Photius convinced Basil's family thay they are the descendants of the Arshakunis. That's it, that's all. This is common knowledge within Byzantine studies and has absolutely nothing to do with Armenian historiography. I don't even know why i'm explaining you this, as if you care.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation just hit the ground. Indeed, the common knowledge within Byzantine studies is Photius' famous Arshakuni forgery and even you confirmed his Armenian origin. brandспойт 07:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're too confused.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If there is a critism of certain historian, it should be in that author's own page.  The article can cause a vicious circle of accusations by its title.  Then an article then will come with Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography and then it can involve other countries.  Overall the title is not healthy for Wikipedia and induces a battle field mentality.  Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography, Criticism of Turkish historiography, Iranian historiography, American, Jewish, Spanish and etc.. These sort of titles are not informative and seem propagandistic.  Anything valid can be put in different author's page.  As an example of mistakes in this article: "The Massacre of Armenians by certain Ismail Ra’in, printed by Emir Kebir Publishing House in Tehran".  Ismail Ra'in is actually a Muslim Iranian and not Armenian!  He has written a book on the Armenian Genocide but uses that picture simply because he feels it is representative.  On page 151 he states: "After a while, dead bodies left to rotten will turn into skulls as shown in this picture".  The book's picture quality is poor, but I think the one on pg 273 had this one in mind .  Anyhow, Ismail Ra'in is a Muslim and the book is available online and the author is relatively clear he is not Armenian.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, that independent.co.uk photo you linked to is originally from a 1916 Russian book, was taken in 1915, and depicts a massacre scene in the Mush valley. The original has the caption "Sculls of Armenians burned alive near the village of Ali-Zrnan" Meowy  02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all, I'm not Armenian (hi Brand). Second, there's almost nothing historiographical in this article (hello? historiography?). Third, and to my knowledge, the concept itself of "Criticism of Armenian historiography" does not exist in academics (thus OR). This article is a collection of I don't know what, though some of the refs (I mean, from the recognised specialists, i.e. not a lot from this article) could be used in other articles (for exemple in Moses of Chorene). But to aggregate them in one article, and in such a way, is completely artificial. And of course completely PoV, to say the least. Sardur (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi :) Broadly speaking, historiography examines the writing of history and the use of historical methods, drawing upon such elements as authorship, sourcing, interpretation, style, bias, and audience as per our article. Now you are welcome to have a look at the Criticism again. You may also look at the Category:Criticisms. brandспойт 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sardur's observation actually puts the final nail in the coffin of both the title and the content of this POV-ridden article. Historiography, by definition, already includes criticism - historians advocating one viewpoint, arguing against another, and so on. To have an article titled "Criticism of Armenian historiography" is just stupid, a POV invention. Meowy  15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...said omnipresent POV-pusher Meowy :) brandспойт 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lacking any facts to refute the argument, brand resorts to spurious insults. Meowy 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Several concerns have been addressed, Feigl and Ataov removed and replaced with more venerable scholars. brandспойт 07:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, you can't strike out text written by other editors. Striked-out text means that an editor has withdrawn a comment they made, so the only person who can strike out a bit of text is the person who wrote that text. Meowy 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete As an unregistered user probably I have no right to vote but article which calls me an expert in Armenian historiography and cites my weblog should be deleted. Best regards. W.Pastuszka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.223.201.83 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got things rather wrong in your web blog. There were several settlements named "Tigranakert". Nobody has been saying that the Tigranakert recently excavated in Nagorno Karabakh is THE Tigranakert, Tigran's capital, the city captured by Lucullus. That site has been fairly conclusively identified as medieval Arsen, whose ruins are located to the southeast of Silvan in eastern Turkey. As for the Nagorno Karabakh site being one of the other Tigranakerts - I don't know, but the remains that have been uncovered do appear to be from that time period. There are videos on youtube depicting the excavations. Meowy  18:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is solved and Pastuszka replaced with authoritative scholar to entirely conform with the standards now. brandспойт 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is breathtaking. Are users allowed to so effortlessly infringe users’ rights by editing their own text?! Mr. Brandmeister, this may not be the first time I am saying this on Wikiedpia but your editing habits have a disturbing nature to them. Yes, I called Feigl a so- called historian but I never appended such a prefix to Mr. Toynbee. This is not a war between my words and Ataov, for Ataov is an unreliable source. In academia, schools of thoughts attract criticism and it is a plain fact Armenian scholars have never had problems criticising each others’ positions. The article in fact is not the criticism of a school of thought (which could fit in the article about Armenian nationalism, I suppose) – It’s just an incoherent list of irrelevant material. There is no distinct line of reasoning; almost any criticism found in any book could go in this article under the same pretext. It is akin to creating a 'Criticism of Greek historiography' article by lumping together a classical Greek historian criticising another classical Greek historian.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you are a relatively new user here, I'll say that the striking was applied to facilitate the updated revision. Anyway, I would like to draw attention to Naming conventions: the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. But it is quite reasonable to exclude the general, non-critical views from the article since they are endless. brandспойт 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, but this article is one massive joke. No one, least of all myself, is convinced that we need it and it's a major distraction. How one can compare the standards of modern scientific ethics to 5th century historiography and lump it into the category of 'falsification of history' and Holocaust denial boggles me. After all this, it's breathtaking that you still have not realised this and are aggresively pushing your views.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Sardur (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Sifaka, Ray and The Diamond Apex. - Fedayee (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.