Talk:Battle of Kirkhbulakh

Context

This could benefit from some context and an improved narrative. See Battle of Al Wajbah for an example....auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced troop numbers

Hi @Noorullah21, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and not biased, you have been deleting the number of troops for many times, despite the fact that sources have been added and now I have added a book by the historian Brosset, who translated other books by Georgian historians into French and the battle is known from these books. Gergos10 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

All the sources included in this article are biased and theres no academic study that mentions this event. I checked on Azad Khan’s iranica and this event wasnt even mentioned nor any involvement in Georgia ~2026-32659-64 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

So the battle is not mentioned anywhere and your only problem is the number of troops? Please respect neutrality and you cannot delete information like this that has a source. The source I added is from books by contemporary Georgian historians translated by historian Brosset. You can see more information in the source. Gergos10 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources are verifiable and the source you have added directs me to google books with no way to verify it ~2026-32659-64 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a published scholarly work, not an unverifiable source. If you believe it is unreliable, please provide specific reasons. Gergos10 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The contention is the numbers you’re adding. You’re relying on non WP:RS sources, especially on sources that are over a century and a half years old. See WP:AGEMATTERS to this regard.

You need more reliable WP:HISTRS secondary sources. Not sources that are over a century old. It is upon you per WP:ONUS for the inclusion of such content.

Moreover beware of WP:3RR and keep concerns on the talk. Noorullah (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The source is a published historical work by Marie-Félicité Brosset and is widely used in research on Georgian history. If you have concerns about its reliability, please explain them specifically rather than simply stating that it is unverifiable.

Furthermore, Brosset is translating and compiling the works of Georgian historians in which information about this battle is recorded. Some of these historians lived during the period when the battle took place. As for the age of the source, the information regarding the battle has not been superseded by later scholarship. Please remain neutral and avoid bias. Gergos10 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring policy will not support your case nor will editing the page further by readding the content, if you keep readding it I will report it and you can be potentially blocked.

Wikipedia policy clearly outlines that you to cite better WP:RS sources. Noorullah (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I try to explain to you, but you ignore and always talk about the old source, which seems biased from you. Many articles about the history of Georgia cite Brosses' books as a source, and also the source I used is from Brosset's translation of the books of historians Papuna Orbeliani and Oman Kherkheulidze, who lived during the period when the battle took place. Also, I added a source from the Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia and you deleted it for no reason. If you want, I can add more sources, but you will delete it again, probably due to bias. Gergos10 (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I would wait for your answer and opinion, despite the fact that I have two sources from the historian Papuna Orbeliani and Oman Kerkheulidze, who lived during the battle took place. Gergos10 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't throw needless accusations of bias. There are clear problems with the sources being over a century old and I've outlined why it's an issue with Wikipedia policy. Other pages citing it does not make it a reliable WP:RS/WP:HISTRS source and those pages should be mended as well.

As for "Georgian Soviet Encyclopaedia", it's a tertiary reference source that doesn't warrant notability nor WP:RS. Living during the same time period the battle took place in does not make you a reliable source either. Noorullah (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

More source which mentions number of troops:

• Sanikidze, Levan (1986). Jamburia, G. (ed.). დედა–ისტორია. ნაკვეთი მეორე: ბაზალეთიდან წიწამურამდე [Mother history. Plot two: from Bazalet to Tsitsamuri] (in Georgian). Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Publishing House. p. 136. Archived from the original on 2023-10-23. Retrieved 2023-09-22.
• Kherkheulidze, Oman (1989). მეფობა ირაკლი მეორისა [The Reign of Erekle II]. ქართული საისტორიო მწერლობის ძეგლები (in Georgian). Vol. VII. Tbilisi: National Parliamentary Library of Georgia. p. 51.
• Dumbadze, Mamia; Melikishvili, G (1973). Essays on the History of Georgia (in Georgian). Vol. 4. Tbilisi: Soviet Georgia. p. 651.

Gergos10 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

You say that I should not accuse you of bias, but you literally removed the source I added from the Georgian Encyclopedia regarding the troops, while there is the same absolute source in the article, but that is okay because it does not mention the number of troops? I added how many sources and literally named the historians who wrote these numbers, but these sources are useless because it concerns the number of troops? Gergos10 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Then that source in the article should also be removed.

You seem to not understand WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, I suggest you read up on these. Noorullah (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I wrote 3 more sources, my sources prove how many troops there were and you just don't want to accept it, literally the information of the battle is known from historians Papuna Orbeliani and Oman Kerkheulidze, but you are probably biased. Gergos10 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you not understand that the sources you have given are ancient and no modern unbiased scholars or authors mentions this event. You are coping at this point ~2026-32659-64 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? The battle is described and written by historians Papuna Orbeliani and Oman Kerkheulidze, who both mention the number of troops. If you consider this source unreliable, then what is the point of the article? Gergos10 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In your most recent edits you added a plethora of sources that aren't WP:RS, many not being historians (and just simply writers, or others) (See WP:HISTRS), or centuries old sources. You need to find actual reliable sources from historians or people who can qualify as historians (as seen in HISTRS).

I suggest utilizing the Wikipedia library to try and find sources from different institutions that are usually more acclaimed and have historians writing them. , not reusing the same sources that are littered with issues. Noorullah (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If you consider my sources “bad”, I am sure that they are true and is described by contemporary historians Papuna Orbeliani and Oman Kherkheulidze (I think it is normal for someone to understand that modern historians use old historical information), even if you consider Brosset’s book old, they have not been replaced and there have been no new discoveries or developments (as written in WP:AGEMATTERS), but I also added 3 more sources and “better” ones (especially from Levan Sanikidze) but you disagreed again, also what do you think when most of the sources mention the same numbers? Also, two of the three sources in the article mention the number of troops, but why were the numbers removed, but not the sources? This is another reason why your only problem is the number of troops. I would have expanded the article and added much more information, but you would have revert it again and wasted my time. I don't think we can find a solution and it's better to seek dispute resolution. Gergos10 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, said sources in article should also be removed. Noorullah (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Then what is the point of the article? We have information about the battle as i mentioned above from two historians (or more), also maybe my sources are not 100% good, but not unreliable either. Gergos10 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should troop numbers be included in the article when they are supported by multiple sources, including contemporary historians and later historians? Gergos10 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You should probably provide the sources and numbers that are under discussion here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comment.

• Georgian army: 3,000, 4,000
• Azad Khan's army: 18,000, this number is mentioned by the contemporary historian Papuna Orbeliani () and is accepted by later historians.
  • According to another contemporary historian, Oman Kherkheulidze, Azad Khan had 40,000 soldiers, but this number is not mentioned by modern historians.

Gergos10 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

References

(invited by the bot) It looks like the main question is whether or not the sourcing is strong enough to include certain numbers, not whether or not to include numbers that are well sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Replying to general RFC, I elaborated why in the above discussion these are not fit sources to include/use in the article. "Contemporary Historians" (WP:PRIMARY) are not typically cited on Wikipedia and we opt for Modern Secondary scholarship, (see WP:RS/WP:HISTRS). The sources cited above do not fall into that category, as many of the above sources are not made by historians and/or are not scholarly works, and cannot be reliably cited on Wikipedia, moreover many of the sources given are centuries old (see WP:AGEMATTERS). Noorullah (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Previously, before discussing the numbers, two of the three sources in the article mention the numbers in the book, but for some reason they are not written in the article. Gergos10 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The same sources in the article (as I've told you in the above discussion) should also be removed due to the reasons I've outlined. Noorullah (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems like this might be better handled as a discussion at WP:RSN than an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

For anyone interested that discus is here WP:RSN#Georgian historical sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If sources were a problem instead of numbers, then they would have been removed a long time ago, also, some of my sources are not unreliable as they have been published, etc. (According to WP:RS) Gergos10 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I also find another source, although the numbers are not fully reported, but it says that the Georgian army was "only one-fifth the size of the Afghan army":

• Fähnrich, Heinz (2010). Geschichte Georgiens (in German). Brill Publishers. p. 317. ISBN 978-9004184503.

Gergos10 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That say that when Azad Khan besieged Yerevan he was harassed by a force only one fifth his size. Then after abounding the siege he lost the battle, but "only one-fifth the size of the Afghan army" isn't necessarily in relation to the size of the forces in the battle -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You are right, but most sources that mention this battle also mention the number (or at least that Azad Khan had a larger army), I also found another source:

• Berdzenishvili, Nikoloz (1973). Საქართველოს ისტორიის საკითხები VI [Questions on the History of Georgia, Volume 6] (in Georgian). Tbilisi: Metsniereba. p. 351.

Gergos10 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Noorullah21, please read WP:RSN#Georgian historical sources and tell me your opinion. Gergos10 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support w/ attribution (brought here from WP:RFC/A) - I would say that it should be included but perhaps with context of attribution for the sourcing. That could solve the issue of the veracity of the claims and let readers understand where the information is coming from.

MaximusEditor (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of numbers and sources as cited by Gergos10, as they look like they are in line with the WP:RS standarts. Rutdam (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Support As far as my understanding of this whole situation goes, Gergos10 seems to have consulted on the issue of sources he has added, and most of the users have concluded that at least some of his cited sources meet the RS and AGEMATTERS requirements, therefore, assertions made by Noorullah21 have not been supported on that page. As the sources have been determined to be reliable, and there seems to be a general consensus that at least some sources cited by Gergos10 meet Wikipedia requirements, and there is also no contradicting sources, the information should be included in the article. Nivzaq (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support and comment. I agree with including the numbers based on the sourcing above, although I think an explanation of what the sources exactly about those figures is important.

On sourcing— I did a quick search for English language scholarship and couldn't find anything immediately. The Miqiashvili and Sanikidze sources look fine per RS, based on the writers' expertise and academic publishers; Miqiashvili is far superior due to being more recent and post Soviet-era restrictions on academia. My personal view on WP:AGE MATTERS and 19th century sources for historical topics (e.g. Brosset's translations) is that they are contextually usable if they cover ground not revisited by modern scholarship, particularly in niche topics, and are explicitly attributed as a historic source. Other editors may disagree, but I'm not intrinsically against Brosset's inclusion with attribution given the limited number of sources if it provides a helpful angle.

On presentation of the figures— rather than simply giving numbers with inline references, explanation is important. At the RS noticeboard Gergos10 provided the following translation of Miqiashvili: "according to the chronicler, Erekle had only 3,000 warriors". Good treatment of Miqiashvili's scholarship would be reflecting this in our article, for example by saying "according to a contemporary chronicler...". This could also be followed by an accurate summary of the German source above (also a strong RS) about the ratio between the invading and harassing forces per ActivelyDisinterested. For topics where historians rely on unreliable primary sources, there's no harm in giving extra space to make this clear and sticking closely to how historians summarise those sources. This means looking at what each of the secondary sources says (I can't do this myself as I can't read Georgian) and summarising this in accordance to their relative reliability/strength. If the secondary sources describe the primary sources, we can describe the primary sources too (e.g. mentioning Orbeliani and Kherkheulidze, and that Kherkheulidze's figure is not repeated in other sources).

@Gergos10, you wrote above that the 18,000 figure "is accepted by later historians". To state this in article voice, you would need to find an academic sources that explicitly says the 18,000 figure is now accepted by historians. Otherwise this claim would be your own synthesis of sources. (Summoned by bot) Jr8825 • Talk 15:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear the German source doesn't give figures or a ratio for this battle, the ratio it gives is for the siege of Yerevan. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I agree it's an important caveat to repeat in the article. Worth including based on the strength of the source, and because the siege preceded the battle. The 5-1 ratio also gives some credence to the primary source figures for the battle itself, while the fact that Fähnrich only provides figures for the siege demonstrates uncertainty. Jr8825 • Talk 16:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A further thought, as Fähnrich is giving numbers for the campaign/siege, his figures should probably be located before we cover secondary sources' discussion of primary source figures for the battle in our article (as opposed to my suggestion above to include it after). Jr8825 • Talk 16:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, by "it is accepted by later historians" I meant that every source I read about this battle, written by later historians, always mentions 18,000 number. As for the number of 40,000 written by a contemporary historian, I cannot find any later historian who writes this number and they prefer the number of 18,000, written by Papuna Orbeliani (another contemporary source mentioned in Brosset's book, also writes that Azad Khan had 18,000 soldiers). I had more sources about the battle, but I have lost them at this moment. Miqiashvili's book also writes more details about the battle and is probably revised and reliable. Gergos10 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gergos10 I understand what you mean. However, there's a difference between writing "Primary source 1 uses a figure of 18,000, and modern historians have also used this figure", where you're simply describing what the sources say, and writing "the figure of 18,000 is accepted by later historians", where you are making a judgement and statement about the consensus of historians. There's a risk of suggesting there's more confidence with the figure than there really. More importantly, to make statements about academic consensus/agreement on Wikipedia best practice is for us to source that statement to a reliably published expert. Jr8825 • Talk 13:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the number 40,000, I first saw it only when I read Kherkheulidze's book. I never read this number from later historians, as I said, in every source I read about this battle they write 18,000 numbers. If it is necessary to add 40,000, then since later historians do not use it, we can simply mention that in the notetag that a contemporary historian wrote this number. Gergos10 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)