Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 30 October 2008

Armenia Start‑class Mid‑importance

Sisak (eponym) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

rewrite

I have rewritten the article and added the sources for the most important details of Sisak's life. I have also removed two sources which comment on the historical figure of Sisak. I removed the article written by Kramers because it far too outdated a source (1936), considering that much research has been conducted ever since that have vindicated many elements of Movses Khorenatsi's story. For example, a century ago everyone believed that Movses' story about Artashes I installing border markers was nonsense but as the water in Lake Sevan drained, we all know that that is not true. I'm quite sure that Armenians simply didn't "imagine" these people in the same sense that no one thinks the Romans imagined Romulus and Remus.

Similarly, Robert Hewsen's article, which for some reason still refers to Movses as not the original author of the History of Armenia (which has been rejected by most scholars today), is outdated (1975). I'll want to keep his opinion out from that article unless we're unable to get an updated opinion, such as from his Armenia: A Historical Atlas. I'm in no mood for wars. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite and the new sources. If you could add a more recent opinion, that would be lovely. John Vandenberg 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1975 is not outdated. This person is a leading expert on the subject, therefore his opinion matters. The quote should remain in the article, until a more recent quote is found. I'm also in no mood for edit wars, so get the recent opinion, and update the article. But until then, Hewsen's quote must remain. Also note that in his 1982 work he also says that Sisak was a legend. Grandmaster (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it didn't matter.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked Hewsen's most recent recent work, and this is all he says in his Historical Atlas:

The Princes Siwni, a house perhaps of Scythian origin, were the immemorial dynasts of the land of Siwnik, the largest principality in ancient Armenia.

It is quite in line with what he saying before, i.e. that this house was not of Armenian origin. Nothing about Sisak, just that the name Sisakan was more recent. Grandmaster (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion in reading Hewsen's quote is a non-sequiter. This unconvincing school of thought advanced by Hewsen and his mentor, Cyril Toumanoff, does not mean we jump to the conclusion that the House of Syunik was therefore not Armenian: logically speaking, even if you were saying your house was of immemorial origin, you certainly would have to belong to some group of people, i.e., the Armenians. In either case, I would prefer that we use Armenia: Historical Atlas instead. Historians always revise their opinions and the most updated opinion by Hewsen should be given due preference. Otherwise, simply writing "According to X", without any context, and introducing a quotation, becomes wholly unhelpful to the reader.-Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether Hewsen's and Toumanoff's opinion is convincing or not is your personal opinion. They are both reliable and authoritative experts. We have no evidence to conclude that Hewsen's opinion changed since 1975. Historical Atlas says nothing of Sisak. Therefore the quote must remain in the article with proper attribution. It is quite in line with the rules. I left out Kramers though. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I never said that their opinions should be discounted and thus left out. I merely am wondering if Hewsen's opinion has changed over the past 30 years. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that "unconvincing school of thought" somehow implied that. Sorry if this is a misunderstanding. I believe that until we have a more recent opinion of Hewsen about Sisak, the quote of 1975 should remain. It is very unlikely that his opinion changed though. --Grandmaster (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion on Hewsen's theory, we should, nevertheless, not suppress it. I'm only suggesting that some sort of context should be introduced and that we should not haphazardly "drop" a quotation on the reader. I'll add some additional details about Sisak later on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reason is not satisfactory. We do not include entries on science by saying this was "unconvincing" when there are new developments in medicine, chemistry and biology. We simply do not include them. If you can come up with alternate reason or source, please let us know so we could evaluate it.128.122.253.196 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Armenian articles
• Mid-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles