Talk:Paytakaran

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Prior conversations have been archived to the third archive; if you wish to restore a conversation, simply copy the entire thread to this page.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

all of this writing will be processed to make sure that is is true and that no one has just edited it.

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)

The region was clearly part of other states. But the problem is the article isn't about the region per se, it is about the region when it was called "Paytakaran". That's been the crux of this conflict since I've been watching. You guys need to come up with a solution to this precise issue: how to present the political entity that this region consisted of at different times. Lumping them all together, loses the individual naming of each province. One side wants to lump them, the other side wants to keep them distinct. Please start cooperating and find a solution. I would like to get out of here. Thank you. The Transhumanist    21:16, 6 May 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)

Was Paytakaran a province of Medes?

And if the region was a province of Medes, was it called "Paytakaran" when it was a province of Medes? If not, then it is false to say "Paytakaran was a province of Medes". The article needs to be made semantically clear and grammatically correct. Will you guys please fix it so that readers don't jump to the wrong conclusions? Thank you. The Transhumanist    21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the province of Medes, as is clear from the sources. Shirakatzi says: Paytakaran, to the east of Uti on Araxes, has 12 cantons, which are currently in possession of Atrpatakan. The comments of the editor said that the region “very often” was part of Atropatene (Входя весьма часто в состав Адербейджана...). So it was part of Medes, and its population consisted of Iranian-speaking people. Grandmaster 05:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are not clear enough because a region can be within borders, without it being a province. It's only your assumption. From what I read from Shirakatzi, there is no indication that there was a province named "Paytakaran" within Atrpatakan...the only thing that is clear from Shirakatzi is that the region became part of Atrpatakan. There is no reason to assume from that source that the provincial borders were maintained. Also, it's not a bizarre occurence that Shirakatzi uses the term Paytakaran...he's an Armenians and he is using an Armenian term from which it can be assumed that the existance of any such province outside of the Armenian frontiers is just that, an assumption.

I am not expecting a long answer as I don't really want to debate about this after seeing how Hakob and Eupator were "kicked out". Grandmaster, You have affirmed ownership of this article and unless there is a behaviour change, I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to debate with you. Everyone does not possess patience like Fadix had. - Fedayee 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also interesting that the name of Paytakaran as a province occurs only in Shirakatzi. Faustus of Byzantium (5th century), for example, calls the region Kaspiane. And also, do we have any sources to support the claim that the region's provincial borders changed when it was part of Atropatene? Grandmaster 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Only Shirakatzi? Grandmaster you are contradicting yourself. Yes, the region was called Kaspiane... but Kaspiane is bigger than the Armenian province of Paytakaran. I can also see above that user:Ulvi I. has written the same thing. Your last phrase is also against wiki-policy of WP:Verifiability. You added that it was a province of Albania, you have added the stuff about Medes, yet the material you have quoted here does not support the assertion that Paytakaran was anything other than an Armenian province. The region might have been apart of Albania, taken by the Medes, and now apart of the modern-day Azerbaijan, but there is no evidence that the province of Paytakaran continued existing after the Armenians lost it. As per policy you should provide sources to support that since you added it. - Fedayee 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but which other primary source refers to the province as Paytakaran? I could not find any. And remember, we have Hewsen who says that Kaspiane was later called Paytakaran, i.e. it is the same province. In fact, Hewsen shows the province on his map under the name of Kaspiane. I think we should move this article to Kaspiane, because that was the generally accepted name. Grandmaster 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Check this:

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

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

So it is clear from this that the province of Paytakaran existed in 840, during the Babek revolt, and it was not part of Armenia, which lost it in 387, but part of Albania. The Arabic/Persian form of the name of the province was Baylaqan, so it should be added to the lead. Grandmaster 05:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This assures me that the only way to deal with this is to file an RfC on you which I would support if brought forward by user:Hakob as he has considered. Requesting primary sources is your set of rules and expecting me to have access to material dating over a thousand years is kinda senseless. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources...your request is a form of disruption. I don't see anything from Dowsett's text which supports your affirmations. "Historically feasible" and "would" are nothing other than speculations which do not justify your version. Dowsett does not deny that it is a speculation. Also, you should not forget that I can search the archives and when typing "Minorsky", I've found that what he claims does not support your assertions. One find from the archives I found particularly interesting is Dowsett's doubts on "Bayleqan". Don't waste your time copy-pasting, no more checking for me. I requested explicit sources and I have obtained none. - Fedayee 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you keep talking about this RfC. It is nothing but harassment. If you want to do it, go ahead and do it, I don’t care, but stop threatening me. RfC on other users is not the way to resolve content disputes, and you persistent denial of facts is pretty obvious. Dowsett says: The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek. I remind you that in 387 Armenia ceased existing as a state and was divided between Rome and Persia. Artsakh, Utik and Paytakaran were lost to Albania. The fact that the province existed in the 9th century is the answer to your question. As for the rest, if I spend time checking primary and secondary sources, I see no reason why you should not do the same. That’s what the rules require, and I provided many links and titles. All you need to do is to check them. Grandmaster 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Paytakaran being Beylegan, while Minorsky doubted it, Dowsett thinks that it is "historically feasible". And I quoted a couple of articles from Iranica saying that Paytakaran = Beylegan. You cannot discard all those sources just because one scholar thinks otherwise. We should differentiate between minority and majority views. Grandmaster 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not split Paytakaran and Caspiane?

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

Mediator's edits

The article should remain in the state achieved by the mediator through very hard work, any attempts to hijack it are clearly disruptive. Per: [7].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have new source and maps on Armenia and Albania, Azerbaijan, that I noticed at Armenian Sacra exposition at Louvre, Paris. I was lucky to catch this exebition before it ended on May 21, yesterday. I will post some of the maps online here, but the book is also avialable separately [8]. Thankfully, Louvre personnel allowed me to take the photos of the maps, unlike exponats. By the way, very good and historically not biased expo. Please stop edit warring, until we finish the discussion. --Ulvi I. 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Can we please refrain from accusations?

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

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

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

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

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

Both sides have presented its case.

It is time to let the community decide.

What this debate needs is more participants.

I'll see what I can do.

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment

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

There are two issues being debated here...

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

The other side believes it was in a particular location.

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

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

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

Let the games begin!

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is needed here are some new suggestions.

What about renaming the article to include all its names?

Please make further suggestions on how to solve this problem.

All ideas are welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

Now lets take a look at the whole quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

list of terms

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

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

We discussed this, and I have presented my sources to support the above statements. Please see: [9] Grandmaster 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Neutrality dispute

Grandmaster, please clarify:

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

How is it very unbalanced?

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

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

Feedback on the double title idea is needed.

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

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

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

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

Grandmaster 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to implement a double title?

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

Present some examples if you know of any.

Thank you.

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

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

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

BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. [10]

Grandmaster 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you forgot all the discussion you made with fellow wikipedians about Iranica references. I'll refresh your memory, take a look at the archives. [11]. I especially like the visual aid provided by Euprator. --VartanM 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

That tag at the top of the article needs to be removed

The problem reported in the neutrality/factual accuracy tag needs to be dealt with so that the tag can be removed from the article.

Who still has a problem with the article?

Below, please quote the passages you have problems with, and explain what is wrong with them. The Transhumanist    00:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will return to editing this article after the end of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which I'm currently busy with. It is on the voting stage now, so it's not gonna be a long wait. Grandmaster 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So will I. VartanM 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)