Владимир В. писал(а) 26.08.2010 :: 12:52:18:И кроме того непонятно - это жалоба или приглашение к обсуждению?
англецким владееш ? читай.
First paragraph
Caucasian Albania (dissolved during those years, Western part was controlled by Armenia, the information for which is totally missing). Then a descendany of ancient kings of Caucasian Albania. This is attributed to Dowsett by Atabek, Dowsett never say anything like that, he is translating an Armenian text, which he will later criticize. Atabek's wording these way to build an Albanian descendant, that Dowsett is skeptic about. Then Artsakh, present day Azerbaijan (ignores the hard reached consensus on other articles). Then Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, historians John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake. Atabek misquoted Dowsett and replaced Sahl son of Smbat with Sahl ibn-Sunbat and made the result muddy, even more when he attributed to Minorsky in the footnote, on the main, there is no attribution.
So, in the first Paragraph no mention of Armenians, Armenia in one context which is the claim that the Sahl ruled it.
Finally on the second paragraph, something about Armenians, there is Abu Dulaf description, in this case there is attribution of sources, when in the first paragraph when he is presented as an Albanian prince it was presented as fact. Then: This association is due to the peaceful coexistence of Armenians and other, mainly Caucasian, ethnic groups in Caucasian Albania for more than two centuries under the Arab dominion. Which of course is irrelevent on that paragraph. And of course, this too is presented as fact. The only times Atabek attributed claims, is when he developped about it being Armenian principality or something to do with Armenians.
Then, the third paragraph, Atabek starts: In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan which of course has no relevency with the article in itself.
He then goes to add this: a feudal prince named Hasan Jalal Dawla, whose origins are obscure but who has been renamed to "Jalalian" by Armenian historians[6], proclaimed himself the lord of Khachen. The reader has absolutly no clue that Jalal is recognized as Armenian by every sources which covers his ethnicity. To support it, he uses Leeuw, a non-credible author (see Davo88's sandbox, for evidence) who's work has been compared to Soviet Azerbaijan nationalist version of history.
Then the claim that he is Armenian (which no one disputes) is relayed to the second order, with other sources claim, and muddy it more by claiming him Muslim Armenian Melik, to support this assertion he uses Cornell, again a none credible source (see Davo88's Sandbox), who places Khachen in Zangezur when it is was centered on the Eastern extremity of Artsakh by every other sources. Even Muslim sources place him as Christian. Then the accurate and non-disputed information that after the Arab dominion, the Caucasian church became a diocese of the Armenian church..., is attributed a source on the main, when it is general knowledge. VartanM 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, I believe the information contained in this article was also discussed with the sock of Fadix, from whose material Davo88 created his Sandbox. So, provided that sock was banned, and Fadix's ban was extended by another year, due to persistent personal attacks and individual harassment, I don't see how the information contained there is supposed to have any credibility whatsoever.
Actually, the fact that you criticize Cornell reference in this case, indicates that you should probably read the referenced page of Cornell before disputing him based on Fadix's sandbox. Because Cornell was the one who said Hasan Jalal was a Muslim Armenian Melik, I don't see what part of this statement of Cornell you're disputing as it clearly fits your POV.
Your claims about me, supposedly misportraying Dowsett, do not have a basis whatsoever. I already recited several times the precise word-to-word quote from Dowsett on this page as well as Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat. The name of Sahl ibn-Sunbat is in Arabic spelling, it means the same as Sahl, son of Smbat, as cited on Sahl ibn-Sunbat page. The spelling, however, which I only wikified, does not change the essense of Dowsett's quote, that Sahl was an Albanian prince, neither does it mean that Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Sahl, son of Smbat were different people.
And what's your dispute about the fall of Ildegiz Atabegs of Azerbaijan? It's well known that Albanian princes of Artsakh were vassals of Turkic rulers, they were semi-independent. Moreover, I did not add it by myself, that entire sentence comes from the reference cited at the end. Atabek 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, You have answered none of the points raised. I don't see how Cornell admission that he was Armenian is a testament of his credibility when he places Khachen in Zangezur, far, far away from Partav. He's the only scholar who claims this, which is not substantiated by any other sources. Cornell is not credible, and wherever or not Fadix has been banned does not change the fact that he is a political source. To claim that Jalal was Muslim, you have to provide another source to support it. Works which have been written to create sources can not be substitute to decades of scholarship.
You claim that you have quoted Dowsett several time word by word, which is wrong, you removed Dowsett's Sahl son of Smbat for Sahl ibn-Sunbat, while it is true that ibn means son this is not what Dowsett writes word by word, neither does he use Sunbat, he writes Smbat, by substituting one for the other the footnote looses any sense(on his Armenian connection). You have also not replied to my observation that you have used Dowsett citation by changing the name to then attribute it to Minorsky.
Iidegiz Atabegs have no relevency with Khachen, their fall has no relevency with Khachen, and no it is not well known that they were vassals of Turkic rulers, ud-Din Ildegiz ruled until 1172 and nothing to do with Khachen, and there was nothing called Azerbaijan during those years. You quote Leeuw, when one of the reviewers Fadix uses writes: His interpretation resembles the one developed by Azerbaijani nationalists in the Soviet era: that Azerbaijan has been distinct state since ancient times and has always been centered on what is now the republic of that name.
You are mudding it down, by direct source attribution for everytime there is something on Armenians you placed it in second order, as if its some opinion, and if there is somehting about Albanians and Azerbaijan, both of which words you abuse, you presented as facts. VartanM 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
* VartanM, you're yet to define what is your disagreement with Cornell reference in the article. If you're concerned with the fact that his citation is used, we can go ahead and remove the citation saying that Hasan Jalal was supposedly Muslim Armenian Melik.
* The citation by Cornell was first provided by the sock of Fadix - Anatolmethanol at Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat, not by me. So I don't quite see why are you disputing it with me, perhaps, you need to read the talk pages a bit more carefully.
* Khachen was not on Mars, it was in Caucasus which was under control of Ildegiz Atabegs. Again, that quote was taken from the source, I didn't insert that statement deliberately from elsewhere.
* Regarding, Dowsett reference, before disputing the quote, do you deny the existence of this quote:
"C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:
"Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl, son of Smbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."
and which part of it do you dispute?
* Finally about your comment: "You quote Leeuw, when one of the reviewers Fadix uses writes" -- why should the opinion of Fadix's sock should in any way be decisive in omitting legitimate scholarly reference? Atabek 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I still quite frankly don't see where you address my criticism above. Fadix banned or not, it doesn't change the fact that Cornell is a political source, therefore not creditable. You present this as fact, so you shouldn't have any problems finding any other source. Idegiz rule ended in the 12th century, and its control on the region is still contradictory in sources. First over a century passed between the two dates, second the word Azerbaijan has no place there, third Leeuw, who is a journalist, has been criticized by historians and is not credible. On Dowsett, this is the first time you quoted him accurately, don't make this as if it is something I have not seen. Now please, answer my criticism above. VartanM 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, assume good faith and answer my response above item-by-item addressing your concerns. I still don't see how your comment above disputes the validity of CJF Dowsett reference or explains your argument against Cornell reference. Atabek 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, this is the third time I'm repeating myself, you're just wasting my time. You are yet to address the points I have raised.
* First, you can not just copy Dowsett text, change a word and change its author, it borders intellectual dishonesty.
* Second, Atabegs of Azerbaijan have no place in this article, their not the same date, not connected, the region controlled has not been confirmed and then you use Leeuw as source, when he is not credible.
* Third, you can not attribute positions only when the word Armenia or Armenians are there.
* Fourth, you can not push anything having to do with Armenians in the second order, just because it is Armenian, more particularly when no scholar denies it (On Jalalian for exemple).
* Fifth, you can not take an unilateral decision, and ignore a consensus on the wordings used for Nagorno-Karabakh. You do not own articles, considering that there was wording consensus.
* Sixth, you can not dismiss Armenian scholars when they do not agree with your position, solely based on their ethnicity. And on the other hand use political sources (Cornell) as sole source for an affirmation.
* Seventh, when I request sources, you should have no problem providing them, given that you word those as if there is no opposition. You can not base some statement on one single source, when there are relevant and significant reasons to question the credibility of the source. (this is common sense and I should not need to explain it to you)
* Eighth, you can not add stuff in articles which are not relevant to the article.
Those are just few clarifications on the top of my head, while you have not answered any of my concerns. I don't see any item by item addressing of my concerns. As for assuming good faith, malign pushing of the word Armenian still continuous, and in spite that, it requires from me to pretend that it was not done or done with no intention. This article is a testament of that. VartanM 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Страниц: 1
"Хаченское армянское княжество" как фронт войны за Карабах (Прочитано 26123 раз)