Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why not split Paytakaran and Caspiane?

Someone has suggested splitting the article up. Please discuss that issue here... The Transhumanist    21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediator's edits

The article should remain in the state achieved by the mediator through very hard work, any attempts to hijack it are clearly disruptive. Per: [1].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, conflict was not resolved, mdiator took a break. and later discussion was continued. Moreover, Grandmaster supplied refrences which should stay.--Dacy69 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it seems Grandmaster killed the mediation, and the whole thing got to a dead end. Grandmaster's references are nothing new, they were discussed in the mediation, and we supplied our referneces. Transhumanists's version was a compromise between the two, and it should remain. I have no idea why Grandmaster deleted enormous amoung of sourced referneces, particularly from Strabo, which is against the rules. Most notably, we provided references (from Hewsen etc) that BAylaqan and Paytakaran lay on difference sides of the river Arax, so they can't be the same.--TigranTheGreat 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, this is called meatpuppetry and I will take a note of this. You haven't even participated here! What Gm did was unilaterally going against the mediators plan by throwing away months of work and concessions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was part of discussion at the beginning of dispute - may I remind you that during those dispute you have insulted me and that was a part of Arbcom elaboration. While I accept that latest days I was not been involved in the dispute and monitored it from my wathclist, TigrantheGreat coming here is indeed questionable and rightfully can be called meatpuppetry.--Dacy69 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, I did no such thing and it was thrown out. You wrote a couple of lines while Tigran was one of the main participants, we shall see what the next ArbCom says about this incident.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look again at archive - early days of the dispute. Anyway, you know I am always open to various DR processes and further elaboration by Arbcom. And my view is that reasanoble contending opinions should be accomodated to give various perspectives.--Dacy69 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is not going anywhere, because you guys are not making any consessions whatsoever. It does not mean that the article should remain at your prefered version forever. I found new sources, check the section above. Grandmaster 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked for mediation now you are saying you are not happy with the mediators decisions. That's very nice. Concessions have already been made more than once. These edits are incorrectly sourced and are wrong thus they are unacceptable. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here’s another source for you, it shows that the province of Paytakaran existed in the 7th century, after Armenia stopped existing as an independent state in 387:

It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.

C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468.

Do you still insist that Paytakaran was only the province of Armenia? Grandmaster 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder - VartanM makes rv, he never participated in discussion. This is another Euaptor meatpuppet.--Dacy69 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Dacy69 thinks he owns this article? Is there a such rule that forbids me from editing an article without discussion? Speaking of rules, you calling me a meatpuppet is a clear violation of WP:NPA P.S consider this my participation in this discussion. Regards --VartanM 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit - rules allow it. And I never told that I own this article. But article is disputed. So, admins will take relevant note. --Dacy69 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster quite reasonable proved that Paytakaran, at least in 9 c. was not Armenian. So, this quotes and references should be included in the text. I would be interested in VartanM's elaboration and counterarguments.--Dacy69 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What Grandmaster proved is that his doing original reserch. What the quote says is that there were Armenians living in the region and they called it Paytakaran, Nowhere in that quote it says that there was a province called Paytakaran. VartanM 04:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is able to read will have no difficulties with understanding the text. Nowhere it says that Armenians lived in the region, they never did, even when the region was temporarily part of Armenia. In fact, is says “The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek”, which means that the province existed when Armenia did not. You simply try to suppress the info that you don’t like, and restored all the POV in the text, by deleting accurate quote from Shirakatzi, readding the statement about 2 Caspianes, while there’s not a single source to attest to that, etc. The version that you restored was never agreed to by me, as it represents only the Armenian POV and suppresses the sources that prove it wrong. Grandmaster 06:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that Vartan is a meatpuppet. He has not contributed anything to the discussion, and was apparently called to rv as others are out of rvs. Grandmaster 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is your source again, only this time lets underline the important part. Paytakaran is only mentioned as "Armenians knew"

It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran,this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.

Thanks for the insult Grandmaster, is this the warm welcome you give to all the new editors in articles you had been "contributing"? VartanM 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, read it. It was not mentioned only as "Armenians knew", and "Armenians knew" does not mean that Armenians lived there. It just means that local people (of Iranian stock), Persians and Arabs knew it under a different name, i.e. Baylaqan, the source makes perfectly clear that Baylaqan was the same as Paytakaran. And again, "The province of P'aytakaran would have revolted against Babek", you still have not commented on that part. The province existed at the time, when Armenia did not. I welcome any contructive contributors, but not people who only edit war, delete verifiable info and restore POV statements. Grandmaster 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have new source and maps on Armenia and Albania, Azerbaijan, that I noticed at Armenian Sacra exposition at Louvre, Paris. I was lucky to catch this exebition before it ended on May 21, yesterday. I will post some of the maps online here, but the book is also avialable separately [2]. Thankfully, Louvre personnel allowed me to take the photos of the maps, unlike exponats. By the way, very good and historically not biased expo. Please stop edit warring, until we finish the discussion. --Ulvi I. 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm glad that you enjoyed the expo but what does that have to do with your meatpuppeting? The version you are reverting is the one reached by the mediator through months of work, one in which you didn't even engage in so stop disrupting the article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please refrain from accusations?

I for one do not believe that anyone here is a meat puppet. I would appreciate if you would all assume good faith. Nobody owns the article, and nobody is assuming ownership of the article. What we have here is a lot of editors who are concerned with the quality of the article and its references, and that's a good thing.

What I've witnessed is a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the references and what facts they do and do not support. You simply disagree on the acceptibility of certain references. No amount of discussion seems to get either side to budge.

I've found it frustrating to be a mediator, because I'm pledged to remain neutral. I don't know how I got talked into this. I would like nothing more than to dive in and support one side or the other on each of the various points. But I can't.

What I can do, is put everything else on hold and see if we can find a means to decide between your diametrically opposed positions.

Neither side has been willing to concede, and this conflict has been going on for months.

Both sides have presented its case.

It is time to let the community decide.

What this debate needs is more participants.

I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, please get prepared to explain your sides to the newcomers who will be showing up here.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your efforts. You were really helpful and did everything possible and even impossible to help resolve the dispute. So I just want to let you know that I (and I’m sure that other involved editors too) appreciate your efforts. And I agree that we need involvement of a larger number of third party editors into this article to finally resolve the dispute. So let’s try asking the community opinion. Grandmaster 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I've listed this article at Request for Comments, with a provocative description and link there that leads to the section of the same name below. I'll be listing in other appropriate places as I think of or discover them. I'm off to the WikiProjects Geography and History now. If you can think of any other relevant pages where this can be listed, please let me know. The Transhumanist    06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let you know if any other relevant page comes to my mind. Grandmaster 06:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Welcome to the Paytakaran talk page, and thank you for coming here to help us resolve some issues we've been stuck on for months. I'm a mediator, so I won't be taking sides. I will however be making suggestions on how to proceed and try to get everyone to behave as mature human beings. No mudslinging please.

There are two issues being debated here...

The first pertains to the definition of the word Paytakaran, and what exactly it represents

One side believes that it is the name of a province of the now non-existent kingdom of Greater Armenia, and that to apply the name to the same region at a different time when it was part of other political entities (empires, etc.), would be a mistake, since those would not constitute the same province. They'd be provinces of other countries at other times, with their own names. Like Constantinople is to Istanbul. This side also believes that to list all the synonyms for the region throughout history on the first line of the article represents those synonyms ambiguously, and that because of this readers may mistakenly use them to refer to the region during the wrong period - that is, the province known as Paytakaran was Paytakaran at a particular time in history and no other - which holds for the other names as well, each representing the name of a region, not necessarily with the same precise boundaries, at a different time.

The other side believes that a region is a region is a region. Like North America. And to present its history in one article is entirely appropriate, regardless of what it was called throughout the ages. This side believes that to split the article up into seperate articles, one for each name the region had over time, is ludicrous, because it will give us a bunch of small articles about the same place on Earth.

What do you think?

The second issue has to do with the location of the city of Paytakaran

One side believes there isn't enough information to verify the location of the city.

The other side believes it was in a particular location.

Please correct me if I've misremembered this issue, as it's been awhile since I've read through the myriad of discussions here.

Each side of the debate should present its position on this issue, replacing my descriptions above.

And if I've forgotten an issue, please jog my memory. Thank you.

Let the games begin!

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I'll review the discussions and will improve the descriptions of the disputes here as I find the time. At the moment, I'm listing this page on RfC, and everywhere else appropriate I can think of. Suggestions are welcome.

I have always abstained from editing any azerbaijan-armenia related pages, because I thought i could be biased, despite i was in the arbitration, but i have rarely contributed to such articles. but what happens in this page is not just an editing, but remove of sourced infos and balanced versions, and pov-pushing, so i think this is one of the first time, and i hope last, when i intervened. i restored the balanced version wich was deleted before without explanation. arbcom has assigned some users to explain their edits at talk pages but this does not mean that other users can remove sourced infos and balanced versions without any discussions. i will seek a third party to monitor this page, because it is useless if one side in any dispute remains deaf, this wont help to find a resolution. Ateshi - Baghavan 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop flipping it back and forth between the two versions! What you all need to do is reach consensus. And that doesn't mean choosing one or the other version. What it means is discussing anew the underlying issues, to see if we can understand the crux of this disagreement, which may reveal a solution everyone can agree on.

There seems to be disagreement over the definition of the word Paytakaran (as it is applied in the first sentence). One side wants it defined as a particular province of a particular kingdom. The other side wants it to stand for the region throughout its entire history. The problem with the first treatment is that this article is intended by some editors to be about the region throughout its entire history, and to leave the various names out of the lead defeats that purpose by not giving them equal weight. The problem with the second treatment is that it implies that the region was called "Paytakaran" while it was part of Medes and Caucasion Albania, and this could lead readers to make errors in perception causing them to misunderstand the subject. It also makes the title erroneous, for if the article is about all the political entities that piece of land was over time, then the article would be about more than just Paytakaran - it would also be about Caspiane, which isn't indicated in the article's title.

One possible solution was to create a seperate article for each political entity by which the region was known (just as Constantinople and Istanbul are about the same place at different times), but that idea was rejected because the resulting articles would be too small.

So what is needed here are some new suggestions.

What about renaming the article to include all its names?

Please make further suggestions on how to solve this problem.

All ideas are welcome.

The Transhumanist    23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no excuse for removing sourced info which continues. Balanced version should include all relaible information.--Dacy69 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version which some people claim to be "mediated" is very unbalanced and includes false information, like silly claim about 2 Caspianes. It never had any consensus. Also, even if we split the article to Caspiane and Paytakaran, the article about Paytakaran would still need to say that the region was part of other states under that name. Please see above the quote from Dowsett that I provided. I suggest to move it to a double title Caspiane/Paytakaran, that would end the dispute. Grandmaster 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What quote? Its not the one that says that Armenians called the region Paytakaran is it? VartanM 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the one that says: The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek. So even if we split the article, the article about Paytakaran would still need to say that the region was part of other states. Grandmaster 05:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now lets take a look at the whole quote.

It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.

The quote isn't saying that Paytakaran exicted, it only says that Armenians knew the region as Paytakaran. VartanM 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says that they knew it under that name, and it also says that "the province of P'aytakaran" revolted against Babek. At the times of Babek there was no state called Armenia, but there was a region called Paytakaran, or Beylegan. It is the same place, so we need to add alternative spellings. Since the province existed long after the state of Armenia ceased to exist, you cannot have the article claim that Paytakaran was only the region of Armenia. Grandmaster 06:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading and misusing the quote. Nowhere in that quote it says that there was Paytakaran. He only calls it Paytakaran because Armenians called it Paytakaran. VartanM 06:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that the province existed at the times of Babek? Who revolted against Babek then? Grandmaster 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Baylaqan just like the quote says.VartanM 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which means that the province of Baylaqan = the province of Paytakaran, right? The same province with somewhat different name. This also means that the alternative spelling should be included in the intro and that the region was part of various states. The quote says that the "province of P'aytakaran" revolted against Babek" anyway, so like it or not, the quote has to go into the article. Grandmaster 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which means Baylaqan was at the same territory as Paytakaran, the source isn't saying anything about its borders. Maybe it was bigger, maybe it was smaller. Do you have any maps of Baylaqan? VartanM 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The source says that "province of P'aytakaran" revolted against Babek", not the some other province located at the same territory. Grandmaster 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That same source says that only Armenians called the region Paytakaran. VartanM 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We know that, but we also know that the province existed when the state of Armenia did not, so Paytakaran was part of more than one state. Grandmaster 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in that source it says that Paytakaran excited. It only says that Armenians knew and called the region Paytakaran. Your source doesn't even give specific geographical location of the Baylegan or Paytakaran. VartanM 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop denying the facts. I quoted you this phrase countless times, the source says that the province of P'aytakaran revolted against Babek. Enough is enough. Grandmaster 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And countless times I told you that your misusing the quote. You can't just pick the part that suits your POV and ignore the rest of the sentence that says only Armenians called the region Paytakaran. VartanM 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who called it so. What matters is that the province existed long after Armenia stopped existing, therefore you cannot claim that it was part of Armenia only. You cannot deny this simple fact. Grandmaster 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats what the source says, notwithstanding the Arabic form of the name Armenians called it Paytakaran, and that province would go to war. It only mentions Paytakaran as a name only used by Armenians. for example Armenians till this day call Nagorno-Karabakh Artsakh, but Artsakh as a province stoped its existence long ago. VartanM 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the province exist in the 7th century? Was it part of Armenia at that time? Yes or no? Grandmaster 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it existed or not, I have no proof for either. Neither do you, that source is completely useless. It proves nothing, and I'm tired of repeating myself. VartanM 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

list of terms

To help work out what to do, could we compile a list of terms with rough guides as to what they refer to, and how strong the data is to support each. John Vandenberg 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Caspiane and Kaspiane; region and Caspian tribe; Albania ruled this region at some stage?
• Caspiana - ?
• Paytakaran - the Armenian province; contested evidence for this name being used in an earlier period.
• Paytakaran (city) - ?.
• Beylagan and Beylagan (town) - Azerbaijan rayon and capital
• Baylaqan and Beylegan - a region; its appears that the boundaries of this region are not known, and its location is even contested (i.e. which side of the river).

We discussed this, and I have presented my sources to support the above statements. Please see: [3] Grandmaster 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, point # 1 is quite clear, even the current version of the article says: According to Strabo: "To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared". Grandmaster 10:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Grandmaster, please clarify:

The current version which some people claim to be "mediated" is very unbalanced and includes false information, like silly claim about 2 Caspianes. It never had any consensus. Also, even if we split the article to Caspiane and Paytakaran, the article about Paytakaran would still need to say that the region was part of other states under that name. Please see above the quote from Dowsett that I provided. I suggest to move it to a double title Caspiane/Paytakaran, that would end the dispute. Grandmaster 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it very unbalanced?

It would need to say that the region was part of other states under what name?

Thank you Grandmaster for the suggestion of the double title. Now we need to find out if both sides can agree on this. Note that links to Caspiane could lead specifically to the section of the article on Caspiane, and links to Paytakaran could lead specifically to the section of the article on Paytakaran, using a pipe to specify one or the other.

Feedback on the double title idea is needed.

The Transhumanist    01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The version that the article was reverted to was unbalanced for a few reasons, which I repeatedly brought up on the talk page. First, it provides distorted quotes and interpretations of Strabo and Shirakatzi, which I fixed in the current version. For instance, Strabo never says that there were 2 Caspianes, I don’t know how that was included in the article and why it was claimed to be a mediated version. I never agreed with any strange claims like that. I don’t think that was the version that you endorsed, the article is still a work in progress, and claims that that version is “mediated” and is set in stone and cannot be further improved are not acceptable. The quotes should be accurate and should not include any personal interpretations. And second, we have sources that claim that the province of Paytakaran existed after 387, when the state of Armenia ceased to exist. Please see the following quote from one of the top experts on the subject.

It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.

C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468.

Grandmaster 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to implement a double title?

The forward slash ( / ) is used to designate subpages, not double titles. I don't know of any double titles on Wikipedia. (This is generally accomplished using redirects). Can anyone help us out here?

Present some examples if you know of any.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we using a double title again? So far no one proved that this two regions are the same. Creating double title would be the same thing if someone created an article Navajo_Nation/Arizona the only difference between Paytakaran and Navajo-Nation is that the later still exist. VartanM 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How come that no one proved it? Here's Iranica article by Hewsen again:

BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. [4]

Grandmaster 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you forgot all the discussion you made with fellow wikipedians about Iranica references. I'll refresh your memory, take a look at the archives. [5]. I especially like the visual aid provided by Euprator. --VartanM 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this? Especially the "visual aid"? Check the reference, it explains that Caspiane was later called Paytakaran. Grandmaster 10:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the issue becomes whether a province of one country is the same entity as the same region when it is a province of a different country. It's the Constantinople / Istanbul issue. (The two cities occupied the same spot, and consisted by and large of the same buildings, but were controlled by two different empires). How to present such topics is a policy or guideline issue - for which none exist at this time. In situations such as this one, should the topics be combined as a history of a region over time, or should each distinct political entity that existed at that location be given it's own article? I think you should bring this issue to the Village pump (policy), because it concerns any and all topic pairs with this same problem - similar situations are bound to occur. If a consensus is reached on the issue at the VP (from the standpoint of what to do with topics like this in general), then that consensus could be applied to solving the dispute here. I hope you find this advice useful. The Transhumanist 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)