Talk:Paytakaran

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Source required

Could someone please provide a quote from the source a reference to which is made to support the following statement:

According to Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("World Atlas," 7th c. AD), Paytakaran was the 11th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. It consisted of 14 cantons (gavars): Hrakot, Perozh, Vardanakert, Yotnporakyan Bagink, Krekyan, Vovtibagha, Kaghanost, Buros, Pitchanhani, Atshi, Bagavan, Spandaran-perozh, Vormizd-perozh, and Alevan. It was bounded by the Capsian Sea to the east, Araxes river to the north and north-west, Atropatene to the south, and the Armenian province of Vaspurakan to the west.

I would like to see what Shirakatsi actually states about this territory. I have already asked for this, but it's never been supplied. Grandmaster 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Prior conversations have been archived to the third archive; if you wish to restore a conversation, simply copy the entire thread to this page.

This archiving has been undertaken in order to keep this page readable; I hope this is an acceptable action amongst the disputing editors.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediatior

Good afternoon (GMT time) all; The Transhumanist and Grandmaster have gave their blessing on my taking over this case as mediator, pending the former's WikiBreak. Any editors that would like to object to my mediating this case, please immediately drop me a message; the same goes for my actions as a mediator.

Before mediation re-commences, I'd like to start by making a brief introduction of myself. My experience on Wikipedia is not as extensive as The Transhumanist, but I have mediated over fifteen successful cases for the Mediation Cabal/Mediation Committee, as well as several as a Member's Advocate. I operate a strict neutrality policy, which is viewable here; the general outlook I follow in Mediation cases is viewable here.

My duties as Mediator are often restricted to:

1. Keeping the talk page tidy and archived;
2. Determining consensus in "requested edits";
3. Cautioning over civility on rare occasions this is necessary.

Questions concerning this should be directed to me immediately; in the meanwhile, I invite all editors to continue the discussion that was being undertaken during The Transhumanist's time here.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The page has been moved without consensus on talk, so I moved it back until the consensus is reached. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really enjoy creating conflicts? discuss it instead of reverting it. Artaxiad 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you check the archives, this is what I do for quite some time now. But the page cannot be moved without a consensus. So we need to discuss any such edits prior to making them. I understand that this is what The Transhumanist proposed as a possible way of resolution of the dispute (i.e. split of the article into many smaller ones), but I think he should have discussed the move first. Grandmaster 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster's action was probably spurred on by the undesirable effect the rename had on ArbCom[1].  ::Was the moved because "Paytakaran" is/was used to refer to the same region by different independent states throughout the ages; could someone summarise what other topics other than the Armenian province would have a claim to the name "Paytakaran"; is/was it used in Azerbaijan at any time? John Vandenberg 05:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a long edit conflict over this issue, which is currently being mediated at my request. Paytakaran was also a province of Medes and Caucasian Albania. And yes, my revert of the page move was in part caused by the current arbcom case, since a lot of the links point to the original name of the article. Grandmaster 06:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my proposed version, each line is supported by references: [2] Grandmaster 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move it to Caspiane without even discussing it? That's just outright wrong!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not move it to Caspiane, I moved it back to its original title, as there was no consensus for the move. And stop inserting your interpretation of Strabo, he does not say anywhere that there were 2 Caspianes. Provide the exact quote instead. Grandmaster 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the full context of Strabo’s second quote, he does not say that there were 2 Caspianes:

According to report, Armenia, though a small country in earlier times, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadris, who formerly were generals of Antiochus the Great, but later, after his defeat, reigned as kings (the former as king of Sophene, Acisene, Odomantis, and certain other countries, and the latter as king of the country round Artaxata), and jointly enlarged their kingdoms by cutting off for themselves parts of the surrounding nations,--I mean by cutting off Caspiane and Phaunitis and Basoropeda from the country of the Medes; and the country along the side of Mt. Paryadres and Chorsene and Gogarene, which last is on the far side of the Cyrus River, from that of the Iberians; and Carenitis and Xerxene, which border on Lesser Armenia or else are parts of it, from that of the Chalybians and the Mosynoeci; and Acilisene and the country round the Antitaurus from that of the Cataonians; and Taronitis from that of the Syrians; and therefore they all speak the same language, as we are told. [3]

Eupator, so why do you include original research in the article? This quote could be summarized as follows: Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes, because this is what he says, Artaxias conquered Caspiane from Medes. Any personal ideas and comments should be kept out of the article as per WP:NOR. Grandmaster 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Artaxias retook an Armenian speaking land back from the Medes according to Strabo. They spoke the same language remember? Anyway, I will be on vacation in the sunny south until April 9. So barring TigrantheGreat's unexpected return do not make any changes to the article. I will be more actively involved when I return.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again interpretation. He did not "retake", he conquered the land from Medes. It was not Armenian speaking before that, Strabo says that they all speak the same language "therefore", i.e. because of that conquest. He does not say anywhere that there were 2 Caspianes, it is your original research, which I'm removing from the article. Grandmaster 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I'm going to step in here, as things are getting quite heated. In order for me to understand exactly what is wrong here (I don't expect to have to sift through screeds of debate on a topic that I have no prior knowledge on), I'd like involved editors to post a quick summary of their argument for or against the page move. In the meanwhile, I'd like to keep it at it's current title - this is not an endorsement of the current page at all, but simply to prevent any further move warring. Please do not move the page again - please treat it as fully protected from moves. Going back to the requests for argument outlines, here's an example:

Again, what are we trying to achieve? Strabo does not talk about 2 Caspianeas, but one. Similiarly there was one Paytakaran region and one Paytakaran city. I brought the text to its previous position. Let's discuss before we run into another disagreement. --Ulvi I. 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments regarding page move

• First page title: Paytakaran
• Second page title: Paytakaran (Armenian province)

Anthony cfc

(This is an example - I am not taking any stance in the argument)

I am against the page move because:

• The first title is correct because XYZ (links to sources, etc.., please - not condensed versions of above arguments unless they conform to this criteria)

anthony^[cfc] 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Section blanked - please follow the template above; the idea is to not have screeds of discussion. Thank you.

Regards,
Anthony cfc (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Grandmaster

I oppose the page move because I see no point in creation of a separate article about every period it changed hands from one state to another. As is known, the region was part of Medes, Armenia and Caucasian Albania, so creating 3 articles about the same region at different times is not a good solution, considering that the region is very obscure and sources are very scarce. [4] Grandmaster 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I would like to add my proposed edits to the article. If there are objections, let's discuss them. Grandmaster 07:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the region does not need to be split into multiple articles unless there is a lot of information about them, and for the same reason I think that information about the city of Paytakaran should be primarily contained in the history section of Beylagan (town). Could people familiar with this subject check this image for accuracy of the borders of this region and location of the town, as I think it is necessary to rough maps for the region and the location of the town available on the articles. John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We have another map here: Image:Historical Armenia & neighbouring states.jpg. The two maps provide identical information about the location of the province, but differ with regard to location of the city of Paytakaran. Grandmaster 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion for months on this article, since the other party to the dispute ignores the talk. The article cannot remain in its present condition forever, and people have a right to edit it. I'm readding my edits in the form agreed with the Transhumanist. Anyone objecting to any line or part should present his objections on talk, blind reverts will be reported to the admins. Grandmaster 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen. You can't single handedly add your personal original research. That's strictly prohibited in Wikipedia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research, it is well referenced info you just removed again. Grandmaster 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to make it so.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just check the article:

Prior to becoming Paytakaran, the region was known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors. Caspiane was contested between the regional powers. 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". Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes.

It clearly says that the region was part of Albania and Medes. Yet you reverted the mention of that in the intro. I think that this is gonna be next arbcom case, involving me and you. Grandmaster 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm back from wikibreak

Though it will take me a day or three before I can find the time to refamiliarize myself with the details. In the meantime, please refrain from threats, and from escalating any conflicts over the article. The article is improving, albeit slowly, and we are all dedicated to its further improvement. Let's do so as mature adults and resolve this here. Arbcom already has its hands full, and doesn't need any more cases. Let's do our part to minimize the burden placed on Arbcom.

Note that I moved the article believing that there would be no objections. Since there were objections, I have no problem with it being reverted back to the original title. Grandmaster, I ask that you take the same approach. If you disagree with a revert of an edit you've made, simply take that as an invitation to discuss the edit for consensus building.

I read fast, and so I don't mind poring through "screeds of debate". I'll be back up to speed soon.  The Transhumanist   

Thanks, this is what I did from the very beginning and do now. If you check the discussion just above this section, you'll see that I tried to find out what the problem was with my edit, why I was reverted without any edit summary, and did not receive a satisfactory response. This article was one of those that resulted in that arbcom case, so it would good to find a resolution to this dispute. I think that reconciliation of positions is not gonna work in this particular case, as one of the sides simply denies any evidence cited, no matter what it is. I'm actually considering further actions to have this dispute finally resolved. But anyway, thanks for rejoining us, I'm willing to cooperate as usual. Grandmaster 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The region vs. the province

Paytakaran was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.

I think the sticking points on the article have been mostly grammatical/semantic. Your "opponents" are sticklers for detail, and it seems to me that they merely wish to keep the article free from ambiguity and error. The above sentence for instance may lead readers (who don't bother to read the whole article) to assume that the region was called Paytakaran while in the hands of each of the named kingdoms. For example, referring to Constantinople (which is time-period-specific) as Istanbul could be rather confusing, and may lead readers to make erroneous assumptions, such as that Constantinople was a Turkish city, that it was always called Istanbul, etc.

Someone reading just the lead of this article may easily assume that the province was called Paytakaran throughout its history, and this would be an erroneous assumption. It is in this sense grammatically awkward. Grandmaster, can you think of a way to fix the above sentence to accomodate these concerns?

 The Transhumanist   

The thing is that it was called Paytakaran while being part of Medes and Caucasian Albania. Shirakatzi has been misquoted, and I suspect that it was done on purpose, as anyone who actually read that source could not have noticed what it actually said. I’ve been asking for quote from the following source for quote a while now:

According to Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("World Atlas," 7th c. AD), Paytakaran was the 11th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. It consisted of 14 cantons (gavars): Hrakot, Perozh, Vardanakert, Yotnporakyan Bagink, Krekyan, Vovtibagha, Kaghanost, Buros, Pitchanhani, Atshi, Bagavan, Spandaran-perozh, Vormizd-perozh, and Alevan. It was bounded by the Capsian Sea to the east, Araxes river to the north and north-west, Atropatene to the south, and the Armenian province of Vaspurakan to the west.

It has never been provided. So I had to find it myself. It is available online in Russian and it says:

11. Пайтакаран, к востоку от Ути, на Араксе, имеет 12 областей, которыми владеет ныне Атрпатакан: 1. Хракот-Перож, 2. Варданакерт, 3. Еотнпоракиан-Багинк, 4. {50} Ротибага, 5. Баганрот, 6. Ароспижан, 7. Гани, 8. Атли, 9. Багаван, 10. Спандаран-Перож, 11. Ормизд-Перож, 12. Алеван. Производит несметное количество хлопка и самородный ячмень. [5]

Paytakaran, to the east of Uti on Araxes, has 12 cantons, which are currently in possession of Atrpatakan. Then goes the list of its 12 cantons.

Atrpatakan is Armenian spelling of Atropatene, i.e. Medes. So it was part of Medes after Armenia ceased to exist as an independent state, and later became part of Albania again. I’m not really happy with the way certain users handle the sources. I never failed to provide quotes from the sources I referred to, and I expect the same from other editors. While we are supposed to always assume good faith, I don’t see it as a content dispute anymore, it seems to me like a deliberate attempt to suppress certain info. We've been discussing this for many months without any progress, while all the sources agree that the region was part of various states and not just one. Grandmaster 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So Grandmaster, still think you're fighting a battle here? Here is your "opponent"'s response. Grandmaster, it is funny for you to talk about a deliberate attempts to suppress certain info. Where do you me to list all your suppressions and deliberate misinformations, it's a very long list...

Paytakaran is an Armenian word for the Armenian province. The etymology is 100% Armenian. And if what you just did above is not distorting information, tell me what is it then? “Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts”, just happens to be an Armenian work by an Armenian author right?

“Paytakaran, to the east of Uti on Araxes, has 12 cantons, which are currently in possession of Atrpatakan.”

It does not support your original research and faulty conclusion. It says that Paytakaran has 12 cantons, and those cantons were in possession currently of Atrpatakan. You never provided any single source which shows that Paytakaran was not a term used to refer to the Armenian province.

Abu Dulaf in 950 AD, claims P’aytakaran as the ancient Armenian Province. You can find it on page 73 of the 1955 edition. The famous Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium of Walter Emil Kaegi on its index writes the term Armenia just after it. You know what suppression of information is in this case, it is to dilute every historic Armenian article because regions happen to be now part of Azerbaijan. Add Albanians, add Medes or what have you?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I call distortion and suppression of info. Just check your statements:

It says that Paytakaran has 12 cantons, and those cantons were in possession currently of Atrpatakan. You never provided any single source which shows that Paytakaran was not a term used to refer to the Armenian province.

Hello, you just quoted it. The source says that Paytakaran was part of Atropatene. What else do you need? And why this info was deleted from the quote from Armenian Geography that either you or Tigran included in the article? As for Heraclius, here’s from the book about his military campaigns:

Shahrvaraz moved from Nisibis, through Media, to P'aytakaran in Albania.

The war in Armenia, 572-3

Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N. C. Lieu, Michael H. Dodgeon. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363): a documentary history. ISBN 0415003423

As for Paytakaran being Armenian word, Armenian scholar Patkanov was not so sure.

Эта провинция находилась в южной части треугольника, образуемого слиянием Куры и Аракса, частью переходила за Аракс в Муган и простиралась до Каспийского моря. Входя весьма часто в состав Адербейджана, она носила у армян имя да сих пор этимологически необъясненное, а персам совершенно неизвестное. Окончание аран армянское. Оно встречается в конце еще одной области этой провинции, Спандаран. Большая часть этих областей носит названия, неизвестные другим писателям.

He failed to explain the meaning of the name. If it was indeed Armenian, it would not be so difficult to explain its meaning, would it? Also note how he says that this province was part of Aderbeijan (Atropatene) very often. Are you still going to deny that this region was part of other states? Grandmaster 04:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is tiresome to be constantly accused by Grandmaster of distorting sources. Read carefully, the source does not say there was a Paytakaran in Albania, it says that Paytakaran was lost and that the cantons were now in the possession of Atrpatakan. The book by Geoffrey Greatex say it was in Armenia, the term Paytakaran is used in the context of the city, not province: “from Dvin to the P'aytakaran city, and that he should assign the city to the census” You were told numerous times about the misuse of Paytakaran to refer to the city. I am not interested to discuss this with you any further. Your denial that Paytakaran was an Armenian word, even when sources explicitly say it is, is all that I need to know that I should stop arguing. Even your source Patkanov says that the suffix -aran is Armenian, which for some odd reason you forgot to translate. Open any Russian/English - Armenian dictionary and look up the word "payt". Paytakaran=land of wood. пайт=дерево. Here are two scholars who agree: "Е. А. Пахомов, исходя из лексики армянского языка, считал, что "Пайт" - дерево, "кан" - местность (409, с. 17). К. В. Тревер, повторяя это, этимологизировала Пайтакаран как "Деревянный (город)" (451, с. 265). "Пайт" - в древнеармянском - дерево, буквально - "Пайтакаран" означает "место лесов, изобилие лесов"." -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the accurate quote from Shirakatzi, which said that the province of Paytakaran was part of Atropatene. How long are you gonna deny the fact that the region was part of various states, and not just one? And how long are you going to delete the sources that contradict your POV? You say that the region was lost, does it not mean that it became a part of another state? What is the point of your denial? I wonder if I can submit this case to arbcom now or if there are some other formal steps I need to take first. I would appreciate if anyone advised. Grandmaster 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some socks are again reverting the text without discussion. I personally liked the original version of the article, given the fact that it had more information in it. However, this also has to be understood that, we cannot have only one version of the story - both versions has to be kept. I guess the version now reflects that opinion. --Ulvi I. 12:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the billionth time! This article is not about a region or a city, it's about the province by the name of Paytakaran. NOTHING ELSE. Stop accusing me, is asking you to stop accusing me too hard for you to understand? You requested this mediation, if you had no intention to discuss, if you had the intention to continuously accuse others and push them out, then why did you file for mediation? And Ulvi, Hakob is not a sock, he is a long time member who happens to know a lot about Paytakaran. Why should Hakob not revert without discussion, while you can? It was agreed by Grandmaster that if no consensus was obtained the article remains as it was, then little bit of changes were made to satisfy him, which I accepted. No consensus was obtained but he moved to edit the article to suit his pov. Grandmaster breached the conditions attained by the mediator; he made those changes without reaching consensus, and pushed me out by false accusations and still continues to do.

The region was lost like Constantinople was lost. It does not mean that Paytakaran became a province when it was lost, neither does it mean that Caspiane is Paytakaran when sources were provided against it. But I gave my OK for the history of the region to cover Caspiane, I made a compromise.

Grandmaster added back Paytakaran on the lead now as a city to have the Azerbaijani term, he did not achieve consensus, it was Grandmasters move, by doing this he left mediation. I accepted the arbitrations decision, but Grandmaster has not changed. He was shown that there was various different Beylaqan's, but this whole problem with him is that there was no Azerbaijani term so inserting back an Azerbaijan term in the intro. I don't understand why the accuracy of this article should suffer for political reasons? Should this article pay with its accuracy because the region is now part of Aerbaijan and that some believe that since over a thousand years ago it was an Armenian province that readers will question the legitimacy of the republic of Azerbaijan?

So Ulvi, I am answering this to you, because you claimed that Hakob reverted without discussion. Ulvi, where does Shirakatzi say that the province became part of Atropatene? He writes the cantons were lost, Grandmaster assumes that Atropatene had a province called Paytakaran, this source doesn't even say it became a province after it was lost. Grandmaster added in the section "Province of Greater Armenia" that the cantons were currently in the possession of Atropatene while that section was about the province in Greater Armenia and this following the heated discussions, indicates to me that there is no way I could reason with Grandmaster. I created this page, which was about the Armenian Province of Paytakaran, and accepted the concessions and accepted the mediation, and its conditions, I made concessions to incorporate in the article other elements, but now Grandmaster is even pushing it in the section on the province of Greater Armenia. He has shown time and again that he is not ready to make any compromises, even after the arbitration.

To The Transhumanist, following a breach to the conditions fixed before the mediation by Grandmaster, I leave the discussion, Grandmaster could edit this page to fit whatever taste he has. I contribute to create articles and expand them and not to waste my time arguing with people who have no intention to make any compromises. I'm done.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hakob is obviously a meatpuppet. He turned up when Eupator ran out of rvs to edit war for him. So far Hakob has not contributed a single line to the talk of this article, which speaks for itself. As for Eupator’s claims, I only added accurate and referenced info to the article. I still have not received an explanation from Eupator why he removes the accurate quote from Shirakatzi. Eupator seems to agree that Shirakatzi says that Paytakaran was part of Atropatene according to that source (there’s no way of denying it anyway, the source is available online), but keeps removing the accurate quote from the source. Clearly, this person simply does not want to accept the facts. Whether it was the province of Atropatene under that or different name is irrelevant, we need to mention the fact that the territory was part of that state and accurately quote the source. It was proven that Caspiane was the previous name of the province, and even the version of the article to which Eupator reverts to says so. Moreover, the original version of the article, created by Eupator and Tigran, also said so. And we know (check Strabo) that Caspiane was part of Albania. I don't see why we cannot include the same info into the intro. Now Eupator changed his position and denies what he himself was saying a while ago. This cannot go on forever, with or without Eupator the accurate info should be included in the article. Grandmaster 05:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Eupator says: I contribute to create articles and expand them and not to waste my time arguing with people who have no intention to make any compromises. Please Eupator tell me what compromise you have made so far? Just one example? All you did was just denied the sources, no matter how authoritative they were. Grandmaster 05:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from an Armenian source:

A belt of Armenian peripheral lands fell away to its neighbors: Gugark in the north to Iberia, Utik and Arcax (Artsakh) in the northeast to Caucasian Albania, Paytakaran and Parskahayk in the east to Atrpatakan (modern Azerbaijan), and Korcek and Aljnik in the south to Mesopotamia, thus leaving a considerably reduced territory.

P 92 Nina Garsoyan. The Arshakuni Dynasty (A.D. 12-[180?]-428)

The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. ISBN: 0312101694

I don’t know how many more sources Eupator needs to accept the facts. Grandmaster 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I am not a meatpuppet. Stop the groundless accusations please. Then again, you're always ready to make an [often unfounded] accusation (especially when the person's edits are in opposition to yours). Just like I told Adil, I don't like to engage in "talks" with uncompromising editors because nothing productive gets done. I came to expand this article because Eupator had proposed I do so. I was going to propose my changes on the talk page first, but then I saw your controversial changes and reverted. If you would like to accuse me of anything, please see WP:AGF and accuse Parishan and Ulvi as well. They have done the exact same thing.

Why are you putting words in Eupator's mouth? If I was able to understand him then so should you. Read more carefully next time. If you build a castle out of a deck of playing cards and you consider it to be yours and one day I come and take the cards away from you, that doesn't mean that the castle is in my possession. Eupator agreed (like I did), that Paytakaran was lost, which is what Shirakatsi has written. But what Shirakatsi does not say is that Paytakaran was a province of Atropatene or that they had a Paytakaran (they didn't). Do you have any sources that call the region Paytakaran without qualifying it as a land being lost by Armenia or without referring to Armenia?

Caspiane and Paytakaran are two different entities and cover two different periods (centuries apart). Just like Yerevan is not Erebuni, the Erivan Khanate is not Armenia, Babylonia is not Iraq, Ancient Egypt is not modern day Egypt and the Democratic Republic of Armenia of 1918 is not the Republic of Armenia of today.This discussion is about nothing really. Eupator simply created an article about Paytakaran, which was the name given to an Armenian province. What is your problem with this? I don't follow you. Historians aren’t even sure of where the provincial city was. There was not only one Beylagan, and when this word was first used, there was no Paytakaran left.

I understand what bothers Eupator. Unlike yourself, he has made concessions. He did not make changes while you both were sorting things out with a mediator, but you did. Indeed, he has made concessions for the entire article, and you come in and edit the single section that covers the province of Greater Armenia, when the article was created for the purpose of covering that. You even edit the section to relate to its loss; do you really need to add this every single time the word Armenia or Armenian is used?

Furthermore, the sources do not support your claims. Garsoyan says that Paytakaran was lost but does not claim that the Albanians had a Paytakaran. Paytakaran vanished from the map after it was lost. Albanians had no Paytakaran, they took the land.

It is very difficult to discuss things with you. Given the situation, I think I'll have to fill out a RfC on your behavior. No one likes to be accused of meatpuppeting or denying/distorting sources.

Happy editing, Hakob 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to blackmail me. If you want to start an RfC on me, go ahead and do it. Unlike yourself, me, Parishan and Ulvi are people who were involved in editing this article from the very beginning, and did not turn up just to rv in support of a certain person. There’s enough ground to call for admin attention to your actions, which I will not fail to do. As for Eupator, quite possible that this article will end up in arbcom. I’m trying to prevent it, but the way it is I don’t see any other solution to the problem. It has been effectively demonstrated with reference to endless number of sources that Paytakaran was the same land as Caspiane. It belonged to Medes, Armenia and Albania during the course of its history. I don’t see where Shirakatzi says that Paytakaran was part of Atropatene under a different name. And I did see any concessions on part of Eupator whatsoever, he made none. Correct me if I’m wrong. Also what’s wrong with inclusion of an accurate quote from Shirakatzi and why is it being reverted? You restored a baseless claim that Strabo speaks about 2 Caspianes, please show me exactly where he does that. Would you mind to show me any map with 2 Caspianes? There are so many examples of such POV editing, I can go on giving examples. If you really want to resolve this dispute and include accurate info in the article, let’s do it. Otherwise we will have to follow formal procedures to have the dispute settled. Grandmaster 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted in support of a certain position. I don't understand your argument at all. Paytakaran never belonged to the Medes or Caucasian Albania, Paytakaran was an Armenian province and was lost to the Medes and Albania. Did you read what I wrote before? I have already addressed your points. Eupator created an article about Paytakaran, referring to an Armenian province. I do not have to provide any evidence that it was under a different name in Atropatene, but I would appreciate it if you would provide some calling it Paytakaran, you are the one claiming. So if Shirakatsi does not say it was called under a different name it does not mean that it was called Paytakaran. The administrative borders were not kept and the province ceased to exist after it was lost, so your claim that Albanians had a Paytakaran makes no sense.

You don't see any concessions coming from Eupator? I'm going to be repeating myself, but this article was about the province of Paytakaran, an Armenian province. Eupator agreed to include other elements, and in the article the province of Greater Armenia had a section (it was a great concession to reduce to a section what the article was actually supposed to be about). This did not satisfy you, so in the lead you added Medes and Caucasian Albania. You even add the city and an Azerbaijani name. Is this edit encyclopaedic? And then you ask what is wrong with with your edit...? You seem to want it to have had Albania and Medes somewhere in its history, but all the sources I have seen about the province refer to it as an Armenian province. Wikipedia does not allow original research.

I think you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We are not here to demonstrate anything. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, which is a knowledge base of what has already been published. Falsely interpreting sources and recquiring those interpretations to be included in articles is called original research and is not allowed. You speak of formal procedure but you edited the article while both of you were under mediation. You change the rules when something does not satisfy you (you can't refer to the rules only when they work in your favor).

I think I will follow Eupator then, I did not see a change in the way you are treating me. I do not have the patience to debate with someone who will make groundless accusations against me (Wow, he edited an article, he must be a meatpuppet!). As Eupator already said, you can edit the article to suit your taste. Thinking that you own articles will only drive people against you. Take this as a friendly advice.

Happy editing, Hakob 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hakob, you did not edit the article, you edit warred on it. Your only edit was reverting it 3 times to Eupator’s preferred version. I don’t think you staying away from this article will somehow affect its quality, because you have not contributed anything to it so far. If you want to actually edit it, you are always welcome. Now back to the topic. The sources make it clear that the region was originally called Caspiane. Caspiane was conquered by Artaxiad from Medes, and then lost to Albania. At certain point in the history it became part of Armenia again, and then was lost to Medes and Albania. The only source that refers to the region after its capital city is actually Shirakatzi. From what I see, even other Armenian sources call it Caspiane. For instance, Faustus of Byzantium calls it land of Caspies and land of parcies, and that was close to the times Armenia lost the region forever. Later the center of Caucasian Albania was located in Paytakaran, in the city of the same name, under the local leader Sanatruk. Also, I don’t see how mentioning the capital city of the province is not encyclopedic. How can you write an article about a province and say nothing about its capital? I have not seen any article like that. Grandmaster 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, there is still major disputes on this page. I am not happy with the current edition either, but just coming and removing Paytakaran's historical location within Azerbaijan, its links to Atropatena and Albania is not going to work. Thank you for creating this article, but it does not mean that we cannot comment on it or suggest improvements. For your information, not all sources on Armenia mention Paytakaran being part of it, at any given period of the history. It is good that now Hakob talks. I am also for separation of Caspiane and Paytakaran, actually I was the first one suggesting to separate these two issues. More ancient and larger Caspiane included Paytarakaran (region) when the latter did not exists as such. --Ulvi I. 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that it is the same region that later changed its name. At least that’s what Robert Hewsen says, and he is one of the best experts on that period of history of the region:

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. [6]

With consideration to this, what is the point in creation of two articles on the same region, considering that information is very scarce? I think the best would be to provide detailed info about history of the region and all known transfers from one state to another. It will be more encyclopedic and easy for the reader to follow. From what I see, someone just tries to remove from the article any connection of the region with other states, and it is no good. Verifiable info should remain in the article. Grandmaster 20:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)