Talk:Bagratid dynasties/Archive 1

message: Obviously this is a very disputed topic recently, even though only three people thus far have participated.  I am a world historian with an emphasis on Early Modern Europe.  Georgia is far outside my scope except in a geopolitical and genealogical sense.  It would be in those two terms that I write this.  I am very interested in the interrelations of Georgian kings to other local kingdoms and empires, yet this dispute just gets me mad.  There are thousands of problematic dynasties in the world; even the Russian royal family is not entirely confirmed.  Yet this argument is not even about dynastic relations, it is about the origin.  So the Bagrationis may be Armenian in origin instead of Georgian, what does it really matter?  They became rulers in Georgia, that is certain.  If another family became rulers in Armenia thereafter or before, then list them as a possible cadet branch of some sort.  Also, remember that no country 1300 years ago was defined as it is today and borders shifted frequently.  Perhaps what is now Georgia was once Armenia, or perhaps Georgia controlled Armenia at that time; they do always claim in their title "The Most High King [...], by the will of our Lord, King of the Abkhazis, Kartvelians, Ranians, Kakhetians and the Armenians."  It seems to me that they always have claimed Armenia therefore making such a place of origin possible, yet still allowing them to claim Georgian descent as well.  Primary sources are not always any more accurate than secondary sources and, in this case, perhaps some research from local, but not Georgian, primary sources may be necessary.  Since the Empire of Trebizond was partially founded by a Georgian monarch, why doesn't someone look into their old records.  Maybe the Byzantine Empire itself has something that could be of service.  I, for one, would trust old Roman records of periphery dependencies much more than local ones because local records are usually biased in favour of the country in question.  I am not discounting Georgian records, but I am not discounting other sources either.  Just because something originated outside of Georgia does not mean it isn't evidence in favour of alternate scenarios.  On the other hand, the most direct sources should come from the country in question because it was their history.  I think a compromise must be made on this page.  Edit the dynasties, clean up the page, then mention the conflict.  I am just as interested in Georgian history as any historian should be, and this mess of an argument is over minor matters that should not disupt the portions of this history that can be unbiased.  Note conjectures on both sides, and leave the proven information alone.  For those seeking a fairly certain descent of the Georgian monarchy from Ashot onward, I too would recommend Christopher Buyers's page  (The Royal Ark | http://4dw.net/royalark/Georgia/georgia.htm ). KuatofKDY 11:34, 9 September 2005 (PDT)
:My complaint comes because I put a lot of work into this version of this article.  I got my facts through academic secondary sources in English.  I didn't use primary sources since I don't read Georgian or Armenian and since Wikipedia is a work of compilation and does not permit original research.  Levzur simply reverted the entire version, which I think was an accurate and unbiased article. I'm not Armenian or Georgian, and am interested in the history of both countries.  I don't have a stake in either one, but I want the articles to accurately reflect academic consensus.
:Every book I've checked states that the Bagratids ("Bagrationi" is not the standard form in English) were originally part of an Armenian noble class, and that a branch moved to Georgia.  That seems to be the consensus of Western scholars, both those who study Armenia and those who study Georgia. Those who dispute that consensus all seem to be Georgian.  I would have no problem with a wording like "blah blah blah but Georgian historians dispute this".  I have a major problem with the entire article reading from a purely Georgian perspective. Isomorphic 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historiography of Georgia

message: The suffix -id, or idae (in its Latinized form) comes from classical Greek, and means a family-the children and family. The earliest Georgian forms of the surname are Bagratoani, or Bagratovani.  Kober, 15 September 2005
:Compare Sassanid and Achaemenid for something similar... -- ChrisO 22:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Then, for whatever reason, it appears common in English sources to use the classical Greek form.  Perhaps they do this to avoid looking biased in favor if either Armenia or Georgia?  I don't know. Isomorphic 01:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bagratid 

message: Protected page due to vandalism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not, since he was able to hit it again... Anyhow, I've blocked Levzur again, for 48 hours this time. I progress to increase the blocks if he continues: 72 hours next time, then 96 the next, and so on. -- ChrisO 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There is little doubt that the Bagratids were Armenian. Their original name was Bagratuni, a typical Armenian derivation. I'm afraid that Levzur is thoroughly brainwashed by President Ssaka-shvili's crusade against the Armenians living in the Southern regions of Georgia, where a Russian military base is situated. Armenia is known as the great champion of Russian influence in the Caucasus and is always keen to remind Georgians that it was Russia who saved them from total annihilation in the hands of the rapacious 18th-century Muslim powers - Ottoman Empire and Persia. Therefore everything Armenian is perceived as a threat by Georgian nationalists. --Ghirlandajo 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately Levzur has a long history of attempting to delete mentions of any point of view but his own. If you look at the edit history for Zviad Gamsakhurdia you'll see what I mean (the anonymous from 213.157.*.* are his). He only narrowly avoided being sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee after he disappeared for some months. -- ChrisO 22:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I got tired of waiting, I merged Isomorphic's version that was destroyed by Levzur to Ghirlandajo's version. Bagratids should redirect to this page instead of Bagratunis. The Bagratunis page should be turned into List of Bagratuni Kings. So there will be this Bagratids page (Bagrations and Bagratunis redirecting here) and the page will have links to both Lists. Let me know what do you think and what are your objections. --Eupator 03:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Isomorphic's ancestors were German and English, with possibly a smattering of other northern European ethnicities. He is biased against people who jump to conclusions. Isomorphic 08:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: hi eupator, I noticed you reverted changes. If you are fine with me wrking on the page, please make proper formatting and I will send the appropriate sources and such. best wishes
: Hello, thankd for understanding. Do you mind registering a username? It's really much easier to remember editors and keep track of your work. Post your references here along with any large chnages you want to make. Thanks.--Eupator 17:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the history of this article. Nothing should be added without neutral references. I have them, and I will work on it when I get home from work. Feel free to add anything by citing your sources.--Eupator 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eupator 

message: The fact is that Bagrationi is distinctly Georgian, and Bagratuni is distinctly Armenian. I think that nobody argues this.
 
Consequentely the only appropriate title for an article which deals both with Bagrationi and Bagratuni would be nothing but Bagratids, and by no means Bagrationi or Bagratuni. For Bagratids is a scientific term coined exactly for reference to Armenian Bagratuni and/or Georgian Bagrationi when their common origin is assumed and/or is meant to be emphesized.
However there is really little what Armenian Bagratuni and Georgian Bagrationi share except their probable common origin. Armenian Bagratuni became extinct by 12 AD, while by this time Bagrationi in Georgia only begin to gain the political importance which this dynasty has had in the country in the following centauries. 
Consequentely I do not know what would the problem be with separate articles about Bagrationi and Bagratuni, and maybe also one additional article with the title Bagratids. In fact this seems to be the only logical thing.
Tamokk 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please react on this

message: Eupator please before you react read my opinion. I included those Kingdoms (aphkhazeti, imereti, kakheti, kartli) which were part of United Georgia in the brackets. If you say only Georgia, you must have those regions under her. However, if you say Georgian Kingdoms (which was made up from Georgian kingdoms of Abkhazia, Tao-Klarjeti, Kakheti, Kartli and Imereti) you may separate them. Please lets communicate in friendly manner. Im open to your suggestions and learn from you. Thanks Noxchi Borz 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection.--Eupator 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eupator, lets co-operate please. I really want to learn about Armenia and as maximum as possible :) Thanks. Noxchi Borz 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eupator, should we include Kars, Taron, Tayk under Armenia (like i did with Georgia)? Noxchi Borz 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess its wise to remain consistent however we also need to add Syunik and Lori. There was also the Kingdom of Vaspurakan but it was ruled by the Artsrunis who frequently intermarried with Bagratunis. Tayk should stay separate as parts of it were under Georgian rule and sometimes all of it.--Eupator 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eupator, can you please add more Kingdoms which were controlled by Armenian Bagratids. I belive the list is not complete. Let me know. Noxchi Borz 17:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgian Kingdoms

message: Can anyone tell me please what is going on here? I am Georgian and I am completely shocked by this article. If you believe that way why don't you have a separate article for Bagratids. But, by no means Bagrations are same as Bagratids. This is unacceptable. Armenians don't even have any source for their information and they don't even have a COA of their Bagratid family. I respect Armenian peole and their history, but they should not interfere in our history. Please don't interfere in our history!!!!!! THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICE TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT BAGRATIONIS!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.240.93.52 (talk • contribs)/Sosomk (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2006.
: Please register and join the discussion. You may site your sources (primary and secondary) and support your claims based on them. We welcome your suggestions and would be happy if you would join us at Wikipedia. Thanks. Noxchi Borz 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgian Question

message: If Eupator and other Armenian users will agree, I think it’s wise to separate these articles. Both families have great history and need more info on them. I don’t think it’s wise to merge them into one article. This will definitely create controversy and conflict which I think Wiki should avoid. Both great families existed separately for centuries. If we have them separate, we can add and edit freely concentrating only on one family, therefore avoiding overlapping with the other. I think there should be a vote on that. I’m sure both Armenians and Georgians will find compromise. Both are brotherly nations with very rich heritage and history. Thanks Noxchi Borz 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Georgian Bagrationi article is actually going to have all versions represented without claiming which is true and which is false. It will (ideally) list all theories explaining which is more accepted and which is not. Only I'll need more time to better organize the article. Kober 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See that's not what I had in mind in regards to separation. The idea was to have a main page with early history and background info and two links leading to the Georgian and Armenian Bagratid monarchies. a) Origin page with info until the foundation of both Kingdoms b) Armenian Bagratuni monarchy page c) Georgian Bagrationi monarchy. This way there would not be two different pages with the same information. --Eupator 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation

message: Hi  First of all, I am sorry that I made an emotional post on the page. The reason that I created separate page for Bagrationis (Georgian dynasty) is that Bagrationis were Georgian Kings, so I think that there should be separate article about Georgian Bagrtionis and Armenian Bagrtids. So that people can find out more about the monarchs of Georgia and Armenia. Many royal families in Europe are related to one another, so since Georgia and Armenia are different countries they should have diferent articles about their monarchs. However, I am not saying that Bagrationis and Bagratids do not have connections and I have nothings against Armenian culture, because it is quite unique and they have a great history. My point is that Bagrationis and Bagratids should have different encyclopedia articles.SincerelySoso
I absolutely agree with you. I myself, and many other users, have requested seperate articles many times before. And I do not know why is it that seperate pages do not yet exist. Is somebody realy against this? If yes I have not heard yet upon what reasons. 
Armenian and Georgian Bagratids are distinct. That they are related by the supposed common ancestry does not mean that they do not deserve separate articles. Also this does not mean that a general article about Bagratid dynasty should not exist. But again separate articles about each of them should exist.
  
I am a new user and not familiar with the system yet, but cannot we make a poll about this? 
Tamokk 08:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Tamokk, we should definately have poll/voting about this. Common origins does not mean they have same history. They are indeed very distinct families. Noxchi Borz 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Soso