 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled] edit
http://www.batsav.com/pages/foreigneyes.htm - good info, and the rest of the site is good not only for Bats but also other Georgian highlanders, Didos, and the other Nakh peoples', with folklore and ethnography. --Yalens (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Debate? edit
The introductory passage says "see debate", but except for that remark I didn't see anything in the article about any debate. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Issue edit
The section "Descent from Old Georgian tribes" isn't backed by a reliable source and here's why. The source isn't written by Ants Viires (whose scientific sphere is Estonia either way, not Caucasus), he's simply a consultant of the book; the real author is Margus Kolga on whom I didn't manage to find anything so it makes me again question the reliability of this source. Now, the source says that one of the two main versions are that 1) Batsbi derive from Georgians, 2) Batsbi derive from Nakh people. Big issue is that the source makes a claim that has earlier never been mentioned by reliable scholars, that one of the major versions is that Batsbi derive from "Chechen Kist tribe" (Pankisian Kists). One should note that Pankisian Kists originated in 19th century while Batsbi were already mentioned in the Russian sources of the 16th century so this said version by Margus Kolga is illogical. Overall Batsbi being descendants of Ingush is stated by many reliable scholars like Anatoly Genko, William Allen, Natalya Volkova, Leonid Lavrov, Valentin Gardanov and so on. I think this is more than enough to remove that unreliable source. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- You as an editor shouldn't be deciding which is logical and which is not only because of your desire and opinion. Magnus Kolga is a historian and Ants Viires is an ethnologist, therefore their theory has right of existence. If you have sources which denounce this claim or statements of other historians which call this researchers illogical you can use it. Origins of Bats people are uncertain and theoritical and its necessary other theories to be mentioned as well. As i see, its only one sided origins section right now, even tho the origins of the Bats people is a matter of controversy and uncertain. Moreover all of the sources used for Ingush theory are subject of deletion due to Wikipedia:AGEMATTERS. Since 19th century and mid 20th century sources are considered as very old.
- The theory of descent from old Georgian tribes should be restored, meanwhile newer sources for the Ingush theory are needed to be provided. Lemabeta (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Where can I read about Magnus Kolga? Ants Viires' scientific sphere is Estonia, not Caucasus, and he's just the consultant of the book. Sure, the theory of descent from old Georgian tribes can be restored if you have neutral RS, bear in mind neutral—non Georgian sources. I don't use Ingush sources for the Ingush theory btw as it would be not neutral to use sources of interested parties. I agree that 19th century sources are old, but how come mid 20th century sources are considered old and should be deleted? A very major part of the literature on the Ingush and on the whole Caucasus dates to the Soviet period. So no, these sources will remain. WikiEditor123… 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes mid 20th century sources are considered as very old by the wikipedia standards, especially if the newer sources are available. Nowhere in the Wikipedia rules states that the sources of any ethnicity, nationality or country is forbidden. What is the reason of self-imposing prohibition of Georgian sources? Lemabeta (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which standards are you talking about? Removing these sources would mean removing like one-third of the literature on Caucasus and we would have many articles removed. Neutrality: as I said, using sources of interested parties is not neutral. I myself, like many others in Wiki, don't use Ingush sources for conflicting topics like the ethnical belonging of an ethnic group. WikiEditor123… 20:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Margus Kolga has his own wikipedia article Lemabeta (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes mid 20th century sources are considered as very old by the wikipedia standards, especially if the newer sources are available. Nowhere in the Wikipedia rules states that the sources of any ethnicity, nationality or country is forbidden. What is the reason of self-imposing prohibition of Georgian sources? Lemabeta (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Where can I read about Magnus Kolga? Ants Viires' scientific sphere is Estonia, not Caucasus, and he's just the consultant of the book. Sure, the theory of descent from old Georgian tribes can be restored if you have neutral RS, bear in mind neutral—non Georgian sources. I don't use Ingush sources for the Ingush theory btw as it would be not neutral to use sources of interested parties. I agree that 19th century sources are old, but how come mid 20th century sources are considered old and should be deleted? A very major part of the literature on the Ingush and on the whole Caucasus dates to the Soviet period. So no, these sources will remain. WikiEditor123… 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)