Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Armenia

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 keep. Consensus seems to be that the topic is of valid encyclopedic interest, but the problem is with the content and the name. Those issues are better left to talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Armenia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is full of copyright violations (WP:G12) and covers the same subject as Zakarid Armenia (WP:A10). This article is also full of original research, unsourced claims, and many citations that do not verify much of what they are claimed to. The article is filled with text taken from Zakarid Armenia, Kingdom of Georgia, Orbelian Dynasty, and other articles. Among this are lots of bold unsourced claims, like Georgian being the official language and Georgian Orthodoxy the official religion.

This article had actually started out as the redirect Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. Georgiano tried to move Zakarid Armenia to that title, but couldn't get a consensus. So now he created a duplicate article of the same topic. Both "Georgian Armenia" and "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia" are neologisms (WP:NEO) that do not have any sources verifying these titles, so please do not leave a redirect and delete both of these two pages. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading the articles it seems that these pertain to two different topics. Georgian Armenia pertains to the historical kingdom of Georgia's rule over a historical region of Armenia. It includes information about the various Georgian rulers' administrative policies and attitudes towards Armenia prior to its assimilation. Zakarid Armenia however "is a name for various Armenian princedoms" ruled by the Mkhargrdzeli dynasty. No information is given about the policies of early Georgian figures such as George IV, David the Builder, Demetrius I, etc. and encompasses a much broader time period, including vassalization under the Mongols. It seems to me that, if some of the information from Georgian Armenia were integrated to Zakarid Armenia (such as the section "Armenia within the Kingdom of Eastern Georgia") while information irrelevant to Armenia was removed (i.e. references to only Georgia after Georgian rule had already ended), and the timeframe of actual Georgian rule was made clear (1100s to 1236), these articles could work well together. As for the claim that Georgian Armenia is ~~a neologism~~ inapt, I would have to agree with this since the only references that use this term are very dated. I'd support a move to "Georgian rule in Armenia" or something more suitable.

I'm not entirely certain of the complexities of this particular nationalistic battleground so if it's apparent that I made errors in trying to understand this I'll change my vote accordingly. Also, I sampled large amounts of the text and didn't find any copyright violation. Can you be specific? Elspamo4 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elspamo4: The whole concept of a "Georgian Armenia" or "Georgian rule in Armenia" is highly debatable, and that article was given a large biased and unsourced rewrite by Georgiano recently. He also used many citations that didn't verify what he claimed them to. I'm restoring the article to how it was.

The degree of Armenian dependence on Georgia during this period is still the subject of considerable controversy. The numerous Zak'arid inscriptions leave no doubt that they considered themselves Armenians, and they often acted independently. - Joseph Strayer (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Vol. 1, page 485)

In one inscription on the palace church on the citadel of Ani, the brothers' principal city and the former capital of Armenia, they refer to themselves as 'the kings of Ani', suggesting loftier ambitions, independent of Georgia ... The conflicting claims of the brothers, as vassals in Georgia but as independent kings in their own lands, are reflected in the modern disagreement about the family's name: Mqargrdzeli in medieval Georgian sources, Zakarian in modern Armenian histories. No compromise seems possible in the modern histories of Georgia and Armenia. - Antony Eastmond (Tamta's World, pages 26-27)

Here are some copyright violations:

(identical text) If the first rebellion in the Caucasus was against the repression of the Mongols, the second can be considered an internal clash between lords who were under the Georgian crown and those princes who were under Mongol patronage. Mongols preferred to have their own suzerainty over the Armenians and to see the Armenian lords attached to them rather than to the Georgian court, ensuring that the Georgio-Armenian lords were more disunited[1]

(identical text) Some merchants, such as Tigran Honents, became very rich, as demonstrated by his lavish church on the eastern flank of Ani[2]

(identical text) If those Armenians adhered to the Georgian orientation, their compatriots and entourage immediately called them “Ivers” (i.e. Georgians)[3]

The addition of the title indicates the conquest of the Kingdom of Lori in 1118, whose kings were called "mephe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Kingdom of Ani, whose kings bore the title of "Shahanshah". (article)
The addition of the title of "King of the Armenians" ("mepe somekhta") indicates the conquest of the kingdom of Tashir - Dzorageti, whose kings were called "mepe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Ani - kingdom of the Armenian Bagratids, who bore the title of "Shahansha".[4]

Although the David IV wrested Ani – the political and religious capital of Armenia – from the “infidel” Shaddadids, he did not regard them as the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified. (article)
Although the Georgian king wrested the Shirak-kingdom from the Shaddadids, he did not regard the latter the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified.[5]

While Armenia suffered from the Seljuk rule, the neighboring Kingdom of Georgia ("Kingdom of Abkhazians and Iberians"), began to increase their economic, political, and military power. The state was ruled by the branch of Bagratid family who wanted to enlarge their political and economic influence in Caucasus region by establishing a new state system which would also include the former Bagratid holdings in Armenia. Georgian authorities found an ally, the Armenian nobles that left Armenia for Georgia.[2] Armenians wanted to liberate their homeland, and considered Georgia, another Christian nation, to be their “natural” ally (article, just removed part about Georgia being a Seljuk vassal)
While Armenia was suffering from the Seljuk rule, the neighboring Georgia, which was a vassal of the Seljuk Sultanate, began to increase their economic, political, and military power. The state was ruled by a branch of the Bagratid family who wanted to enlarge their political and economic influence in the region by establishing a new state system which would include the former Bagratid holdings in Armenia. Georgian authorities found an ally, the Armenian nobles that left Armenia for Georgia. These nobles had some military power and had reached state positions in Georgia. They wanted to liberate their homeland, and considered Georgia, another Christian nation, to be their “natural” ally[6]

While Armenian Christians welcomed liberation from Muslim rule, many nobles, feared losing their autonomy and sought better terms as Muslim vassals (article)
While Armenian Christians welcomed liberation from Muslim rule, many nobles, Armenian and Georgian, feared losing their autonomy and sought better terms as Muslim vassals[7] Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDolet: I see that there's much dispute over the exact nature of Georgian jurisdiction over Armenia. Judging from your sources it looks like it wouldn't be exactly accurate to call it "Georgian rule". Though it does seem, that while semi-autonomous, it was still considered a fiefdom of the Kingdom of Georgia (from your Tamta's World source). And we do have other sources suggesting that it was considered as falling under the suzerainty of the Kingdom of Georgia: The Art of Armenia - Christina Maranci and The Caucasian Knot: The History & Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh - Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian & Claude Mutafian; all authors are experts on Armenian history. Even though their suzerainty may have just been in title, it still qualifies as suzerainty. I would agree with User:Kober that the article should be moved to Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia, and also think that there should be a section explaining the exact nature of Georgian suzerainty, i.e. briefly detailing the Mkhargrdzeli dynasty's history, their semi-autonomous status under the Georgian court, the lack of consensus on how much influence Georgia had on Armenia, etc. (I could possibly write this section in due course with the sources we have on this page alone).

Re the copyright violations: thanks for the clarification, the three book quotes are clearly copyvio, I rewrote the last violation you mentioned, I'll try to find the time to write the other two. As for the other violations you note, I'm not sure if the sources ripped off our content, or if we ripped off theirs, since it would be rare to find that quality of writing on random blogposts, and also since the text cites legitimate-looking books, although I'm unable to verify since there's no preview on Google books. Maybe someone more experienced can speak on this. Elspamo4 (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some cleanup and better wording in some sentences. Armenia was under Georgia for centuries and that is not disputed anywhere. What we need is more expansion of the article from Georgian and Armenian sources as well. Also I'd call upon User:Kober and User:LouisAragon to have their say here as well. They both work majorly on Georgia's articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B42B:9A5E:AC81:4EA5:32A2:63E8 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename into "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia". The nominator's rationale regarding neologisms is flawed. "Georgian Armenia" is not a neologism; it is an actually an archaism used in the early modern historiography to refer to a specific frontier district, but the concept is not per se related to the medieval fiefdom(s) covered in the article in question. As for "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia", it is not a neologism because it is not, technically speaking, a term; it is a descriptive title and we have dozens of similarly titled entries in Wikipedia. --Kober^Talk 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purpose -- This is about the medieval Kingdom of Georgia, which was more extensive than the present republic. However that article is much briefer. Much of this article would make a good "main" subarticle to that one. Sorry, I am not qualified to implement this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia". But a large amount of content within the article needs to be checked/amended/trimmed. For instance, EtienneDolet is right in saying that its packed with copyvios. Furthermore, the articles contains numerous incorrect statements as well (WP:OR / violations of WP:VER). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.