Why was the info about Javanshir removed? Grandmaster 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the source?Azerbaijani 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Read Movses Kalankatuatsi. He describes how Javanshir fought Arabs as a general of Persian army, and then fought Persians as king of Albania. I will expand the article about Javanshir in the future. Grandmaster 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Says me and-Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, 1st volume, page 525, Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, 11th volume, page 283, History of Armenia, author Danielyan, page 106.
There are no articles about Barda in Encyclopedia Iranica. Vache was from Armenian Arranshahik family, his brother's son was the famous Armenian king Vachagan II the Pious.
How was he an Albanian, if his brother's son was an Armenian?
- Exactly, says you and the Armenian Encyclopedia? Do you think I expected anything different? Why would Armenian encyclopedia say anything different? That would mean betraying the idea of the Greater Armenia. And stop adding the name in Armenian. When I see you adding Azerbaijani names to the cities in present day Armenia, then we can discuss the issue. As of now, please do not make that kind of additions. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For your information that wasn't just Armenian Encyclopedia, it was Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, and there was a serious censorship in Soviet years, and they wrote only the truth. And why shouldn't I add the Armenian name? Utik was Greater Armenia's province. The city was built by an Armenian king and on an Armenian land, why shouldn't I add the Armenian name? Why should I add Azerbaijani names to the cities in present day Armenia? Ever thought about that? Azerbaijan history starts from 1918. Armenians live here for 5000 years. Besides stop adding false information about Caucasian Albania. And there aren't any Barda related articles in Encyclopedia Iranica, so stop adding that source too!Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah... the censorship was so serious in Soviet Union that they erected a genocide memorial in Yerevan in 1965, forced out 100,000 Azerbaijani minority of Armenia according to Stalin's orders in 1948 and 1953 while sending Azerbaijani intellectuals to concentration camps of Siberia and, all at the behest of Armenian leaders.
- Why should you add the Azerbaijani names to Armenian towns? Because some of them had considerable Azerbaijani population until early 20th century. Azerbaijani history starts way before 1918. It is the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic that was founded in 1918, not the area with its Turkic population. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, here is a source written by Armenian authors speaking of King Vache who is an Albanian King:
- Besides some translations of religious literature from Greek, two epistles are ascribed to him: one is addressed to Davit (the Invincible?), asking him to write a discourse on the Holy Cross, and the other is addressed to King Vache of the Avghans (Caucasian Albanians), who had expressed a desire to leave his throne to become a hermit. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop soap-boxing your views about the Armenian Genocide Tuscumbia. This is the second time that you have made a snide remark regarding it (the other time being on your talk page) and it seems as if by wording it that way, you are trying to get a rise out of Armenian editors, and are thus intentionally trying to provoke an emotional response by using this kind of ethnic battleground mentality.
- That said, we have a number of primary sources written by medieval Armenian historians who mention Partav, some of which have been added by me in the main body of the text in my recent edit. I have expanded on the text and added sources written by actual historians, not journalists like Charles van der Leeuw and irresponsible historians like Audrey Altstadt. While not directly related to the discussion here, it should be noted that Caucasian Albania had thoroughly Armenicized by the fifth century, and by the ninth century, had lost all ethnic meaning since its people had been all but assimilated. As Robert Hewsen has noted:
"That the so-called 'Christian' or 'New' Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century A. D., was essentially Armenian is beyond question." ("Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians" in Samuelian, Thomas J. (Ed.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico, 1982, p.34)
- --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Marshall, I have told you many times, keep your incivil comments to yourself. Above you can see nothing but reference to the erection of a monument against what the other user called "censorship" when there was none, especially for the Armenian minority. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tuscumbia you have no prove, that Vache was an Albanian, the source says: King Vache of the Avghans (Caucasian Albanians), not King Vache the Albanian. For your information it was Stalin, that gave Artsakh to Azerbaijan, who also wanted to give Zangezur to Azerbaijan, 100000 Azeris? That's nonsense, besides Azeris many Armenian intellectuals were sent to concentration camps of Siberia. And there wasn't just Turkic population, there were Turkic tribes.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
@MB, don't begin additions of POV. Barda does not have anything related to Armenian language. Your addition is based on Armenian writer and is not supported by anyone. Bring neutral sources to talk page and everyone will discuss first. Dighapet (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Where is this mythical POV that you keep on bringing up as an excuse to remove verifiable information? It is clearly mentioned in the text that the word was used in Classical Armenian and was derived from the ancient Persian language. Anahit Perikhanyan's field of expertise is the period of antiquity and her works are regularly cited by Western scholars, as a simple Google search will prove (, ). Her nationality is irrelevant and I ask that you do not use it as a excuse to dismiss her as a source. Who exactly is disputing the theory she has advanced? That historians in Azerbaijan, who are ridiculed the world over for their lack of adherence to basic scholarly standards, may disagree with her is not a valid argument to exclude her work and does not give you license to engage in edit wars. For that matter, please also be aware of 3RR and know that you may be reported if such disruptive activities continue. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, Do you not know what POV is? It's when users add one-sided information and include a source which is written by people from that side. In these cases, as a rule, you have to bring NEUTRAL sources to give support to your addition and to your source. It's a very easy thing to understand. It doesn't matter who cited her once or twice in the west. It matters that her POV on Azerbaijan's cities is not cited. Thus, search for NEUTRAL sources and bring them to talk page to discuss. I will also remind you about WP:3RR and WP:Edit-warring and your disruptive behaviour including POV's everywhere. Dighapet (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I cannot take anything from the above as a valid reason for exclusion. You are trotting out her national identity as an impediment to using her as a source - which is of course ridiculous and unacceptable. Perhaps if you might disagree with her methodology and bring out some concrete examples I might be more inclined to compromise, but for the moment your bellicose attitude and propensity to edit war looks to me that you are too uncomfortable to face the fact that the name of yet another town in Azerbaijan might be of Armenian origin. You may not like it, but please do not go to such extreme lengths to deprive the readers of fundamental facts just because they upset you. And your warnings to me about 3RR and edit warring - lol, perhaps you should heed the same advice that you preach considering that is all your edits really consist of.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, you try to show yourself as someone smart when you write with seldom English words but I will explain you in plain English. If you do not bring neutral sources, addition of the information that the town name is "Armenian" is unacceptable because it is not supported by any non-Armenian source. If a thing (A) on the territory of another country (B) is written by a writer coming from the first country A, it is of course not trustworthy. Only if it is supported by neutral sources then the discussion can be made. Also, those nonsense lies about Azerbaijan's cities being with Armenian names can only be taught in schools in Armenia or Armenian community in other countries. In real world, everybody knows who named which cities and when. Some cities have Turkic names, some have Albanian names and some have Persian names. It is you who should worry about Armenian cities which all had Azerbaijani and Turkic names before Turkmenchay treaty and some before 1960's - 1970's: Iravan, Vedibasar, Basarkecher, Aralig, Devegozu, Karavansaray, Sardarabad, Gokcha lake and other. And look who is saying Azerbaijani cities have Armenian names? LOL. If you want I can send you a scanned book from Armenian academy of sciences which shows which towns in Armenia were with native names (Azerbaijani) and to which names they were changed. It was printed in 1978 in Yerevan. If you want you can find it in some old book store in Yerevan. Dighapet (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very specialized field - it is only to be expected that the only individuals who have written about it are people who have taken the time to study dead languages (Aramaic, ancient Greek, ancient Persian, etc.) and they are unfortunately very few in numbers. It is to Perikhanyan's credit that she, after receiving an education in the field, has demonstrated her expertise judiciously, just like any respected scholar. Your warped reasoning, on the other hand, is just even more absurd; using your logic, perhaps an American should not bother writing about Russian history in the United States or perhaps a Briton should not write about the history of the pharaohs because he is not Egyptian. I don't think I have ever heard such a ridiculous statement.
- It would be very good of you to know that Armenian history, despite what is taught in Azerbaijan, did not begin in 1828. Many of the cities and settlements you mentioned were founded long before the arrival of the Turks in the eleventh century. "Iravan" is of course a corruption of Yerevan, whose dating goes back to 782 B.C. and whose name is attested to as such in Armenian manuscripts and literary sources of the fifth century A.D. and later. What the Turks finally did when they settled down in the towns and villages of the Armenian Plateau was that they gave new names to everything, but in most cases they made little effort to hide the original Armenian or Greek name. Varagavank became "Yedikilise" because it had seven churches; the town of Artashat, found in the 2nd century B.C., became "Ghamarlu"; Tsolakert became Igdir; Gegharkunik' and Sevanlich became "Gocha Lake"; Vararakn became Khankendi; Yernjak became Alinja; Dasta/Dastak became "Dəstə"; Verin Agulis became "Yuxarı Əylis"; Vaykunik/Tsar became Zar, and so on. In one way or another, the "new" names were just crude renditions of the previous ones. The domination of the Seljuks, Tatars, Mongols, Ottomans, and Safavids ensured that these names would remain until the nineteenth century. It was only then that their original names were restored (at least in Eastern Armenia). So clearly it is not I who requires the education.
- But this is of course all besides the point. Please show me some sources written by peer-reviewed scholars so we can juxtapose their theories next to Perikhanyan's. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as ever in suppressing verifiable information for no justifiable reason.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, right and Farida Mamedova is one of these individuals who scared Armenians with her discoveries that uncovered Armenian lies, because she knew those dead languages, which includes old Armenian. Armenians hurried to discredit her like you discredit Azeri authors in Wikipedia. Don't compare Britons, Soviets and Americans because their majority of academicians and researchers don't write false histories. If one writes something false, the other academician can also research and prove opposite. In case of Armenians, in most cases, who checked their research? There was no opposite side to counter these historical claims. Also in Azerbaijan, they don't say and teach history of Armenia started in 1828. Even Ziya Buniatov, the historian you hate wrote in his book about Greater Armenia and when it existed for 2 or 3 decades. In Azerbaijan and everywhere they teach how Armenia was a section of Azeri countries from 11th century until Russian occupation (in the middle these states were also parts of Persian empires and sometimes independent), which is a fact. In Armenia, they teach nonsense about Azerbaijan begining in 1918 or Karabakh not being Azeri. Even the name Karabakh which Armenians try so much to change to Artsakh to justify that it's "not" Azeri land, because Artsakh is in Albanian and does not sound Turkic. So many tries. LOL. Yerevan was not Iravan all the time. It was Erebuni and no, it was not from Armenian language. I can list hundreds of names of Azeri villages and towns that were changed to Armenian and their majority NEVER had Armenian names before, you know why? because they were founded when there was no Armenia on those lands. So, if you list some villages here saying they were Armenian before Turks came such as Yukhari Aylis or Alinja, you should go teach that to someone else in Dilizhan or Kafan, but not me. And I tell you one more time in PLAIN ENGLISH, stop your gaming and bring neutral sources which will support your argument. It's not me who has to bring sources to counter some POV source. Dighapet (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Digaphet I don't give a fig about all the interminable tales that they forced you to listen to when you were in school. I am asking you to give me examples about why Perikhanyan's theory is being suppressed. You have already mentioned her nationality but that is not a valid argument and I will report you if you continue to bring it up. You are challenging her credibility but on fallacious grounds. For the last time, Are there any concrete examples or sources you can introduce that are written by reliable, peer-reviewed scholars? Failure to give me a direct answer will be interpreted as a tacit admission that you don't and I will proceed to re-add the information that you so crudely are intent to keep hidden from readers. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, do you want me to say this in Armenian? BRING NEUTRAL SOURCES TO TALK PAGE which can support your argument. Your author IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! I already explained to you in ENGLISH. If you add that without the end of discussion you will be reported AGAIN and this time you will not get away. Thus, let's see. You are the person which slanders Azerbaijani authors, even on this talk page and you were warned on that once. Let's see. Dighapet (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take above rant as a "no." I would have obliged you with other sources had you given me a legitimate reason on why you think Perikhanyan is unreliable; since you haven't though, and since you seem to think that merely yelling at me through the Internet will get your position across, I assume that you have no actual objections. And mind you, my concerns regarding historians from Azerbaijan stem from their lack of scholarly credentials and failure to adhere to basic academic guidelines - not identity. Please learn to distinguish the two.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@MB, I don't care what you "take" or "don't take". I will not repeat 50 times that in order to add a source saying controversial thing about Azerbaijan, that a name of town comes from Armenian language, you will have to do more than just one one-sided source, which is bringing neutral sources. I don't care what you googled. Nothing proves the writer's credible. If she was taken seriously, then western scholars and researchers would quote her saying this town's name was Armenian. Go, fish and prove somewhere in Armenian names related articles. Your history of disrupting behaviour and calling names to Azerbaijan's writers is known well. That's why you have been placed under sanctions. I gave you the chance to bring a neutral source. When you find and bring reliable neutral source, please post on this talk page and we will discuss. Until that time, don't go in circles about the same thing. Dighapet (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- See this book, page 116, footnote 613 for a non-Armenian source. And do not remove information again just because it was written by an Armenian. Don't know how it works on Wikipedia, but in Wiktionary I would have blocked you immediately for vandalism and racism. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Petrosyan if you do not know how Wikipedia works then perhaps you should learn it first before making personal attacks and accusations against fellow Wikipedians. Aside that you have not been involved in these discussions to make your edits. I believe Dighapet makes a strong case, the source is one-sided and unless a neutral source can be provided the claimed information is groundless. Neftchi (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Marshall can you provide evidence for the reliability of your source? Or do we just have to take your word for it? The way you suggest it, it means I can add the original Azerbaijani names to cities in modern day Armenia. Neftchi (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have already demonstrated Perikhanyan's reliability as a source ad nauseum, Neftchi. Perikhanyan is commenting on something which is well within the level of her expertise. She is a peer-reviewed historian who has collaborated closely with Western scholars from her field. Dighapet made no such case to prove his point and went out of his way to revert constantly and remove anything which he objected to. Just because a source by a non-Armenian author can be found does not render her theory "groundless" - this kind of baffling and convoluted thinking that you employ is nonsensical. The question of the "original" Azeri names has also been addressed above and put conclusively to rest. I am not going to play these merry-go-round games with each and every one of you just because you take personal offense for the information that is presented here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Marshal, I have having issues with Neftchi for the same reason on the Karintak article. It seems that anything written by anyone who's ever met an Armenian is POV and deleted without discussion. Even if it's as innocuous as saying there's a waterfall or a cliff or pre-Soviet architecture in the village. I don't get it. --RaffiKojian (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Arab and Persian geographers of the 4th/10th century describe Barḏaʿa as a town with a citadel, a congregational mosque where the treasury of Arrān was kept, several gates, and flourishing markets, including the Sunday market of Korakī (from Greek kuriakos, the Lord’s Day); at this time Barḏaʿa, like Arrān in general, retained a substantial proportion of Christians...
No mention of Armenians, and clearly there could not have been a significant number of them in the city, as the Muslim geographers said that the people of Barda spoke Arranian (Albanian) language, which was a language totally different from Armenian. Please provide a reliable third party (not Armenian) source if you claim otherwise, and I wonder how the contemporary sources such as Istakhri or Ibn Hawkal could not have noticed a significant Armenian population in such a big city. Grandmaster 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please tell us how you can make such definite pronouncements by using words like "clearly". Bagrat Ulubabyan cites contemporary Armenian authors who write that there was a significant Armenian population living in Barda/Partav in the centuries prior to Ibn Hawkal's and Istakhari's writings (eighth, ninth centuries). There's a reason why the Catholicos of Armenia convoked an ecclesiastical gathering there. Just because Iranica neglects to use the word Armenian does not mean they did not live there; perhaps Ibn Hawkal and Istakhari do mention Armenians living there and that requires us to inspect those sources. This is specious reasoning Grandmaster, and from the looks of it seems to be yet another ill-concealed attempt to substitute the words Armenia and Armenian with Albanian and the more vaguer appellations of Christian.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Armenian Soviet encyclopedia? Are you serious? And Bagrat Ulubabyan is a nationalist Armenian author, clearly a partisan source, criticized by Shnirelman for his nationalist interpretation of the history of Caucasian Albania. Please provide a third party source, in accordance with the rules. Iranica is a third party source, ASE and Ulubabyan are not. Grandmaster 09:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As for Muslim sources, here they are. Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:
В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский.
In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.
для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда’а говорят по-аррански
For many groups of population in the outskirts of Armenia and neighboring countries there are other languages, such as Armenian for the people of Dabil and its province, and the people of Barda speak Arranian. 
Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. 
The language in Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran is Persian and Arabic, except for the area of the city of Dabil (Dvin): they speak Armenian around it, and in the country of Barda the language is Arranian.
As you can see, Persian and Arab geographers clearly make a distinction between Armenian and Arranian, and if there was a significant Armenian population in Barda before the 10th century, how could it disappear without a trace? And where did the Albanians come from, if they were not there before? Plus, someone other than Ulubabyan must be aware of significant Armenian presence in Barda, however you are seem to be unable to cite any third party source to support your claims. But the wiki rules require citing third party non-partisan sources. Also, what is your problem with the word "Christian", as per Iranica? It does not exclude Armenians, however they clearly were not the only Christian people in the region, and definitely did not have a significant presence in this city, since the contemporary sources make no particular mention of them. Grandmaster 10:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- All this hoopla around Ulubabyan is exaggerated. Did Ulubabyan advance theories that were not universally accepted by everyone? Yes. But were they based on a whimsical interpretation of the sources he was working with? No. Shnirelman's "criticism" amounts to nothing more than a slightly less than cordial refutation of Ulubabyan's theory. Ulubabyan proposed a new argument based on what limited sources there were on the period but that does not somehow make him a Ziya Bunyadov or a Farida Mammadova. If you take such a strong objection to him as a source why do you only remove the citation on the Armenian population? Why do you not remove the sentences on the council held by Sion I or of the references to Javanshir's building activities in Albania? This is selectivity at its very worst. A historian can be Armenian and reliable at the same time so please find something more substantial if you want to avoid going through another AA complaint.
- There was a great deal of population movement during those centuries, so I'm rather amused that you can ask such a silly question. The city was already in a rapid decline at the second half of the tenth century. But when Arab and Persian geographers say "The language in Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran is Persian and Arabic" they of course are referring to the lingua franca of the time, which were Arabic and Persian. Armenians formed a predominate majority in at least two of these regions but many of them adopted Arabic names, style and dress, and picked up on these languages. Thus, their failure to mention Armenian being spoken in Partav is not to be taken that Armenians did not live in the city but that the Albanian language was more widely spoken. The name Partav, after all, was used in Armenian, and not the more common Barda.
- Perhaps this period is so obscure that it has not attracted wide enough interest among other scholars. We're lucky to have individuals like Bosworth in the West but even he is only allocated so much space by Iranica to write down a concise history of the region. He does not list any Armenian primary sources and it's possible that he did not personally consult them. If you do not dispute that the word Christian used here does not exclude Armenians, why do we not just modify the sentence to read, "Armenians and other Christians"? But all this immediately reminds me of Bunyadov & co.'s attempts to remove Armenians from any mention of the historical record prior to 1828. Some editors have tried to replicate that practice here (on Gandzasar, House of Hasan-Jalalyan, etc.) and your insistence that the Armenians be stricken from this article resembles it all too closely.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ulubabyan was the one who claimed that Utis were Armenians, despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise and the general scholarly consensus being that Utis are the same people as modern Udis. How can such a source be considered reliable when it comes to Caucasian Albania? Also, as I said, if what Ulubabyan says is true, you should have no difficulties finding a third party source to support your claim. You keep on accusing me of trying to suppress any mention of Armenians, but you yourself fail to cite reliable sources to support your claims, and I can also claim that you are trying to attribute every place to Armenians despite the lack of reliable sources to promote this view. But I don't think that bad faith assumptions will help resolve the problems. Let's stick to the issue in question. You say that there were population movements, but Albanians were not invaders like Arabs, they were the indigenous people. No large scale migrations of Albanians were recorded, especially migrations as large as to repopulate the whole cities. Also, you admit that Albanian was more widely spoken in Barda, why then should we mention "Armenians and other Christians", if Armenians were not the majority, and their presence in the city is not mentioned neither in primary sources, nor in third party secondary sources such as Iranica? It makes more sense to stick to what the reliable third party sources say, and Iranica speaks about Christian population, without a particular mention of Armenians. Grandmaster 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- What "overwhelming" evidence? Whatever information that exists on this region points to the immense influence the Armenians had on the Albanians and even the Udis themselves ostensibly belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church (their own recent self-destructive tendencies to remove Armenian inscriptions on churches has not really helped bolster their case). Ulubabyan's theory might not be accepted by everyone but it's surely not the flagrant case of a violation of historiographical practices that you are making it out to be. Again, why are you only removing this reference? The work is cited at least 4-5 times throughout the article so why don't you delete those references? I don't accept your objections because they are hinged on a single point that it itself lacks proper argumentation.
- And like I said, the study of this region is obscure and it is not so easy as you put it. I do have difficulties finding works written by non-Armenian authors. Iranica is not the be all-end all of sources - its a tertiary source that can reserve only so much space for an article. Ulubabyan is relying on less conventional sources such as colophons and lesser known Armenian primary source material, which other scholars might not have access to nor have the linguistic background. The fact of the matter is that this was the easternmost region of Armenia (as evidenced in the Ashkharatsuyts of Anania Shirakatsi) and your statement that I am trying to "attribute every place to Armenians" reeks of paranoia and a self-refusal to believe that Armenians had any footprint in the area. I say that Albanian may have been more widely spoken but that should not be construed to mean that the Armenians had no presence there. The migration refers to Armenians leaving Partav but it's absurd to think this city had no connection at all with them, which is why your replacing of Armenian with the generic "Christian" is so problematic. Can you truly tell me then that you have consulted all the primary sources to make such sweeping statements that border on original research? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Armenian influence does not mean that the people of Uti did not exist at all. Plus, Shnirelman calls Ulubabyan one of the author's of what he calls "an Armenian myth of Caucasian Albania", according to which Albania almost did not exist. Why should we refer to such an author, who is clearly a partisan? And again, if Armenians had such a strong presence in Barda, how come that you are unable to provide any third party source to support your claims? All you have is Ulubabyan, and I don't think that other references to this author should remain in the article. You may like or dislike the article by Bosworth in Iranica, but it is a non-partisan third-party source, not connected to either Azerbaijan or Armenia. Preference should be given to such third party sources. I see no problem with using the word "Christian", as this is the word that the third party sources use. To place Armenians ahead of other Christian people in the city, especially more numerous Albanian Christians, you need an extremely good source that could beat such an authoritative source as Iranica. As I said many times, you cannot take Ulubabyan over Iranica, they are no match in terms of reliability. The first is an Armenian partisan source, which received criticism for his tampering with historical facts, while the latter is a respected international publication. Again, please either provide a third party reliable source, or let's stick to Iranica. Grandmaster 08:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have already given the answer to why there is such a paucity of scholars who have studied the history of this region during this period. Ulubabyan may have advanced a thesis that Shnirelman objected to, but even his criticisms do not impair his reliability as a scholar. He does not deny the Albanian element in Albania, which is why he speaks about it in some length in his article. He his works have been cited enough times and praised by academics working in the West (Robert Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff). I don't have any special feelings toward Bosworth or Iranica but I know that your interpretation of "third party sources" has been misleading from the very start. Wikipedia does not absolutely require us to use them, but it does ask that the source have some reliable footing. You have tried to argue that Ulubabyan does not meet that standard but that has not been shown to any convincing degree by you and, in fact, one senses that most of the criticism leveled against him is overblown. He has authored a work in a tertiary source and has worked with material that is not easily accessible in the West or not in a language that most are able to read.
There's no conflict in the sources and so it's unusual that you use words like "beat". Bosworth is referring to a situation in the tenth century, while Ulubabyan is speaking about a situation in the eighth. The only conflict here is the one you have artificially produced. You may not like what Ulubabyan reports but please introduce some evidence that his word cannot be taken; otherwise, this is pure obstructionism and IDONTLIKEISM.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, Ulubabyan and Armenian Soviet (!) Encyclopedia are not reliable sources. Please provide a third party source, as per WP:VERIFY: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Ulubabyan is neither a third party, nor reliable. Grandmaster 12:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- You continue to ignore the fact that other scholars (as mentioned above) have praised Ulubabyan's research. Nina Garsoian, the former Armenian Studies Professor at Columbia University, proposed the notion in her book on the Paulicians that the sectarian group was not dualist. That theory has not been accepted by a majority of scholars but that somehow does not signify that she is an unreliable scholar, just because she decided to go against the grain. You're still misinterpreting the same Wikipedia policy you are quoting and have failed to show why Ulubabyan must definitely be excluded. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the attempt by Bournoutian to claim Armenian presence on the basis of wrong interpretation of the Koraki or Kurki shows the quality of his research. There are tons of sources, including Minorsky, Iranica, etc, which explain the etymology of the word as being Greek. The article in Iranica about Barda clearly says that the word is Greek. Grandmaster 12:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You can read about the etymology of Kurkiye almost in every source mentioning the town, English and Russian alike:
Because the market was held on Sundays (Greek Kyriakh = the Lord's Day) the district became known locally as al-Kurkı.
Paul Wheatley. The places where men pray together: cities in Islamic lands, seventh through the tenth centuries. University of Chicago Press, 2001. ISBN 0226894282, 9780226894287, p 159.
Footnotes to Istakhri:
«Ал-Кюркию» — греческое слово (***); в арабской транскрипции и значит: «священный». Вполне понятно, что арранцы, как христиане называли так Воскресение, которое называется у арабов «первым днем» недели («яуму-л-ахаду»). Здесь автор впадает в заблуждение, приписывая наименование дня «ал-кюркию» влиянию рынка; напротив рынок так назывался по дню, в который обыкновенно происходило его открытие. 
- Yes, "Kiraki" was derived by Armenians from the Greek word for Sunday, but the Orthodox Church was never able to establish a foothold in Albania, and I have never come across a source that said Greeks lived here. Have you? Even if the lineage of the word is ultimately traced back to Greek, that does not somehow signify that it was the Greeks who were living there but, more probably, the Armenians. The Armenians adopted the word and was incorporated into the Armenian language. Your comment regarding the quality of Bournoutian's research is and of itself original research and I'm just amazed on how in your original edit you can be so bold as to write something like "so Bournoutian's speculation is unfounded." Paul Wheatley was a Professor of Urban Studies and it does not appear that the study of this region was his expertise nor even knew that "Kiraki" is simply an Armenian calque of Greek word (he himself admits he had no access to Armenian language sources). Bournoutian knows Armenian, Arabic, Persian, Russian and Turkish and so his opinion should be given greater credence - the fact that you try to put Wheatley's interpretation on the same footing as Bournoutian's, a respected, peer-reviewed scholar of the field, makes it difficult to believe that you are editing good faith.
- Your continuous removal of Ulubabyan, who is speaking about a situation from the eighth century, with Bosworth, who is referring to a situation in the tenth, is grounds for an AA complaint because it suggests that you do not want to countenance the fact that Armenians may have at one time inhabited the site. I have warned you twice now so please be good enough to pursue this discussion without seeking recourse to edit wars, quotations and facts taken out of context, and bad-faith interpretations of the sources. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's look at Bournoutian's manipulation with facts. He takes a word that is generally accepted to be Greek, claims that it is Armenian without ever mentioning its Greek roots, and then on the basis of the wrong interpretation of this word says that one can conclude from Istakhri's text that the city had Armenian population in the 10th century. Note that Istakhri says in the same text that Barda spoke Albanian language, but Bournoutian simply ignores that, so one can only wonder how the Armenian population did not speak its own language. That is really a very biased scholarship. As for the word Kiriakos, al-Kurki, etc, Albanians, being Christians, could have adopted it from Greek as well. Considering that the city spoke their language in the 10th century, that is more likely. I'm not removing Bournoutian, but the majority opinion should be given preference, and the difference between the opinions of Bournoutian and other scholars needs to be mentioned. I noted that you completely removed any mention of the Greek Kiriakos, which is not a right thing to do. I really wonder why you did that. Coming to Ulubabyan again, as I explained many times, he is not a reliable source, first, because he is not third party, second, because he is known for historical revisionism, and third, the preference is given to English language sources, in accordance with WP:NOENG. You can only use sources in other languages when no English sources on the topic are available, which is not a case here, since we have Iranica and other English sources. As I understood, ASE is only available in Armenian, and most of people here are unable to verify what is written there. Grandmaster 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's just a warped (mis)interpretation. The word "Kiraki" is indisputably Armenian, even if its roots go back to Greek. The word democracy derives its roots Greek but would you argue that that is not an English word? Istakhri and his contemporaries, it bears repeating, are referring to the lingua franca of these cities. This is clear enough from the context. In Dvin (Dabil), they spoke Armenian but who would ever deny that there were also Arabs living in the city who probably did not speak the same language? Would you go so far to argue that no other language except Arranian (a Caucasian tongue) was spoken in Barda at the time? not even Arabic or Persian? We don't know what the Albanian word for Sunday was but if you find a source, do share it with us.
- Ulubabyan is not a third party author but I have already mentioned the name of two scholars who have vouched for his credibility and that is more than enough to stay any motion for immediate exclusion. Further, and I really have forgotten how many times I have already stated this, the information presented by the ASE is not clashing with anything Iranica is reporting. I see you have reverted me once more and changed the line "During this time, the city boasted an Arab-speaking population, as well as a significant Christian Armenian community" and replaced it with "Christian community" and given the source as Iranica. I have told you numerous times already that Ulubabyan is referring to Partav's population during the eighth century, while Bosworth is speaking about the tenth century. Bosworth does not support that sentence so why do you insist on edit warring and engaging in edits that clearly show you are misleading the reader? Malicious editing is grounds for an AA complaint and my cup of patience has overflowed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that Koraki or al-Kurki is Armenian? If it derives from Greek, it could exist in other languages too, since most Christian people use words of Greek origin. Same as "democracy", which exists in almost all languages, and you cannot claim that it is English only. How can you say that Koraki/al-Kurki Armenian, when tons of sources says that the word is Greek? And it does not matter if ASE refers to 8th or 10th century, such change of population from Armenian to Albanian is impossible without massive migration or invasion of Albanians, which is not recorded between 8th and 10th century. So clearly, either Ulubabyan or Iranica are wrong, and since Iranica is a reputed 3rd party source, it should be given preference. Also, if Muslim geographers talk about lingua franca, how come that in Barda the Armenian majority did not speak their own language, but spoke a very obscure local tongue? Obviously, there were other languages spoken in Barda, but lingua franca must have been a language of majority, considering that Albanian was never as internationally popular as Persian. Plus, I really wonder on which sources Ulubabyan bases his claim on Armenian majority. At least Iranica as a scholarly publication refers to Muslim geographers, and their references could be traced. I quoted every Muslim source mentioned there. I highly doubt that we can find any direct evidence to support Ulubabyan's ideas, especially considering his other attempts to make implausible interpretations of the history of C.Albania. You say that there are scholars who praise Ulubabyan, but I mentioned the researcher of nationalistic historiography of the South Caucasus, who criticizes him. So clearly Ulubabyan is not a historian with an impeccable reputation. I suggest we apply to some sort of dispute resolution. Maybe ask someone to mediate? Grandmaster 08:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
These and other commodities, such as the furs from the North mentioned by Mas'udi (Tanbih, 63), madder and caraway-seeds (Hudud al-'Alam, 143), were no doubt mostly offered for sale at the Sunday market (suk al-kuraki, from Κυριακή, the Lord's day, reflecting the Christian religion of the inhabitants earlier), situated in the suburbs outside the Gate of the Kurds (Bab al-Akrad), to which visitors came even from Irak.
Encyclopedia of Islam, Volume 1, ISBN 900416121X, 9789004161214, Brill, 1954, p. 1041
There is no evidence that the Greek Orthodox Church ever extended its influence to Albania - it's as simple as that. The Armenian presence, on the other hand, was far more pervasive. This includes culture, religion and language. The tons of sources do not definitely refute the possibility that the Armenians lived here - if anything, they simply skip the Armenian connection and return to the original root, perhaps unaware that there was another people who used But it doesn't seem that any of the authors understand Armenian (one of whom isn't even really a historian, but an expert on medieval Caucasian history but urban studies) nor have consulted the Armenian primary sources (else they would have at least mentioned Ghevond, Movses Daskhurantsi, Kirakos Gandzaketsi, in their bibliographies). Ulubabyan does and he is referring to colophons and other obscure sources that are not as easily found in other libraries.
I am just bemused on how you are essentially admitting to mislead readers intentionally : so Iranica does not support the sentence because it is referring to a later period, but you still find it much more comforting to then delete Ulubabyan. So what you are doing is not only being selective on which source to cite based on how closely they align to your personal beliefs, but also inserting references that do not support the text. So Shnirelman criticizes Ulubabyan, but then Hewsen and Toumanoff praise him, which, at the very least, would lead someone to think that his credibility is evenly balanced. Yet you ignore whatever plaudits he has received, focus on what is in reality some minor criticism, and then doggedly edit war to exclude this author. Does none of this strike you as a little...wrong? Do I actually have to draw an administrator's attention to the fact that an established user of more than six years, who is known to have participated in off-Wiki coordination on the Russian Wikipedia, is resorting to edit wars and inserting false data to advance an agenda? Just astonishing. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Greek church did not have to exist in Albania for the Greek language to have influence there. The Greek language (same as Latin) influenced every Christian culture, and the majority of sources point to the Greek origin of the word Koraki. Again, it is not my invention, this is what most third party sources say. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is a fact, and your attempt to delete the references to the Greek origin of the word are very regrettable. Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam are specialist sources, written by top experts on the topic. And again, if Ulubabyan is the only thing you have to offer, then your position is quite weak. As we discussed million times before, he is not third party, and has a dubious reputation. If what he says is true, you should not have difficulties with finding a third party source. I quote third party sources for every edit that I make, so should you, and everyone else, in accordance with the rules. The topic is not so obscure, C.Albania and its capital Barda are discussed in a lot of scholarly literature, and there are articles about Barda in many encyclopedias. The fact that no one shares Ulubabyan's opinion shows that his theories are fringe, and not accepted in the international scholarly community. This means that such views have no place in the article. Also, your constant bad faith assumptions are in violation of WP:AGF, and I will bring it to the attention of the admins if such behavior continues. For instance, I never mentioned your being caught socking, since it has no relation to the topic. So let's avoid taking the discussion to the personal level, it is not helpful. But the rvs by anon IPs require investigation, and if it continues, I will have to file a report. Again, I don't mind any form of dispute resolution. Let's try one of the prescribed methods. Grandmaster 07:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You continue to evade my questions and stonewall the discussion with irrelevant, personal points. You continue to edit war (five reverts in one week - I mean, really?). You continue to edit the text that is intentionally misleading. You continue to misattribute sources. There's no reason to believe that dispute resolution will help here, and I cannot assume good faith when your actions speak louder than the words themselves. I do not have a partner in this debate who I can speak in a plain tongue and that's just unfortunate.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I gave a pretty detailed explanation of why ASE and Ulubabyan cannot be considered a reliable source, and you failed to provide a third party source to support your argumentation. Note that I myself refer only to third party sources, which cannot be accused of being biased. I made as many reverts as you did, and reverting socks does not count. And you twice rejected my proposals to apply for dispute resolution, and continue to violate WP:AGF. So who is being disruptive here? Again, I'm willing to resolve the dispute in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the rules. I just need you to agree to that, because it only works when both parties are willing to do it. Grandmaster 07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion but you did almost nothing of the above and did not demonstrate that you would be an honest partner for mediation. In the past (Paytakaran anyone?), you have ignored mediation and continue to disrupt articles. The fact that you are attributing the wrong source to a specific sentence in the text is just more evidence of that. I carried out two reverts and made two edits that changed the general character of the content. And I'm sorry, but what? Socks? Please introduce some proof before you start hurling accusations and please give some credit to the other editors on Wikipedia - not everyone thinks like you and has to accept your blatantly distorted version of events (for the record, a revert is a revert). --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- If an IP appears out of nowhere just to revert an article in your favor, it is just a single-purpose account. One must be really naive to believe that the rv by SPA was just a coincidence, and I don't think the admins are naive people. And I never ever ignored mediation, on the contrary, I actively cooperated to find a solution. If you don't want mediation, we can start an RFC. It is also a good option for dispute resolution. But again, according to the rules, you must cite reliable third party sources, and ASE is not such a source. I can also refer to Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, but I prefer third party sources that have no axes to grind in AA issues. Your failure to cite third party sources speaks for itself. If what ASE says is true and not a fringe theory, why there are no third party sources that share ASE's opinion? How come that ASE is the only source on this planet to support your position? The topic is not so obscure, there are plenty of articles in the scholarly literature about C.Albania, Arran and its historic capital Barda. Yet you go even as far as to remove the Greek etymology of the word Koraki that was supported by multiple references to third party sources. In addition to those used as references, I cited more at talk. Note that any edit that results in removal of info or restoration of previous versions is an rv, and you know that. I think that your personal attacks need to stop, and we should try to find a solution by seeking dispute resolution. Otherwise this discussion goes nowhere. You don't wanna cite any other sources but ASE, which is not third party and reliable, and your insistence on using it as a sole reference for a controversial edit is not in line with the rules on citing sources. Grandmaster 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
By the same token, do you not think your sudden appearance on this page and this page only and your propensity to edit war (and by extension, bait me into one) is not grounds enough for suspicion? I was not born yesterday, you know.
And please stop misquoting the rules. Wikipedia does not says "must" it says "should," which means in absence of third-party sources, other material can still be cited. The ASE is an extremely reliable source and any such comparisons with its counterpart in Azerbaijan is unwarranted, given the general inferiority of scholarship in that country. The Greek etymology of Kiraki is not disputed but you are infusing your personal interpretation when you mention that Bournoutian's theory is contradicted since none of the authors explicitly say this. This sort of gaming and stonewalling from you is something that I am well familiar with so please don't try to spin these specious arguments, expecting me to believe them if you just repeat them enough times. All you have done so far as is to bully your edits into the article, distort the citations by attributing sources to sentences that do not support the content, and reverted anyone who has disagreed with you. I'm supposed to assume good faith after all this and expect that mediation won't be just a long, drawn-out attempt to stall progress? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- My appearance here is quite normal, I'm a long time contributor to this article, and it is on my watch list. As for "general inferiority" of scholarship in Azerbaijan, I really wonder how it could be inferior, when every research on nationalist scholarship in South Caucasus has a special chapter on Armenia, be that Shnirelman, Kohl, Hewsen, de Waal or anyone else. Why then the Armenian scholarship should be considered trustworthy, when it gets so much criticism? Bournoutian's interpretation of Istakhri is a good example of biased scholarship. On the basis of the wrong interpretation of the origin of the name of the city's market he draws a conclusion about the population of the whole city! That is ridiculous. Even if we assume that he is right (which he is not) and that the name is Armenian, at the most it could only prove that most merchants there were Armenian, which speaks nothing about the population of the entire city. It is the same as saying that since most merchants at markets in Moscow are from Caucasus, the city has predominantly Caucasian population. Or because the biggest department store in Madrid is called El Corte Inglés, the population of Madrid is predominantly English. I like how he ignores the line in Istakhri that the population of the city spoke Arranian, and says that one can only conclude from that author that the population was Armenian, because the market was called Koraki. Simply brilliant! No explanation why the Armenian majority did not speak its own language. Bournoutian's opinion on etymology and interpretation of Istakhri is not shared by any third party source (I quoted quite a few), and one can compare his work with Iranica to see that they drew absolutely different conclusions from the same text, and that Iranica's conclusions make perfect sense. This why it is important to refer to neutral sources, which have no temptation to make biased interpretations of historical facts and sources. But you repeatedly refuse to cite third party sources, and you also refuse from any form of dispute resolution, be that mediation, third party opinion, or whatever else. So much for your bad faith assumptions. If you are so sure that you are right and I'm to blame for the dispute here, why not follow the WP:DR rule and get it resolved? I think the problem is not that I'm such a bad person, but that you are not sure that your position is strong enough. Btw, Matthew of Edessa is a very bad source. He has no idea what he is talking about. He claims that Barda is the same as Paytakaran and is located close to the Caspian sea. It is so far from reality, that I believe it is better to remove that source. I'm not gonna do that myself, but we know very well that after 11th century the city was predominantly Muslim, and this is mentioned in many Muslim sources of that time. Grandmaster 08:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bournoutian is a peer-reviewed scholar. There's no need in me pointing out to you again that the contradiction is one that you have manufactured. His statement and the statement of the other authors are easily reconcilable but the Armenian connection is far more likely on account of the fact the influence of the Orthodox Church was virtually nil in the eastern regions of Armenia. As for Matthew of Edessa, you're certainly in no position to say if he's a good or bad source. It's possible that he is calling Partav an Armenian city because this is an echo of its earlier past or he maybe speaking about it in geographical terms since Partav was considered one of the easternmost points of Greater Armenia. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you actually read what Iranica says? It says: at this time Barḏaʿa, like Arrān in general, retained a substantial proportion of Christians. I have already quoted this part above. Why then did you remove Iranica as a reference? And the majority of sources clearly says that Koraki derives from Greek, why removing that? The Armenian Kiraki also comes from Greek, as you yourself admitted. As for Bournoutian, stating that his opinion on Koraki is not shared by other sources is not an OR. If there are different opinions on the same issue, we should present both. Clearly, Bournoutian is a minority opinion, and should not have prevalence. We should say that most sources say this, but this one guy thinks otherwise. That would be a correct attribution, per WP:WEIGHT. I'm not even sure whether we should quote Bournoutian at all, because according to Jimbo: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. It appears to be the case here, Bournoutian is an extremely small minority, consisting of one person. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you actually read what Iranica says? It says "The Arab and Persian geographers of the 4th/10th century describe Barḏaʿa as a town with a citadel, a congregational mosque where the treasury of Arrān was kept, several gates, and flourishing markets, including the Sunday market of Korakī (from Greek kuriakos, the Lord’s Day); at this time Barḏaʿa, like Arrān in general, retained a substantial proportion of Christians..." That sentence is speaking about a situation in the 900s AD, while the one in the article is talking about one in the 700s AD. I mean, honestly, this has to be the seventh or eighth time I have told you this and yet you either are not paying attention to me or you are willfully ignoring what I say. Regarding the word for Sunday, Vacio is right on this one - you are synthesizing several sources into a single narrative to support a viewpoint only you are advancing. There's no contradiction here and Jimbo's injunction is for clearly discernible, marginal cases, like for example if a source says that the Monastery of Gandzasar is an Albanian, not an Armenian, monument. This on the other hand is a contrived conflict that you yourself have invented and an obvious case of point-of-view pushing. Really, it's getting old.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- You provided no reliable source about the population in the 7th century, so we only have a source about the population in the 10th century. This is what Iranica references. I moved it to the appropriate part of the text. As for synth, how stating an obvious fact about contradiction between Bournoutian and other sources is a synth? The rules require us to state differences of opinions. Btw, how you adding the Armenian dictionary quote after the reference to the Greek origin of Kiriakos is not WP:SYNTH? Please explain, if you are so strict on observing this rule. Coming to Bournoutian again, I have not seen a single third party source sharing his opinion about the population of Barda in the 10th century, on the basis of the name of the market. So indeed, this is exactly the case described by Jimbo, when the "viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". One person against multitude of third party sources is an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. So clearly, Bournoutian and his marginal view have no place here. We can ask a third party opinion on this, if you wish. Grandmaster 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I would like to receive an explanation for this strange interpretation of Shirakatsi: According to the seventh century atlas, the Ashkharhats'uyts', attributed to Anania Shirakatsi, Barda was known by the name of Partav (Partaw) during the period of late antiquity and was located in the region of Uti Aṛandznak in the Kingdom of Armenia's province of Utik'. What the hell? If one reads the original source, it clearly says that Uti belongs to Albania:
12. Ути, к западу от Аракса между Арцахом и рекою Курой, имеет 7 областей, которыми владеют албанцы: 1. Аранрот, 2. Три, 3. Ротпациан, 4. Агуэ, 5. Тучкатак, 6. Гардман, 7. Шикашен, 8. Собственный Ути с городом Партавом. Производит масличное дерево (), (огуречное или) китровое дерево, а из птиц встречается катак, (). 
- This is just astounding - so you feel it has devolved upon you the final responsibility to determine what is reliable and what isn't? You can simply remove a statement that is talking about a certain period because you think the source is not trustworthy and then latch it onto the end and think the issue has been resolved. This is nothing but a usurpation of other editors' rights. Moving on to the word Kiraki/Koraki: you're obviously combining material to form a narrative and then calling anything that differs from it a marginal viewpoint. It makes perfect sense that the though the word Kiraki had an ultimately Greek origin but was a Greek loanword in the Armenian language. All this is reconcilable with Bournoutian's theory. You're welcome to ask for a third-party opinion.
- Anania is confusingly referring to two different situations in one frame: he shows Utik' as a part of the Kingdom of Armenia until 387 A.D., when Armenia was partitioned and the land was lost to Albania (which is shown in the map as being north of the Arax River). Thus, the administrative arrangement follows that of the Armenian kingdom's, while Anania notes it belonged to the Albanians (զոր Աղուանք ունին). These nuances should be reflected somehow in the article. By the way, I didn't know the original source was in the Russian language...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have every right to determine what is a mainstream theory, and what is a marginal one, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. And Bournoutian's theory is marginal, since it is not shared by any other person. What you do is you are trying to reconcile a mainstream theory with a marginal one, which is not in line with the rules. Again, we can consult the wiki community with regard to this. And synthing referenced etymology with the dictionary is also not Ok, if it is not Ok to point to the differences between Bournoutian's opinion and the opinion of other sources. As for Shirakatsi, of course the original is not in Russian, but if you can find a good English translation, that would be Ok. I found online the full translated text in Russian, and it shows that in Shirakatsi's time the city of Partaw/Barda and Utik in general were in possession of Albanians. But the sources to which you refer in the article seem to make no mention of this fact, which shows either their quality, or their selective use. Grandmaster 09:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)