Jump to content

Talk:Caucasian Albania/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Discretionary sanctions

Because of the continued nationalistic edit-warring about this article and associated disruption, I am imposing the following sanctions:

These sanctions are also logged on the case page and displayed to editors in the article and talk page's edit notice.  Sandstein  21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This remedy has been superseded per this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Islamic era split

Any input regarding this split? I found this on an old backlog.... Or can this simply be removed Tiggerjay (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Split declined. No rationale given. SilkTork *Tea time 11:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

26 tribes ? who are they ?

Strabo was talk about 26 Alban tribes. Can anyone write their names here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.106.135.192 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Strabo (XI.4) just says that in his time the Albanians were united under one king although in the past they were divided on account of their 26 separate languages. He just calls all of the people Albanians, though, and doesn't go into detail. — LlywelynII 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Albania, not Alvania

Just as a reminder, Ancient Greek -β- is transliterated /b/, not /v/ as it often is in Modern Greek. See: Romanization of Greek. — LlywelynII 22:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources for article expansion

Seeing the above, not sure if the guy is coming with too much baggage, but

this guy

seems to be pretty knowledgeable about the subject. Even if his findings (e.g. on etymology) are questionable, I would think his research and theories could be incorporated, given the appropriate NPOV tone. — LlywelynII 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is farther out there, but still interesting:
180-181: “Pliny says, “when Alexander the Great was on his Indian expedition he was presented by the king of Albania with a dog of unusual size,” which successfully attacked both a lion and an elephant in his presence. The same story is repeated by his copyist, Solinus, without any change in the name of the country. Now, we know from the united testimony of Strabo, Diodorus, and Curtius, that the Indian king who presented Alexander with these fighting dogs was Sophites, and he, therefore, must have been the king of Albania. For this name, I propose to read Labania, by the simple transposition of the first two letters. Alban would, therefore, become Laban which at once suggests the Sanskrit word lavana, or ‘salt’, as the original of this hitherto puzzling name. The mountain itself is named Oromenus by Pliny, who notes that the kings of the country derived a greater revenue from the rock salt than either gold or pearls. This name is probably intended for the Sanskrit Raumaka, which according to the Pandits, is the name of the salt brought from the hill country of Ruma…”
Reference - Sastri, Surendranath Majumdar. 1924. Cunningham’s Ancient Geography of India. Chuckervertty, Chatterjee & Co. Ltd. Calcutta.
cited on this discussion list. Strabo puts Albania in the right place but also goes on about their salt production. Conflation of two different polities, maybe? More sources? — LlywelynII 03:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add to the Article !

Anthropology Caucasian Alban

During the construction of Mingechaur reservoir in western Azerbaijan, have been found skeletons of ancient burial certificate of the fact that the physical type of the ancient population of Caucasian Albania was the same how modern. It was a thin-faced miniature Caspians. Direct descendants of which are Azerbaijanis. Historically, it looked like this: some ancient people with the characteristics of Indo-Afghan race moved from their original habitat - from Afghanistan or a North India - to the north: in the desert oases of Central Asia and Eastern Transcaucasia. Thus, the origins of physical characteristics of the modern population of Azerbaijan go back to the early Iron Age.[1][2][3] --Elgun.babayev (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2011 (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)

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, w* You added the template of History of Armenia, above Azerbaijans template (your actions spoke to me about precendence), this obviously alone constitute a bias, you said. Ninetoyadome added the template, which was appropriate since "History of Azerbaijan" template was added too. I simply reverted it's removal. This is the alfabetical order of templates, what bias? What presendence are you talking about?hich 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: [3] 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)

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 [4]. 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)
I said Armenian was an official language in Caucasian Albania (read the article). If you read carefully the Kingdom of Armenia article it sais "At its peak, under Tigranes II the Great, it covered 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi), incorporating, besides Armenia Major, Iberia, Albania, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Armenian Mesopotamia, Osroene, Adiabene, Syria, Assyria, Judea and Atropatene." Let's preserve coherency between articles. There are at this point 9 sources in the article arguing your claim as bizarre. But, despite that, nontheless read my reply to @Yahya below.Hayordi (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Albania was a remote province of Armenia for a decade or two does not quality this article for the History of Armenia template. By your logic, we must then also add this template to the articles Iberia, Cappadocia, Syria, Assyria, Judea... Parishan (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The template is inappropriate, because Armenia suggests land, while the discussions concerns religion as far as I understand. If the Church has become part of the Armenian Apostolic Church, it should rather be like the Catholic Church (here Parishan comparaison applies), the template of the Armenian Apostolic Church, if there is any, should be added instead of Armenia, but Azerbaijan template should have precedence, since checking google map (without using process and authors, which will divert the question), shows that the Republic of Azerbaijan is sitting on that region. Yahya Talatin (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yahya The discussion is not conserned with religion but history. Who said anything about presedence. I argued that excluding "history of Armenia" template while including "history of Azerbaijan" template is POV. Include both. Hayordi (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am using common sense and have been consistent, with a predictable reply and entirely neutral. You added the template of History of Armenia, above Azerbaijans template (your actions spoke to me about precendence), this obviously alone constitute a bias. If you start debating about territories and frontiers, you will be selectivally quoting authors, while he will answer back with his own selection. You two are free to continue this debate or end it just here. Parishan comparaison with the Catholic Church suggest that his problem is not the word Armenia or Armenians, but that he finds the template of History of Armenia inappropriate (I agree with him). A religious template is more general and does not take position regarding ethnicity or territory, but simply indicate an affiliation. I tried changing the template with the Church, but in the review it is too big, which I do not know how to fix. As for History of Azerbaijan, I can tell you why it is there... I just have to check for maps, without needing an author who will show me how to think, and I will see that Azerbaijan is just sitting on it. This does not require an à priori knowledge, about the past, it is an obvious information. Azerbaijan is just a land, this only gives cues about the ethnic makeup, the template isn't claiming anything other than that it is part of that regions history. Yahya Talatin (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the template, i put Armenia before Azerbaijan because Armenia has more in common with Caucasian Albania than Azerbaijan. Armenia used to be neighbors with Caucasian Albania (even conquering parts of it: In the 2nd century BC parts of Albania were conquered by the Kingdom of Armenia), Armenian Mesrop Mashtots founded both the Armenian and Caucasian Albanian alphabets and Armenia was the first nation to accept Christianity and then Armenian monks took Christianity to Caucasian Albania. All that Azerbaijan has to do with Caucasian Albania is they are currently located on the land that used to belong to them. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome, those are opinions, and I am not assessing those because they are based on presentation of sourced materials. And you can pratically find sources claiming anything you want. How can Armenia have more in common with Caucasian Albania than Azerbaijan? Those are lands, they are frontiers, these days land name does not say much about their inhabitants. If I claim that any citizen of Azerbaijan no matter his ethnicity is Azerbaijani, then what? Your edit is based on an assumption that just because the word Azerbaijan is there, it assumes something Turkic or Turkish! Those are assumptions and nothing more. If readers can be mislead to believe that, then nothing prevents you from adding clarifications. Mashtots invented the Armenian alphabets, not Armenia. That Caucasian Albania had a shared cultural heritage, would justify adding something about Armenians, not Armenia. Why would you want to restrict your identity to some arbitrary division such as frontiers? The simple fact is that Azerbaijan is sitting on it and not Armenia. Consistency is all I am after. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yahya

  • Besides this is the alphabetical order of templates. I don't see any bias or issue of presendence here.
  • This article is about Caucasian Albania, not Caucasian Albanian Church. So stick to it.
  • Sitting on it, is that a valid argument? Modern day Azerbaijan is sitting on territory of historical Armenia, Persia, Russian Empire, Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate, just to name a few. That doesn't mean that Azerbaijanis are arabs, russians, armenians or romans.
  • History of caucasian Albania is tightly coupled and an important part of history of Armenia. Excluding it is your neutrality?
  • Besides History of Armenia is not restricted to Third Republic of Armenia. Hayordi (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hayordi, the term Azerbaijan existed prior Turkic presence in that land. For the Turkish population to acquire such a name, it has to integrate the Caucasian Albanian, Armenian and Persian heritage. It already integrated the two of them, now they have to do the same with Armenians. It is just a matter of time for that to happen. I do not expect that you even attempt to take anyones argument at face value, your rigidity of opinion is beyond disruptive. I am after consistency, stability and accuracy, you are after process (for the lack of better term). It doesn't even worth discussing with you, it is a waste of time. Yahya Talatin (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, that you don't seem to give much about consistency is again shown when you add the word modern day to refer to Azerbaijan. But you discredited this distinction for Armenia in the Lavash article. Remember? Yahya Talatin (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I stated that modern day Azerbaijan, because there didn't exist Azerbaijan at time of existance of Caucasian Albania. Correct me if I'm wrong by presenting verifiable sources. And please do not refer to Persian kingdom of Atropatene. Wikipedia relies on sources. Stating that "rigidity of my opnion is disruptive" is abusive. Lets act WP:CIVIL. @Parishan warned me, I took that into account. Now I warned you. Hayordi (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The term "Azerbaijan" was used in the Middle Ages (that is, prior to the Turkic invasions) to refer to the lands south and slight to the east of the Arax River (where the northern tip of modern Iran now is). According to the most authoritative sources, the Caucasian Albanians had been incorporated into the fold of the Armenians and other Caucasus peoples by the tenth and eleventh centuries, i.e., long before the Seljuks and other Turkic tribes began to invade and settle in what is now Armenia and Turkey. I still think the case for the inclusion of the History of Armenia template is stronger than the one for Azerbaijan.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
History of Azerbaijan does not begin with "the Seljuks and other Turkic tribes beginning to invade and settle in what is now Armenia and Turkey". Where did you get this idea? Parishan (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your inconsistencies Hayrodi are striking... whatever name you can find, Atropatene, Azerbaijan, Caucasian Albania... it all relies on words cooked by someone somewhere. You can hit me with process now, for inch by inch sizing of those regions. You are unable to view that you are inconsistent, but anyone uninvolved will see that. Your view of the problem is strongly influenced by the current conflict between both countries.

You are harming your own cause by feeding scholars with endless sourcing, fighting over semantics and word definitions, and this favior those who have limitless ressources and this will create iniquities. Instead of documenting the Armenian ethnogenesis which currently has a life of itself, and requires no much resources and sourcing to document, you favior the land name and frontiers over the group. Lets see with what other wikipedia rule you'll hit me with or what warning you'll come up with. Common people who read articles need general informations separated from temporal info which will be added and removed from here depending of current regional conflicts, new authors etc. A template about Armenians rather than Armenia has this advantage, that it does not rely on borders or land divisions and is therefor stable in time.

I still maintain that the rigidity of your opinions are disruptive, but it takes a level of humility you have yet to express to even attempt to understand the points raised by other editors.

Mind you that back then, there was no UN, EU or other international structures, borders were not standardized, so maps were not standardized. Those maps will all contradict and this will blur anyone. I almost forgot why I left the Lavash article, now I remember. Yahya Talatin (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

To Marshal Bagramyan, we are not discussing about the the same issues, what I raised is that if we are going to discuss about names such as Azerbaijan, we will have to rely on scholarly works. The problem with that is that it divert the issue and leave a selected number of people (scholars) to decide what history is. Thenwho will have to ascertain which source is more credible, assuming bias is disclosed. This will cause conflicts and inconsistencies and only those who have the ressources will dictate what truth is.

The main structure of the articles should be based on unchangeable parameters which do not rely on process, consistency accross all articles should be the rule, then this will resolve the issue. For that to happen, the concession on the Armenian side is to drop History of Armenia and replace it with History of Armenians. Because unlike Azerbaijani's the Armenian identity does not rely mainly on borders. The other sides concession would be to integrate the Armenian heritage in the land, the same way they did with Caucasian Albania, Turkic and Persian. The Armenians should be considered as one of the forfathers of the present day Azerbaijanis. This is just a question of time that it will happen once the people on each countries identity themselves not on the basis of some arbitrary frontier, but their shared heritages. Yahya Talatin (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Armenians should be considered as one of the forfathers of the present day Azerbaijanis? What???? Where did you come up with that, sources please not your POV. That might be the revelation of the century. Hayordi (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is: The Azerbayjani's, publisher is The Kindgom of God, writter is Yawhweh Godian, there is no ISBN. Since Yahweh wrote it, I guess I can remove any others sources, since it is the only credible one. Yahya Talatin (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read what you type before publishing it. Your comment I guess I can remove any others sources, since it is the only credible one is your own POV. You don't own the article and you're certainly not in position to decide on your own what is credible, what's not. Give me a link to the source or something. Hayordi (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well if other natives like C.Albanians are counted as part of the heritage of the newly created Azeri ethnos than so are Armenians.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 09:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Eupator, exactly my point, consistency would require that. Because the name Azerbaijan derives from a region not a clearly defined people, exactly like Iran. Or else the name Azerbaijan for that region will not resist the impact of time. So anyone can claim the paternity of the name, including Armenians. This will also resolve the issue exactly with Turkey, either they give Kurds a nation and repair Armenians, or they accept to change the name and flag to accomodate the reality of its own history (something more regional than identitary). Armenians see all the disadvantages of historical land loss, but they do not understand that this immortalized the land as an homogenous region where territory and people became one. Reminds me all the seven processes in alchemy, where at the end stage there is coagulation after getting rid of any part which will not stend the test of time. Yahya Talatin (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to facts. If you want to back up your view, provide verifiable sources, not your theories Hayordi (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hayordi, this is the last time I am trying to argue with you, and this reply isn't for you but others who might be interested.

What Hayordi request is not verifiable sources, but authored works. Because if I was to use an author, the fact that the author included some sources and others, and gave his opinions about issues are all relying on his own personal experiences, his life, his education and his source of financing etc. If an author claims that Armenians never lived in that region and someone quote him, this does not make what is reported as verifiable, because I can not go back in time to verify, I have to solely rely on the authors interpretations of the events and his good faith.

I will for instance take the example of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenian history does not solely rely on the academia, and therefor not source dependent. Armenians have their mythology, their architecture, their literature, their art and oral tradition. If tomorow an author was to publish an impressive book, referenced and sourced which cast doubt about things that tradition says otherwise, it will have to rely entirely on process (Ego), his version will be trademarked and attributed to himself, this does not make it verifiable (because his motives, intentions, everything which matters will remain undisclosed). On the other hand, the identity Azerbaijani entirely relies for its survival on the academia, the ego. The problem with this, is that this identity to survive require a ressource (and energy), material ressources are not stable in time, it has to either mutate or disappear. This is what happened with Caucasian Albania etc (which culture relied on an external force, Armenian Apostolic Church, to survive). It is actually not an accident and a good thing that Armenia has lost all those lands. Because maintaining frontiers require ressources, particularly if its inhabitants spent all their ressources on cultural inovation rather than birth rate, invasion etc. To stat all of this, again, I am using common sense, which does not require any sources because it does not rely on process, ego or some alien terms. This from years of reading and removing and distinguishing what is not binded to the ego and what is. Permanent vs temporal.

When articles are written, the squeleton (I feel I am repeating myself) has to solely be based on common sense, or obvious informations which do not rely on some authors, particularly when those authors are scolarised (because more you are scolarised more you rely on process and less on direct observation). Because scholarisation is all based on the study of other scholarised authors, who themselves rely on process (other authors). If I find one of the authors conclusion was wrong, and an entire pyramid is built on him, what happens then? They obviously can not be more valid than art, culture, mythology, architecture... which can hardly be corrupted and manipulated, because thoserely on the mass rather than some elites who can easily be corrupted. The squeleton also should not rely on informations which can be contradicted, such as numbers, frontiers, territories... because all of those rely on precision, which on its turn rely on the Ego.

To show how ridiculous Hayordi replies can get, when he constently request sources for any bit of things I write is that he never countered my observations. How can an academic who defend a position (by the simple fact that he publish) any more credible than I who do not rely on any authors but on constants which unlike authors are not mortals, and unlike authors will never be discarded. If they are by anyone, it is a question of time, that the Ego which does it will not resist the test of time.

I am not opposing authors, what I am opposing is the indiscriminate use of sources. The simpletons like me are those who have to accept and discard sources, because we have no affiliations which will bias us. Common sense, is a core innate nature we have, which is ego-independent. Yahya Talatin (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I got you philosophy. But this is not a personal blog. Wikiedia relies on verifiable credible sources Hayordi (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

New article - what is the link to today country of Albania in Europe?

It is clear that there is link between this dissolved kingdom in the past and the country Albania in Europe today, because when this Albania phased out, "albanians" started to appear in the West Balkans - west parts of Greece, Macedonia and Serbia. What is the link, and who transferred Albanians to Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.58.181 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no primary or secondary source to back that up,so it is with the highest probability not true. Euripides ψ (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

I Believe That Template: History of Azerbaijan Must Be Added In This Article Oyuncu Aykhan (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
OP had a good point here. This area is the geographic location of Azerbaijan and is an important part of the country's past. Not putting it on here would be ridiculous. --2602:306:39D6:CBA0:6DE1:C229:57F1:8864 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The OP should be able to make the requested edit on his own as his account should be autoconfirmed based on his number of edits and length of service, the active Arbcom sanctions on this article notwithstanding. —KuyaBriBriTalk 01:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

Good evening.

File:Coatof Mihranids.png
Standard of the Mihranids, from the inscription of a 7th century statue of King Javanshir.(Quoted fromSpanish Wikipedia ([1])


I do hereby submit the following request to be added unto the Caucasian Albania page.

I request that Image:Coatof_Mihranids.png to be added into the Infobox page as a flag, above the Map. The image of the flag is embedded to the right of this request.


--2602:306:39D6:CBA0:6DE1:C229:57F1:8864 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any source(s) to confirm that this was actually their standard? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that it shouldn't come under own work if it is actually their official standard. It would meet fair use however. — IVORK Discuss 08:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I sure do! File:Statue_of_Caucasian_Albanian_king_Javanshir,_VII_century.JPG = How about the very statue on the King Javanshir page? Look on the base of the statue. That's the banner.
Also, that isn't their own work. I guess whoever made it attributed its license incorrectly. --2602:306:39D6:CBA0:CC2D:19D0:C8F:BA90 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 16:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Link in Article

Under Christianization, the line, "The first Christian church in the region was built by St. Eliseus, a disciple of Thaddeus of Edessa" includes an incorrect link. The phrase St. Eliseus wrongly links to the article about the biblical figure of Elisha. These are different men although their names are the same. 1.127.105.246 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In Azerbaijani historiography

This part has nothing to do to give useful information to reader. Editor mainly wrote more about complaints of armenians rather giving information about Caucasian Albania in Azerbaijan historiography. I think this part is bias and must be edited. If it will be approved I will start editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 


В. А. Шнирельман. "Войны памяти. Мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье", М., ИКЦ, "Академкнига", 2003. - Author could you please advise what is relationship of this reference to Azerbaijan Historiography of Albania? This book talks about Georgian Abakhazian issue. Mirhasanov (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What was their language?

When Azeris claim that the Caucasian Albanians built those churches, may I ask you what language they were speaking at the time? All those churches have ancient Armenian scripts engraved on the walls. Is the Azerbaijani government going to claim that Azerbaijanis created the Armenian alphabet too? Honestly, this falsification of history is getting out of hand. If Azerbaijan wants to gain credibility, they better invite international historians, archeologists, and genetic scientists to analyze the artifacts. But of course, they won't do that. Since the 1950s, they were trying too hard to falsify the history by destroying any proof that Armenians are the actual owners of the Nagorno Karabagh. And now that they have access to even more Armenian artifacts, they will destroy those too and claim that those are historic Azerbaijani artifacts. Just watch them claim that the ancient Armenian churches are Azerbaijani. Azerbaijan needs to be held responsible for falsifying history and ethnically cleansing Armenians.Vache Megerdichi (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Here it says that the Armenian alphabet was stolen from albania, which is incorrect. Our alphabets was found by mesrop mashtots In 405 CE. Here is the link to prove this.

https://www.ancient.eu/Mesrop_Mashtots/ 2600:6C50:407F:F997:7DEB:4138:1EBE:1BD3 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see the portion of the article you're talking about, and this article does discuss the creation of the alphabet by Mesrop Mashtots. Please feel free to reopen the request with specific changes to be made, in the form of "Change X to Y". ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing map without consensus

@Muffin Dragon: Please self-revert and discuss here before changing the map. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Add source Muffin Dragon (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Add a source to the map Muffin Dragon (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I based the map on HistoryofIran's sources, so he can probably help. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I used loads of stuff, don't currently have time to assemble all the sources. From Caucasian Albania to Arran (300 BC - AD 1300), ALBANIA, and Armenia: A Historical Atlas come to mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok 👍 Muffin Dragon (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The map was changed without consensus. A caucasian independent state as its greatest extent reached Kur river, suggested by vast majority of experts. This article is becoming a blog, pushing azerbaijani narrative. The maps of Aghuank (a geographical region of Armenia) and Aluank (Caucasian Albania) are misrepresented as Caucasian Albania State. In Azerbaijani Histography section there is a quote of Thomas de Waal regarding such narrative This rather bizarre argument has the strong political subtext that Nagorno Karabakh had in fact been Caucasian Albanian and that Armenians had no claim to it. This map is simply bizarre. It has no historical basis Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Piece of Fiction

I am really sorry. But how is Iberia (part of Spain) and Albania (Southern Europe) been represented in a map, beside each other, in the Caucases? Are these people describing a piece of fiction/fantasy? Or is this an attempt for propaganda?

You decide.... Nkatsieris (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a state in the southeastern United States called "Georgia," and thousands of miles away in the Caucasus mountains there is also a country (called "Sakartvelo" in the local language) which in English & some other languages is called "Georgia." These are two different places.

Similarly, there is a country (called "Shqipëri" in the local language) which in English & some other languages is called "Albania" (from the Latin word "alba," meaning "white") and there was historically an entirely different place, in the Caucasus mountains, also known as "Albania" (sometimes called "Caucasian Albania" to distinguish it from Balkan Albania).

Likewise, there was historically a Caucasian region caked "Iberia" which was thousands miles from the peninsula called "Iberia" which includes Spain & Portugal. UrielAcosta (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "called Iberia" & not "caked Iberia," obviously. UrielAcosta (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

New Map

Caucasian Albania in 5th and 6th centurires

Hello, I have made a new map of Caucasian Albania with the help of User:HistoryofIran and would like to replace it with the current one in the infobox. Please tell me what you think and if there's any way the map can be improved. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd go so far ahead and say it's a no brainer that CuriousGolden's map is much better. I personally can barely see what is going on in the current map, it's too clustered. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This map doesn't accurately illustrate the history of Caucasian Albania. In the first 500 years of its existence, it didn't include Artsakh and Utik. By the 5-6th centuries, it was already a vassal state. --Rs4815 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen, CuriousGolden & HistoryofIran, am I missing something, or are you now the administrators and owners of Wikipedia? You, two participants, most likely from Azerbaijan, discussed with each other and literally less than a month ago introduced this map into the article, without any broad discussion and consensus. This map does not illustrate the real history of Caucasian Albania, which by the 4-5 centuries turned into a vassal formation from Persia. For the first 500 years of its existence, this state did not include the land south of the Kura River. This VERY significant fact is not illustrated in any way on your map. While on this map (by Kamilla Trever), this fact is shown. --Rs4815 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The map you tried to add was significantly worse than the current one, which goes without saying, is much more clear and detailed. Also, please keep a calm tone, and please keep the guesswork (srsly, my name literally gives away my origins, yet you thought me Azeri because I didn't agree with you?) to yourself. Ironically, you're the one who add tried to your map without any broad discussion and consensus - I suggest you do that, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hewsen's map
"was significantly worse than the current one", accourding to whom? You? The map I have provided is at least based on a reliable source, but what is yours based on?
"which goes without saying, is much more clear and detailed", well, in that case, let's use Robert Hewsen's map in the template, which is also very detailed and illustrates the history of the kingdom throughout most of its existence. --Rs4815 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The attempts at minimizing the area owned by Albania for whatever reason sounds a lot like WP:JDLI (not to mention the earlier personal attack by trying to somehow make a point by calling us Azerbaijanis). HistoryofIran has already given sources in this talk page for the map. Here are some more: From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoïan; From Caucasian Albania to Arran (300 BC - AD 1300); Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Also want to note for other neutral editors here that this article is possibly being brigaded by Redditors from r/Armenia as there was a trending post about it on the subreddit a week ago. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Daamn they’ve roasted the map lol. Well, I am willing to look back into the bit about Cawdk, as it may be disputed. Perhaps we also ought to have a map of Caucasian Albania before its expansion pre 363/387? I’m going to expand the article, to make people aware that the Albanians wrested (amongst other things) land from the Kingdom of Armenia (hence the Armenian names, dear Reddit). HistoryofIran (talk)
They are indeed funny comments. I was really confused about why most of them thought the borders being large has anything to do with modern Azerbaijan since I'm sure most of them already know the 2 states aren't related. The only actual helpful critic I could find in the comments was about how Albania has part of the coast from Sevan lake in the current map when it probably shouldn't? At least I haven't seen any map that includes it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah probably a mistake on my part, Ill look it up quickly when I get home. Some names possibly need to be slighty changed as well to appear more WP:COMMON NAME but still not become (at least too much) anachronistic. HistoryofIran (talk)
Sure, just update me with anything that needs to be changed and I'll do it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, following Hewsen, the border at the lake is pretty correct. Though he includes the Caspian part of Albania under direct Sasanian rule from the 5th-century or as early as 387 - I will look more into it. He only vaguely mentions that Albania sometimes extended their border as far as Derbent. Arc'ax and C'awdk seems to be the same entity as well, and it is also known as Orkhistene. Shakasen needs to be Sakasen. According to Hewsen, Bazgan is the same as Balasagan. Above Kambechan needs to be the district of Elni / Xeni. Think it will be easier if I send you the Hewsen source (its page 41), check your mail :d. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, I updated the map with the changes you suggested and some few changes I got from the Hewsen map. Check it out and see if anything's missing. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks better. Arc'ax and C'awdk needs to be merged as well from what I've understood. And we probably have to consider whether the Caspian part should indeed be considered part of Albania, but I will try to look more into it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, From what I saw on the Hewsen map, there seems to be an additional separate Cawdk near Sevan, aside from the one near Arc'ax. So I included them as separate for now. Let me know if anything further needs to be changed. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: Delving deeper into it, I think the map should be depicted exactly as Hewsen's map, considering it seems unlikely that the Kingdom of Albania controlled the Caspian coast, at least generally;
"Towards the end of antiquity these coalesced into three kingdoms: Albania,6 concentrated in what are now the northwestern and north-central territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;7" (The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes, page 2)
"Even under the Sasanians Sharvan, Layzan and other principalities of the northern bank of the Kur were completely separated from Arran" (A History of Sharvan and Darband, page 12)
--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, sure, I'll update it as soon as I can. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: I've updated the map per Hewsen source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you very much for the effort. Hopefully that should calm some people down ;). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, no problem. @Addictedtohistory: can I ask what part of the map you still think isn't okay as you implied here (even harder for me to understand after I removed the Caspian coast). Perhaps you think American historian Robert H. Hewsen isn't reliable? (Also this is your second revert on this page, thus breaking the discretionary sanctions applying to this article)— CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: This is your own interpretation of Robert H. Hewsen, he never came up with such a map. During Persian rule, there where some border changes, clearly depicted in original map by overlapping Caucasian Albanian and Armenian lands. The map you're proposing as improved one, simply erased Armenian association to Utik, Artsakh, Paytakaran provinces of Armenia present with overlapping Armenian/CA borders in original map. Addictedtohistory (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Addictedtohistory, huh, that's weird because my map is almost the copy/paste of Hewsen map with a different style. Are you sure you're looking at page 41? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Addictedtohistory Paytakaran was part of Balasagan, while Utik and Artsakh were ceded to Albania in 363/387. Hewsen literally says that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all, Albania did not border to Caspian shore in Hewsen's map, which I see has been updated now. I'm aware that Armenian provinces of Utik and Artsakh where attached to Albania in 387 and later to Albanian Marzpanate of Sassanian empire after dissolution of Kingdom of Caucasian Albania, not any time before it. I barely saw Caucasian Albania in the 5th and 6th centuries under the map. But the infobox above states 2nd century BC – 8th century AD, that is misleading. The original image, with overlapping borders depicted borders for a "time lapse" of 2-8th centuries. Current image represents a restricted Sassanian time period and the period of 387-468, and is not suitable for infobox. This image can be moved further down to the Sassanian period of the History section and the original map restored. Addictedtohistory (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Since when does any map of a dynasty depict all of its eras? Here in Wikipedia dynasties are usually portrayed at their zenith, why is this suddenly wrong in the article of Caucasian Albania? The original map ironically shows Albania extending to the Caspian shore, which you (If I'm not mistaken) was against? I mean sure, I wouldn't be against it if we had a map showing the extent of Albania across its lifespan, but it's not a MUST. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my point. If it's suppose to depict the 5-6th century borders, as suggested in barely noticeable description under the map, then this is ok. But for common reader, 2nd century BC – 8th century AD in infobox might suggest that it refers to the map as well. That's what confused me in the first place, when I was referred to Hewsen's map. Addictedtohistory (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you're the only one who got confused by that. I've been here for a decade, and I never heard something like this before. You might want to bring this issue up to the designers of the site. -HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whilst this map is still being sorted out, and whilst it is still not as well referenced, whilst it does not consensus, it should be reverted back to the original map, or alternatively to a pre-existing referenced map of which wikimedia has a few. If we are using the Hewsen map, that doesn't match at all with the map that's been added. If one feels that the pre-existing maps were too small, that sounds a lot like WP:JDLI. Are we mixing up maps of different centuries to get the largest possible territory that might pass muster, with Hewsen simply being another map to add a little more? Maidyouneed (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The map above simply interpolates Aghuank (geographic region of Armenia) with Aghuank (Caucasian Albania) east of Kur and is not based on factual history. This Article is becoming an blog that pushes Azerbaijani narrative. Support revert per Maidyouneed Addictedtohistory. Changes should be based on facts.Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the infobox map back to the original. To add what has already been commented, I am wary too of combining multiple different maps/sources over multiple time periods to thus synthesise an original new map. Caucasian Albania already has many sourced maps over many periods, without having to create new ones. Maidyouneed (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here.

The map is user-created, and this can be construed as original research WP:No original research. While I am sure it was created in good faith with the intention of accuracy, and plenty of articles feature user-created maps, clearly the extent of Caucasian Albania before it became a province of the Sassanid Empire is controversial.

To avoid these issues, I think the map should be removed, placed further down in the article with explanation, or replaced with a map from a published source that is in the public domain.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed thoroughly in Talk:Caucasian Albania#New Map. If you have any problem with the map, please state it there and we could try to fix it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: My bad I moved it up to this section. Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This is one outstanding issues of this new map because it is a synthesis of multiple different sources and multiple, along with some expert editor feedback. This was raised but still there wasn't an answer or consensus if this is an appropriate method. Maidyouneed (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no, it’s not. I am honestly starting to get bored of people critising the map without doing any form of research first. This is how the majority of sources depict Albania after 387. If you have something that states otherwise, please show it. HistoryofIran (talk)
@HistoryofIran: I'm not saying the map's inaccurate or that it was created in bad faith or anything; I assume it wasn't and I also have no way of judging that. I'm just pointing out that it seems to have generated pushback but was changed anyways. which would be one thing if it were from a published source, except that it's not. Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Tribes of Albania

In the wikipedia page, it is written that Strabo wrote that there are 26 tribes of Caucasian Albania. However only 11 of these tribes are mentioned in the page: "Utians, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians." I am curious to know whether if there are more names that can be found. EpeBah (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

what the term "Albania" means is well known

In Armenian agh means "salt", in Caucasian Avarian language this agh word means "strength",also Mongolian aag 1."fortress, infusion, sharpness, bitterness"2.Superiority, strength, heat, ardor, pride, arrogance.The name of the country is NO EXONYM. It is high time to stop the policy of writing strange versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrkan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

In Azerbaijani historiography tagging - false balance or too few opinions?

A rewrite tag was slapped on this section by Creffel, with the edit summary explanation that "Frankly, the entire section just reads like a single big accusation and does not present any productive Azerbaijani historiography. It makes sense if you point out false historiography and present arguments and counterarguments to create balance, but everything below just gives the impression that the authors of the section are trying to completely strip Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history. The entire section goes against WP:IMPARTIAL. Needs balance."

I'm removing the tag, as I have concerns about the rationale and the tag doesn't match the explanation anyway. Template:Cleanup rewrite is for a broad failure "to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on style and content", the justification for the tag is that the section is unbalanced (the appropriate tag would either be Template:POV or Template:Too few opinions). The section's sourcing looks convincing to me, there are a range of credible looking historians and I found results echoing their analysis in The Conversation and The Guardian with a quick internet search. I'm not convinced that reliable sources saying Caucasian Albania isn't subject to a large amount of historical revisionism within Azerbaijan actually exist. If such reliable sources don't exist, Creffel's concern is a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Jr8825 • Talk 18:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, the analysis above is incorrect. The "rewrite tag" was not "slapped" on the section, I believe I gave an appropriate justification for why I decided to include the tag above the section before adding the tag. Furthermore, problems with "POV" or "Too few opinions" fall broadly under the umbrella of "failure to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on the style on content", so separating one from the other is incorrect. If you believe we must be more specific with the tag above the section I will welcome such a discussion, but regardless of whether the tag reads "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." or reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed.", at the end of the day, the tag is still indicating that the article fails to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on style and content and needs alteration.
Furthermore, you mentioned that the section's sourcing looks convincing to you as a supporting argument as to why you removed the tag – well, that is precisely not the problem. I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE, these are two different issues. You stated that you found sources supporting the content of the section in The Conversation and The Guardian, and that's fine, but I'll mention it once more, I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE.
In addition, you then stated that you are "not convinced that reliable sources saying Caucasian Albania isn't subject to a large amount of historical revisionism within Azerbaijan actually exist" – unless you are an academic/historian that has studied a variety of Azerbaijani sources on Caucasian Albania, with all due respect, your convictions on this issue do not matter. Furthermore, having visited your Wikipedia user profile, I see no indication that you live in Azerbaijan or speak Azerbaijani – either of which would have granted you a significantly greater access to Azerbaijani academic work on Caucasian Albania, and therefore, I can't help but get the impression that your conviction that no reliable sources on Caucasian Albania exist in Azerbaijan is a matter of prejudice rather than a matter of a carefully cultivated, informed opinion, which could indicate that your decision to remove the tag goes against WP:NPOV. Please feel welcome to refute the aforementioned.
Finally, I just wanted to say that that I believe your removal of the tag was done with good intentions, but I think one should give relevant and neutral justifications when editing sensitive content on Wikipedia. – Creffel (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you please provide/link to/name RS that dispute the facts as they're presented in the section? I'll look at any sources you provide and we can work together to adjust the section if the sources support change. Also, please remember to comment on content, rather than contributors. I don't have any "convictions" on this issue, I was expressing my scepticism about the availability of such sources as I was unable to find them myself – but, as you're confident such sources exist, please do share them so we can work upwards from the sources, I'm happy to be corrected. Jr8825 • Talk 14:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The cleanup/rewrite tag is primarily for WP:MOS issues, rather than exclusively content issues. Jr8825 • Talk 14:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I will be happy to work with you to amend the contents of the section, but I believe you misunderstood my main point so I will say it again; I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE. To be even more specific
"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."
My main problem is with "the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized". First of all, the section talks almost exclusively about Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania with reference to the Armenian people. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations allegations.
The entire section therefore must be either rewritten to make it something other than just a lengthy, politically charged accusation, or at the very least change the header so it more accurately reflect what the section contains, i.e "Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania as it relates to Armenia" – because apart from that one paragraph at the end of the section which is about Georgia, this is basically what this section is.
I propose this solution: since you object to using Template:Cleanup rewrite, I suggest including the Template:POV in the section instead and we could cooperate in changing the article in the future if either of us proposes significant changes. – Creffel (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that much of Azerbaijani historiography (as well as Soviet/post-Soviet historiography in general) has been routinely criticized for its blatant nationalist revisionism, and claiming WP:IMPARTIAL when "the other side" very clearly falls under WP:FRINGE and being non-RS in general is a false comparison. Reliability comes before neutrality on Wikipedia. --Qahramani44 (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said once again and I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to repeat it. I am not discarding criticism. I am opposed to the exclusive presentation of the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography as if it is a single, large, coordinated, political attempt to undermine Armenian historical heritage, and if you read the section, that's clearly the implication there. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations and allegations. – Creffel (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no justification of the tag. I am opposed to the exclusive presentation of the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography as if it is a single, large, coordinated, political attempt to undermine Armenian historical heritage - but, it is. That's, like, what every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject has argued. No other reason why medieval-era Armenian churches and art objects are all universally and deceptively described as being of Caucasian Albanian origin. It's mighty embarrassing. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"but, it is. That's, like, what every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject has argued." I would like to see how every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject state that "the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography explicitly relates to Armenia and serves no purpose other than to undermine Armenian historical heritage, and there is nothing non-political in Azerbaijani historiography" – If you can find something along these lines, I will not discuss this any further and personally remove the tag.
"No other reason why medieval-era Armenian churches and art objects are all universally and deceptively described as being of Caucasian Albanian origin" – I don't think this is a discussion to be had, Armenian destruction of Azerbaijani towns and cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh during a 30-year period of occupation to make it appear as if Azerbaijanis never lived there is well documented as well, yet I wouldn't go as far as to use this as an argument for why "the entirety of Armenian historiography is political and anti-Azerbaijani".
Now if I were to open a section on the page called "In Armenian Historiography" and load it up with nothing but controversial material and examples of criticism as if that's all there is to Armenian historiography, I am confident the section would be removed very quickly. Once again for perhaps the 5th time, if you want to include criticism of the political historiography on the page that's totally fine, but don't omit non-political historiography along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy" – Creffel (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Creffel. The section doesn't say every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucasian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia as you suggest it does, it says that it's a major topic of Azerbaijani revisionism which has been repeated by academics and statesmen in Azerbaijan, and provides sources for this statement. It also discusses how some aspects are "claims by Armenians" which have been echoed by academics and consequently disputed by Azerbaijan, "Azerbaijan instead contends that the monuments were not of Armenian, but of Caucasian Albanian, origin", albeit in a way that academics have dismissed: "which, per Thomas De Waal, did not protect "the graveyard from an act in the history wars"". It all seems well-sourced and accurate to me. You still haven't provided any reliable sources that dispute the facts as they are presented – I think the relevant part of NPOV is WP:FALSEBALANCE (which I linked above), did you take a look at this? I don't believe the POV tag is valid here unless you can point to reliable sources that demonstrate these claims are in any way disputed. I see two ways forward, either you present the reliable sources I've asked for so we can work together to adjust the section, or, if you're insistent that I and other editors here are missing something, you could take this to Third Opinion for an assessment by an uninvolved editor. Jr8825 • Talk 19:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
"it says that it's a major topic of Azerbaijani revisionism which has been repeated by academics and statesmen in Azerbaijan" – Fantastic.
"provides sources for this statement" – That's great.
" It also discusses how some aspects are "claims by Armenians" which have been echoed by academics and consequently disputed by Azerbaijan" – Brilliant.
Except I disputed none of this. I would appreciate it if you could stop mischaracterizing what I am saying. Please stop and address what I am actually saying. Please carefully read my previous statements that I provide below.
"I am not discarding criticism". "I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE". ""Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". "First of all, the section talks almost exclusively about Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania with reference to the Armenian people. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations allegations". "The entire section therefore must be either rewritten to make it something other than just a lengthy, politically charged accusation, or at the very least change the header so it more accurately reflect what the section contains, i.e "Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania as it relates to Armenia" – because apart from that one paragraph at the end of the section which is about Georgia, this is basically what this section is".
"You still haven't provided any reliable sources that dispute the facts as they are presented" – No I have not, because "I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE". Did you read WP:IMPARTIAL? "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized"
"I see two ways forward, either you present the reliable sources I've asked for so we can work together to adjust the section" What sources are you talking about? I don't believe one needs a source to see that creating a section titled "Azerbaijani Historiography" and loading it up exclusively with politically charged, Anti-Armenian revisionism, while completely excluding all possible neutral, non-political, non-armenia-related Azerbaijani historiography requires a source? Perhaps I am missing something?
I personally see a very simple solution to this issue: We keep either the "NPOV" or "Rewrite" tag above the section as it was, we work together to reorganize the section and add non-political, non-armenia-related Azerbaijani historiography into the section to make the organization of the section more neutral, and then after we are done we remove the tag and all is good, what do you think? – Creffel (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You're projecting. The section isn't damning all Azerbaijani historiography - merely how Azerbaijani historians treat the subject of Caucasian Albania. This is a non-issue, plain and simple. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I find it surprising that a highly experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself resorts to semi-personal, implicitly snarky remarks instead of addressing anything I have written above, instead preferring to diminish, ignore, and completely dismiss my points, calling them a "a non-issue" instead of trying to respectfully explain why I am wrong. This is just my personal opinion, but I think the reason behind this is that you can't, which is why a highly experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself resorts to semi-personal, implicitly snarky remarks. Please feel welcome to prove me wrong. – Creffel (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit: The reason why I insist that the section is particularly careful in its organization is that we are dealing with a touchy topic here, therefore I simply believe one cannot throw together a bunch of highly political mumbo-jumbo and call it a day. The section was clearly not written with a neutral intent in mind, plain and simple. I hope you can understand my position. – Creffel (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Never mind Creffel, I'm sure Azerbaijan is quietly seeking its own personal equivalents of Turkey's Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry - once suitable corrupt academics are located and the caviar and paychecks are sent out soon you will have those "neutral" sources you seemingly crave. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
god, this looks like something from reddit. 46.71.217.192 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ В.П. Алексеев. "ДАННЫЕ АНТРОПОЛОГИИ К ЭТНОГЕНЕЗУ ТЮРКСКИХ НАРОДОВ". imp.rudn.ru. Archived from the original on 2011-08-25.
  2. ^ исследования в Азербайджане
  3. ^ М. Б. МЕДНИКОВА, А. П. БУЖИЛОВА, М. В. ДОБРОВОЛЬСКАЯ, Г. В. ЛЕБЕДИНСКАЯ АНТРОПОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ МАТЕРИАЛЫ ИЗ ВЕЛИКЕНТА (РАСКОПКИ 1995—1998 гг.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caucasian_Albania/Archive_5&oldid=1247873423"