Talk:Caucasian Albania

WP:CHERRY and NPOV claims

TwilightChill has been disruptive deleting parts of the article appealing to WP:CHERRY and NPOV policies. concerns do not apply. The chapter on Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani revisionism are about a well known academic subject that is reported in works of a number of unrelated, unbiased Western and Russian scholars from reputable academic institutions. These are: Robert Hewsen, Thomas de Waal, Victor Schnirelmann, George Bournoutian and Yoav Karny. All of them have the same opinion that Azeri revisionism is a nationalist doctrine that misuses the history of Caucasian Albania. So, NPOV is covered. In fact, I omitted their more expressive language to keep the chapter on the neutral side. WP:CHERRY does not apply because there are no NPOV sources which would refute or question the assessment of the above mentioned academics. TwilightChill shall collaborate with other editors and refrain from disruptive tactics. Gorzaim (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The entire section on the so-called Azerbaijani historical revisionism is a blatant NPOV violation, written without impartial tone. As for Mashtots, his invention is challenged in at least two primary source-citing work, one of which is given above, and as such should be paraphrased accordingly. Twilightchill t 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Kamilla Trever: Mashtots' biographer... Koryun reports that Mesrop Mashtots upon his arrival "to the country of Albanians renewed their alphabet". Twilightchill t 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trever in the source that you mentioned says that Mashtots invented the three alphabets before saying that he renewed. This source is already internally contradictory, and primary sources are more important that various "opinions" by this or that scholar. Any other non-self-contradictory source confirming that? You also say that the chapter is "blatant NPOV violation." This is a groundless assertion. I see no reasons why it is, see my paragraph above, and it is clear to me so far that you can bring no evidence that it is. Gorzaim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems kinda problematic, but the section titled "Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani historical revisionism" departs anyway as a manifest NPOV breach. Twilightchill t 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that this "Azerbaijani revisionism" section is too long and mostly off-topic for this article. The article is about Caucasian Albania, with (we hope) content derived from credible and acceptable sources. Large sections of content should not about what propagandistic or popularist sources have claimed Caucasian Albania is/was, nor should they be about what neutral sources have said about those claims. Wouldn't it be better to put it in a new article, titled "Azerbaijani historical revisionism" or something like that, with just a summary and wikilink in this article? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree but agree as well. Caucasian Albania is by far the largest topic about Caucasian Albania by coverage, and the most important context in which Caucasian Albania is mentioned. However, your suggestion about creating a separate article about Azerbaijani historical revisionism is reasonable. Gorzaim (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add POV claims, the wiki articles are not a place for propaganda. Also, there's a lot of Armenian revisionism described by the same Shnirelman and de Waal, why the section should be only about Azerbaijani and not Armenian revisionism? How about describing revisionist claims by the likes of Mnatsakanyan and Ulubabyan, etc, I can write a large section about Armenian revisionism. I just see no point in adding to the article info that has no direct relation to this ancient state. Grandmaster 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize this article, and do not voice unfounded accusations of propaganda, which is violation of WP:Civility. You are free to add to the content of the chapter if you feel it is incomplete. Politicization of history of Caucasian Albania is a key identification of this topic, as per numerous sources. Also, primary sources of C.Albania are constantly manipulated and all those who are interested in the history of this territory should know who manipulates them and why. Please assume cooperative attitude. Vandorenfm (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please reach consensus for your controversial edits first. Even admins at WP:AE agreed that this section is not in line with WP:NPOV. If we are to talk about revisionism, lets talk about Armenian revisionism as well. All the mentioned authors, including Shnirelman, de Waal and Hewsen, talk in length about Armenian revisionists. How come that the section only concerns Azerbaijani authors? Plus, what does it have to do with Albania anyway? If you insist on having it, we will need to dedicate it to both revisionists, and present the Armenian revisionist position as well. Grandmaster 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are alone in your claims that the edits are controversial and this is because you push POV. Your contributions in this article show that. You came late and now put forward an ultimatum about consensus. Admins said it "looked like" this edits are controversial but they remained silent when counterarguments were made, and they admitted they are not subject matter experts. Also, I see that the chapter has already been modified to satisfy such concerns. One editor clearly said that discussion of revisionism is relevant for Caucasian Albania. Shnirelman, de Waal and Hewsen do not talk "in length" about "Armenian revisionists." I do not see evidence of that. But if you feel that they do, you may suggest to modify the text on talk pages. I am telling this to you for the second time but you are not listening. What you do is disruptive editing. You remove portions of the article to hide a particular subject from the public eye? You reach consensus with all other participants who support(ed) these edits, and then we will think how to incorporate your contributions. Now you are repeating Twilight Chill's mistakes who was banned for disruptive behavior. Vandorenfm (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I went over all the sources mentioned by Grandmaster earlier in the thread which supposedly criticize Armenians as well for distorting history of C.A. for political reasons but found only one reference in Schnirelmann. de Waal or Karny and others do not have anything. So, Schnirelmann's opinion does not triangulate. I think he blurted this about Armenians in order not to look too anti-Azerbaijani, i.e. for "balance." However, I mentioned his opinion in references. If there are serious sources supporting Schnirelmann, this mention could be moved from references to main text of the chapter. I also added more references where Azerbaijani political (mis)use of the history of C.A is discussed. These sources are available from Google Books and are easily verifiable. Gorzaim (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow this seem to be out of balance. One way to deal with the problem: create a separate sub-article, specifically about AA revisionism controversies (as on ruwiki), and only briefly mention it in this article.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all concerning comments about Armenian reviosionism - all those authors are speaking about certain Armenian historians. Well, there are always historians with controversial points of view. On the other hand, they speak about state-sponsored Azerbaijani revisionism and falsification. So comparing Armenian and Azerbaijani historiography is not actually fair. After all, Armenian historians did not falsify the sources as they wanted or needed, whereas the moder Azerbaijani historiography (concerning CA) is basically based on translations of historical sources, where the word 'Armenian' was ommited or changed to 'Albanian'. And second - Armenians never claimed rights on any Albanian cultural or historical value, whereas Azerbaijanis, based on their biased theories, claim some rights on Armenian churches and literature of the region. One should like to have this information on wiki. This is highly important, in my opinion, since one can hardly find any other nation in modern world, with similar claims (I will be thankful, if one contradicts me giving a certain example). So I don't understand what's the problem with Azerbaijani reviosionism section? Is it too long? Well, I do agree, one could write it shorter. But this is not a reason for CHERRY or NPOV tag. Please, explain your views, because the discussion above is quiet strange and difficult to follow. Thanks.Хаченци (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, the section about revisionism was added by a bunch of sock accounts (now all banned) in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRY. All the authors quoted talk about both Azerbaijani and Armenian revisionism. Yet the section only singles out Azerbaijani historians, making no mention of the Armenian revisionist authors, such as Mnatsakanian or Ulubabian, mentioned by Hewsen, de Waal and Shnirelman. The latter talks about the Armenian myth of Caucasian Albania, while de Waal and Hewsen mention the Armenian revisionist theories which relocate Albania to the east, towards the Caspian Sea. Any objective description of revisionism in the region must mention both revisionist schools, and editors should not selectively quote the sources, picking the parts that they like and omitting those that do not suit their POV. In general, I agree with Biophys that the section is out of balance and out of place in this article. This article is about the ancient state of Caucasian Albania, and not modern revisionism in the counties of South Caucasus. The info about revisionism might be more appropriate to the article about Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. So I suggest deleting the POV section, first, because it was created by sock accounts without any consensus and in defiance of their ban, and second because of inappropriateness in this article. Grandmaster 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Хаченци. Grandmaster is repeating himself. What I understood he wants to remove Azerbaijan's highly controversial pseudo-science on "Caucasian Albania" or at least to water down it by adding mild criticism of some Armenian scholarship by Victor Schirelman on the subject. That will not work. The section discusses a very specific subject - Azerbaijani state-sponsored campaign of fraud, denial and cultural vandalism. Be careful - your behavior is edging toward a new edit war. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, forgot to say: the socks that are claimed to be socks do not seem to be socks at all. They were banned with flimsy evidence of socking. And all this is irrelevant. I and others support the entries on Azerbaijani revisionism. This is a well written passage, and the tag should be removed. Zimmarod (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The admins and checkusers who banned those accounts did not find the evidence to be "flimsy". Grandmaster 08:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The section on revisionism is quite controversial to be added by sockpuppet accounts without a proper discussion here. And in all honesty, I do not believe that it really belongs in this article. This article is about history, whereas adding this information unnecessarily politicises the subject. Readers access this article to find out about an ancient country, not how its history is regarded by a bunch of researchers. If the so-called revisionism is so important, it may be mentioned in a separate article, and only on the condition that revisionism trends in both Azerbaijan and Armenia are addressed, which they certainly do according to the sources provided here. Parishan (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, let us understand that modern Armenia has nothing to do with Caucasian Albania. The territory of the latter, even at its highest extent, was mostly in Azerbaijan (with small regions in south-eastern Georgia and southern Dagestan), but not on the territory of modern Armenia. The view of Armenian scientists on Caucasian Albania is irrelevant in that case. We do not write that in Australia the scholars have different opinion on the history of native Americans, since they have nothing to do with each other.
• Second, according to the sources, the revisionism in Armenia and Azerbaijan are rather different, Armenians are proposing their interpretation, not firmly supported by facts and therefore rejected by other scholars, whereas Azerbaijanis are distorting the documents, citing non-existing sources, publish translations of original manuscripts where the word Armenian is changed by Albanian, and so on. This is not even revisionism, but falsification. Furthermore, they destoy (completely or partially) all Armenian historical and cultural monuments in Azerbaijan, erase carved inscriptions, etc, in order to claim that those Armenian monuments are Albanian. Armenians never did similar vandalism for proving their point of view on the subject.
• Third, Armenians do not organize conferences, publish books, etc. on this subject, since this is not related to their history. Azerbaijanis claim that they are descendants of Albanians, their politicians are talking about it almost every day, they publish books in English in Azerbaijan and distribute it in Europe (not via academical cycles). Altogether - I think it is highly important to inform people, interested in Caucasian Albania, that all this theories about CA that one can hear from Azerbaijani side, are based solely on fabrications and falsifications, and one shouldn't trust books published there. And this article would then be the best place to write (at least the basic information) on that subject. I think it is better to make another article on it and relink to it (mentioning the subject only shortly in this article)
  Regards, Хаченци (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whether the modern day Armenia was located on the territory of the ancient Albania or not is immaterial here. Armenian nationalists lay claims on some of these territories, and according to all sources the Armenian scholars are involved in nationalist disputes with their colleagues in Azerbaijan. Therefore the first argument is not valid.
• Whether revisionism in Armenia and Azerbaijan is different or not is also immaterial here. The only thing that matters is that it exists.
• And third, Armenians do organize conferences, publish books, etc on Caucasian Albania. I do not see how this could be an argument against inclusion of Armenian revisionism, considering that the Armenian revisionism was mentioned in every source used in the section in question. There's a reason why the experts mention revisionist schools in both countries, isn't it? This is why you cannot use the sources selectively, it is a violation of WP:CHERRY. Grandmaster 08:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Biophys is right that the section is out of balance here. If we are discussing the history of CA in the article, we should not discuss approaches of nationalities and countries (especially one of them in details). Indirectly this section pushes readers not to take serious any claim of Azerbaijani historians to this subject, which is generally unacceptable according to Wikipedia rules. Of course, there is politics involved in this topic from Armenian side as well (e.g. Christianity of Caucasian Albanians is used to show that Armenians are historical inhabitants here and all churches in Caucasus are Armenian ones), but I don't want this article to be subject of this battle. Therefore I support to delete this section, since it is not relevant to the general topic. If we write about Azerbaijani revisionist theories, then we have to write about Armenian revisionist theories as well (to show both views and be balanced), which will make that section even more irrelevant in the article (long discussion of revisionisms). Sincerely,  Anastasia Bukhantseva  08:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder where did you get that info? Please, show me some academical reference, where Armenians claim that all churches in Caucasus are Armenian. Show me at least one church, which Armenians are claim to be Armenian, but the international scholars reject it.

User:Grandmaster - you are either misinformed, or try to misinform the readers. Show me one conference on Caucasian Albania, organized or sponsored from Armenia. Or one book about Caucasian Albania, translated in English and distributed in the world. Or one politician, talking about Caucasian Albania. The nationalists you talk about mainly base their claims to the rich Armenian cultural heritage of the western regions of former Caucasian Albania, and the fact that those regions were part of Armenia in antiquity. None of this two statements is rejected or even considered doubtful by international academical society.

The sources presented in the article talk about Armenian and Azerbaijani revisionisms but they do not equalize them. Why should we do? Let me shortly present the situation.

1) All late medieval Christian authors from the region (Mkhitar Gosh, Davit of Gandzak, Kirakos of Gandzak, etc.) have been writing their works in Armenian language and for Armenian nation (as they write in their works), they call themselve Armenian, their contemporaries call them Armenian. In Azerbaijan they are considered Albanian.

2) All noble Christian families of the region (House of Hasan-Jalalyan, Melikdoms of Karabakh, etc) are considered by internaionl scholars as Armenian. They call themself Armenian, their contemporaries call themself Armenian. moreover, They were fighting for recovering of Armenian independence (as, e.g. Yesayi Hasan-Jalalyan writes). Azerbaijan considers them Albanian.

3) About Albanian nation nothing is known after X c. The Christians on the right bank of Kura (especially those in Nagorno-Karabakh) are called Armenians by all existing medieval sources (Armenian, Arabic, Georgian and some European). Not even pne source talks about Albanian or any other non-Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, Azerbaijan considers it to be Albanian populated.

4) There are no Albanian monuments known in Naogrno-Karabakh region. All churches are built by Armenian nobles, the population of the region when they were built was almost exclusively Armenian, there are few hundreds of medieval inscriptions in Armenian. No Albanian inscription is found in Nagorno-Karabakh (though they had a different alphabet), nor is the existence of any such inscription known from historical sources. But in Azerbaijan all those monuments are considered Albanian.

4) The khachkars, a sort of cross-stone typical only to Armenian culture, has been represented as Albanian. Few thousands of such khachkars, many of them bearing Armenian inscriptions, have been destroyed in Azerbaijan.

Since there is no single source, proving their point of view, Azerbaijani scholars were distorting the historical sources in their translations and editions. They omit the parts, where Armenians are mentioned, or simply change Armenian to Albanian. They refer to the sources selectively, citing only the parts where Albanian curch or land of Albania is mentioned (the land and the corresponding see of the Armenian church were called Albanian, though its population and language were caled exclusively Armenian). They cite such selective portions of other scholars for showing that those monuments, or people are Albanian (funny enough - the sources they cite are titled usually "Early Armenian Architecture", "Medieval Armenin literature", etc). Furthermore, they took photos of Armenian monuments, changed them, removed the Christian sympolism and present them as Azerbaijani. Moreover - they destroyed and erased all Armenian monuments in Azerbaijan, in order to show there have been no Armenians there. One can hardly find any other state in the world with such a barbaric attitude towards another culture. Comparing all this to the fact that some Armenian scholars have bizzare views is simply not fair. Furthermore, the Grandmaster forgot to mention, that the revisionism in Armenia is not sponsored from state (according to the sources). And one is not punished in Armenia, if he has a different view on history. In Azerbaijan, this revisionism is state sponsored. We know what happens to people like Akram Aylisli, who don't share the official point of view in Azerbaijan. So, there is not Armenian revisionism, there is revisionism by some Armenian scholars. And equalizing Armenian and Azerbaijani revisionisms and trying to present them as something at least comparable has nothing to do with neutrality.
Хаченци (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Armenia regularly holds conferences on Caucasian Albania. Just one example: [1] And what difference does it make if conferences are held or not? Hewsen and Shnirelman refer to books published by Armenian revisionist authors, and the books do not necessarily have to be in English. As for the rest, I think I already responded in much detail. I repeat once again, and it is the only thing that matters: every source mentioning Azerbaijani revisionism mentions Armenian one as well. You cannot cherry pick sources according to your personal beliefs and omit the parts that you do not like. If a source mentions revisionism in both countries, the article should also mention both. End of story. According to the rules, we only write what the sources say, and we cannot use sources selectively. Grandmaster 21:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The chapter about Azerbaijani manipulations should be expanded to include more sources and cases. The tag should be removed. And the only reason people care about "Caucasian Albania" - which otherwise is an Armenian territory - is because Azerbaijani manipulations is one of the most grotesque and massive example of state-supported academic fraud. Zimmarod (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Present day Azerbaijans descendants of Caucasian Albanian

You need to find a good source to add a claim like that. Just adding a sentence like that is a big dispute to scholars all around, find legitimate sources that state something like as you wrote than maybe we can discuss further. To what my knowledge only Azerbaijan sources usually claim that Azeri people are descendants of Albanians. A source that is neutral and with reliable author is what we need to go with that claim. --Nocturnal781 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was almost entirely taken from the "Origins" section at the page Azerbaijani people and it seemed to me that certain page have went through enough of discussions. That's why I thought those sources I gave are reliable enough. Azerbek (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for amendment of discretionary sanctions on this article

Everybody interested in this article, please be aware of this WP:AE appeal: [2] I requested a partial amendment of the sanctions, further info is available in my appeal. Regards, Grandmaster 10:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation between Arran and Caucassian Albania after 5th century

Arran is the Persian name for the geographical area in Caucasus, but also a toponym for the Caucasian Albania during it's exsistence (4th c. BC - 5th (8th) c. AD). A lot of content incorrectly relates the geographical area to the pre-exsisting state, through misuse of sources. Here is an example from the article:
Albania or Arran in Islamic times was a triangle of land, lowland in the east and mountainous in the west, formed by the junction of the Kura and Aras rivers, Mil plain and parts of the Mughan plain.
While the source this content refers to (Arran) states:
ARRĀN, a region of eastern Transcaucasia. It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras.
The title of the reference source itself is ARRĀN a region of eastern Transcaucasia. So we see clear missinterpretation of source. I propose to remove any such incorrect, misleading content, and in future disambiguate Arran toponym from Caucasian Albanian state after it's desolution in 5th (8th) century. --Hayordi (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Armenia

It was discussed previously whether the History of Armenia template should be added. As MarshallBagramyan said: "If anything, a history of Armenia template belongs here since the Albanians had very intimate cultural and undoubtedly ethnic ties to the Armenians, having an alphabet that was probably invented by Mesrop Mashtots and a religious see that was directly subordinate to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Albanians had disappeared long before the first Turkic invasions of the late eleventh century and certainly far before the modern borders of Azerbaijan were delineated." I believe that is a good reason why the History of Armenia template should be added. Also by claiming History of Azerbaijan template should be added because the current republic is located on the same territory than Armenia used to control majority of the territory as can be seen by this [3]. Ninetoyadome (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed but there was never a consensus reached to add it. On the Atropatene article, you kept deleting the template in question until the discussion was over. Why not be consistent and delete it from this article as well for the duration of the discussion? For the rest, see my response below. Parishan (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Three points here:

• It was entirely incorporated into Armenia. Almost throughout it's entire history was both politically and culturally part of Armenia. Armenian was one of its official languages. Caucassian Albanian church was direct subordinated of Armenian Apostolic Church. Allmost any historical evidence of Caucasian Albania exists primarily in Armenian manuscripts. After its desolution, it's population west for Kur was Armenianized and added to ethnogenesis of eastern Armenians. Therefore, at it's core, it's an extremely important part of History of Armenia
• Caucasian Albania ceased to exist half a millenium before turkish invasion from central Asia. Elaborate on relationship between Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania.
• @Parishan is everywhere, deletes anything that has something with Armenians to do, introduces turkish POV in articles concerned exclusively with Armenia. His lack of respect towards other contributors and aforementioned actions are mildly put, non-constructive. Hayordi (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Caucasian Albania was never "entirely incorporated into Armenia". It may have depended on Armenia at some point in history, but it was never an Armenian province for the entire duration of its existence. The Church is a different story. Churches in South America are subordinates of the Roman Catholic Church, but this does not mean we have to add the Italy template everywhere across South American topics.
• I do not understand what "Turkish invasion" (you must mean Turkic - these mean different things) have to do with Caucasian Albania being part of Azerbaijani history? Azerbaijan and its history is not about being exclusively Turkic.
• I am warning you that you are in the middle of violating WP:CIVIL with your bad-faith accusations. If you persist in addressing to me in this tone, I will have not choice but to report you. Parishan (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Where do you see me stating it was Armenian province for the entire duration of its existence? I stated it was entirely incorporated into Armenia (click the link). You can't compare Caucasian Albanian Church to catholic churches. CA church was a branch of Armenian apostolic church, where at some point the Armenians directly from Armenia served as catholicoses, e.g. St. Grigoris (the grandson of St. Gregory). Armenian was an official language of CA. CAns are part of ethnogenesis of armenians. All of this is allready present in the article and you claim that it's not part of armenian history. That being said how is Azerbaijan connected to CA, when CA ceased to exist prior to Turkic (sorry about turkish in previous add) invasions, and in light of the vast amount of sources allready presented in the article characterizing that claim as bizarre. Hayordi (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The link leads to an article which clearly states that Armenia bordered Caucasian Albania and says nothing about the latter being "incorporated", let alone "entirely incorporated" in Armenia. What is that even supposed to mean?

Armenian was not the language of the Church of Caucasian Albania. Babgen I, Catholicos of Armenia, stated in 506 that "all three churches of the Caucasus were ideologically united despite each having its own language" (Gorun Babian (2001). The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches: According to the Armenian Sources, 300-610. Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias; p. 94).

Catholic bishops in South America also get appointed by Rome and there are about 60,000,000 people of Italian descent living in South America which indicates a great contribution to the local ethnogenesis, so why not include the Italy template to articles about every South American country?

Where do you get the impression that Azerbaijani history must necessarily be related to Turks only? Azerbaijan is not about "Turkic-ness", and there is no source that finds bizarre the fact that any prior statehood in what is now Azerbaijan should constitute part of Azerbaijani history. Parishan (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)