Talk:Caucasus/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a small spelling error spotted...

"boardering" in the first sentence should be spelt: "bordering", I think.

Remove incorrect "historical" map

I have removed the “Ancient countries of Caucasus” map because it is false from a historical point of view and it is not appropriate in this entry.

Although generally the map is false, it is also partially correct, in a sense that some of the borders shown there did in fact exist (for example the borders of Armenia, or rather “Greater Armenia” empire), BUT they existed only for a certain period of time and these borders often changed, so focusing on one particular historical period when borders of one ancient state was wider than borders of the other (and at the expense of the other) is not quite correct. For example, before II cc. BC there was no Armenia on the political map of the Caucasus (ancient Armenian homeland was in modern eastern Anatolia/Turkey): what makes us then to put a map of Caucasus dealing with pre-II c. BC period? Or from VIII c. up to XX c. (!) there was no Armenian state in the political map of the Caucasus, would it be right to put a map which would cover this historical period?.. So, my point is, considering that this map relates to a certain historical period, and moreover, depicts that historical period incorrectly, why should we put this historical map at all?

Furthermore, don’t you think that by putting this map we inadvertently endorse “historical belonging” of certain territories to certain countries of the Caucasus? For example, Georgians consider Colchis and Iberians as their forefathers, and Azeris consider Caucasian Albanians as their ancestors. So, by having this false and incorrect map on the page, we are causing additional unnecessary dispute and inadvertently endorsing certain “historical national boundaries” (which moreover, are based on false assumptions and wrong map).

I believe that this entry in fact is not about history of the Caucasus, a region with one of the most controversial histories in the world. This entry is about the region as it is today and there should be no place in it for such false and propagandistic maps.

p.s. Panonian, these comments are in no way directe against you. You’ve done an excellent job in Wikipedia by preparing various maps. --Tabib 14:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's your POV. I think you've put it very well. But it's a bit much to describe anyone who disagrees as committing "vandalism". They're probably as well intentioned as you are. I do suggest that those in favour of the map answer Tabib's points though, rather than mindlessly revert-warring over it. Grace Note 04:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, calling my arguments as "my POV" would be wrong and misleading. As I explained above, this map is inappropriate for this entry, and moreover is incorrect. Anyone knowledgeable on the issue, as well as anyone who would be attentive enough would agree that this "map" has nothing to do in this entry. As to anon reverts, I think you should be informed that these anons were mostly (if not all) vandal Rovoam, who's been vandalizing more than 30 (thirty!) entries in Wikipedia for several months already. Please, see one of the regular disclaimers on this vandal and don't allow yourself to be deceived by him. --Tabib 05:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that is yet another POV of yours. The map is representative of ancient Caucasian Geography; fullstop! Turcic Azeris are indeed not of Caucasion origin at all, but have provenly migrated to this part of our beautiful world from distant steppes in eastern Asia! User:84.154.103.206 (vandal) 21:41, Jun 9, 2005 text attribution by --VANDAL and (Thanksgiving-) TURKEYTabib 14:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC).

Rather than delete the map, I think it should be identified as which specific moment in time it describes. I do however think it encyclopedic that the map notes that Armenia was once a large country in the region, and that there was a nation named Albania there as well. ~~~~ 11:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ril, probably you've seen the slanders directed against me in this page and in many other pages. These are previously banned vandals Rovoam and possibly Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova. For details, you may find it useful to see ArbCom decision on these two vandals. They'll do their best to deceive and confuse other editors and to disrupt Wikipedia, so I ask you to be very attentive to such edits.

Now, coming to this "map", the problem is that this map is absolutely incorrect, and does not depict a specific timeframe, because, even when Armenia's borders were so big, at those times, Colchis and Albania's borders were not the way they are depicted in that "map". Furthermore, as I said, this map has nothing to do with this entry, because this entry is about the Caucasus region as such. I already told Panonian, the author of this map, who btw has done excellent job in Wikipedia preparing various maps, that I will sent him more correct academic maps so that he would prepare a more correct map which would be placed in a more appropriate entries such as Caucasian Albania, Colchis etc.--Tabib 14:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this region by any means, but I have found the bickering on this article to be very disappointing. I have not read a great deal on the Caucasus region, so I cannot vouch for this "historical" map's accuracy one way or another. However, Tabib has been mostly diplomatic regarding this issue. It has been mentioned that this map has been published by Britannica- could someone link to it so that we all could see it?

Also, I am interested in this statement by Tabib and believe it deserves more discussion: "So, my point is, considering that this map relates to a certain historical period, and moreover, depicts that historical period incorrectly, why should we put this historical map at all?" Olessi 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the map that was posted? That Armenia was 10 times bigger than it is now? Well it's a historical fact. As well as the absence of Azerbaijan and Turkey in the region's historical map is a fact. Deal with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.215.11.146 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 January 2006.

Another "incorrect" maps

For those who expressed an interest in the subject about "incorrect" maps, here are some links to more historical maps of the same area:

Here are some more "incorrect" maps...

File:StraboArmenia.jpg

File:Armeniamap1907.jpg

File:1760.jpg

File:1831.jpg

File:1842.jpg

Impressive Array of historical maps!

The contribution of these maps to the article is invaluable and constitutes a very educative reference for the WIKIPEDIA audience!! I am very greatful for the new insight gained from this material--Pantherarosa 00:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Vandal Rovoam's disruption, false map and User:Pantherarosa

First of all, I want to inform all editors that the anon which is disrupting this entry and many other entries in Wikipedia by spurious edits and various forms of vandalism (blatant and overt) is actually the well-known vandal Rovoam. As you can also see from the disclaimer, he's been vandalizing Wikipedia for more than 3 months (!) now, and many pages were vprotected because of him.

This person adds this incorrect map simply out of his feeling of revenge against me (for whatever reasons he has in mind), and he uses the lack of knowledge amongst other editors for manipulating with their opinions, confusing and deceiving them. Just read the disclaimer and look through the history logs of some of the entries mentioned in the disclaimer and you'll understand what's going on.

Second, the maps posted by User:Pantherarosa are simply copied from the other talkpage. Most of these maps were posted before by Rovoam when he has not decsended to blatant vandalism yet. You can see them here ([1]). These maps were posted in the context of my previous discussions (or rather disputes) with Rovoam and by these maps Rovoam actually tried to substantiate some of his POV arguments, not realizing that these maps in fact disproved all his allegations. I have sufficiently commented on these maps in the context of discussions on Nagorno-Karabakh in my message here ([2]).

(While I have indeed voiced my appreciation for the educative value of above maps, I have NOT posted any maps here!! What are you whining about??)--Pantherarosa 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, I want to reiterate what I have said before, the "map" of Caucasus is, first of all wrong, i.e. the borders of Albania, Armenia and Cholchis are shown incorrectly, and second, and most important, this map simply has nothing to do with this entry, simply because this entry is about the Caucasus as a region today and not about some contentious historical period. I ask all other editors to be extremely attentive to Rovoam's vandalism and revert all his spurious edits immediately.

Why would this entry be restricted to the Caucasus "as a region of today" ??? --Pantherarosa 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to User:Pantherarosa, this person has intervened here and sides with vandal Rovoam, and his motives are clear. This person just like Rovoam has attacked me in the past. Just recently, this person insulted me out of blue [3] and later when warned by me and by User:Fred Bauder tried to spuriously delete comments from his talkpage ([4])

Posting pertinent edits constitutes "siding" with 'anybody ??'. Is this article about you?? or me??? --Pantherarosa 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This discussion page is about Caucasus, not about user Rovoam. Tabib treat everybody who disagrees with his POV as a vandal. This is because he has failed to explain his point of view. User:64.136.2.254 (vandal Rovoam) 16:49, Jun 16, 2005 text attribution by --Tabib 12:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pics?

What's with the completely strange boxes around the images? The outermost box just duplicates the bottom inner on and has NOTHING to do with the top one. Thanx 68.39.174.150 29 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Origin of map

For Tabib: The source for my map is here:

http://www.geocities.com/master8885/Maps/armenia.jpg

I used this map to draw another one. The borders on these two maps are the same. I just wanted to create a public domain image instead to upload this one from the link. Could you provide a link to a map from different time period and I will create a public domain image from that map too if you want. User:PANONIAN

Panonian, see, the Balkans and the Caucasus are very similar indeed, they have similarly complex historical experience and unfortunanately, sometimes it is very hard to discern political bigotry and propaganda from facts and truth. As I said before, I really appreciate the job you did creating various maps for WP use, and my opposition to the "map" in question should in no way be misunderstood.

First, let me inform you about that particular web-site that you took this "map" from. It is an an Armenian created propaganda web-site and in the past Geocities even temporarily closed it down after repeated complaints from Azerbaijanis that this web-site insults the Azeri national symbols, esp. Azerbaijan flag, which they put on the back of Osama bin-Laden's photo, as if this Arab terrorist had something to do with secular Azerbaijan and Azeris (This was app. end-2001 or beg 2002, then, quickly after 9/11, everyone tried to portray their political enemies as "terrorist allies". Btw, Azerbaijan also alleged in the past links b/w Armenians and Osama bin-Laden, so this black PR was reciprocal on both sides..). The web-site was restored only after the owner of the web-site removed blatantly insulting content from the web-site.

As to the "map(s)" posted in this web-site, I have already sufficiently addressed this issue in my post above and have shown that this map claims to depict only certain historical period, and moreover, depicts that historical period incorrectly.

Panonian, there is one more important detail you and any other good-faith editor should bear in mind. Unlike Greater Armenian empire, Caucasian Albania is a very understudied issue in Western historiography. There are lots of maps which depict the period of II c BC and I c. AD, when Greater Armenia reached the height of its expansion, but there are so few maps which depict Caucasian Albania before II c. BC (i.e. before Armenian expansion) and I c. AD (after Caucasian Albania returned lands conquered earlier by the Armenians). In this regard you may be interested in my message posted yet in Feb 2005, in response to spurious allegations from now banned vandal Rovoam to better understand how history and historical maps can be used to advance land claims ([5]).

Another closely related and important detail more: if a map is 'old', i.e. drawn in say XIX c. or even earlier, it doesn't mean that this map is more reliable than say a more recent XX c. map. On the contrary, if to consider that in XIX c. there was even less info about Caucasian Albania, as well as other ancient Caucasian states, then it woud become apparent that these "old" maps cannot be relied on blindly.

Btw, I still need to scan and send you more accurate maps of Caucasian Albania. Because of recent vandal sockpuppet attacks against me and because of my workload in real life, I couldn't do this, but hopefully, soon, I'll send you more correct maps of Caucasian Albania, so that you would consider creating maps of Caucasian Albania, which hopefully, we can place in Caucasian Albania entry.--Tabib June 30, 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I don't see how that website is more pro-Armenian propaganda website than your pro-Azeris propaganda website. I don't either see how the fact that maps have been published in particular websites makes them less credible. And I don't see how maps representing thousands of years terrirotial bounderies can be attacked as erronous or fake, and other maps which support your claim as the true ones. Obvious you, again, again, again and again failed to understand how things are done in Wikipedia, this time let me write this in capital letters so that you might not skip that part: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION IS UNTRUE AND WHAT IS TRUE, IF THIS WAS THE CASES WE WOULD HAVE HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF NATIONALISTS LIKE YOU FIGHTING TO GET THEIR POV IN ARTICLES. WIKIPEDIA ONLY PRESENT POSITIONS REGARDING A TOPIC, AND FOR THOSE POSITIONS TO BE INCLUDED, THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY A SINGLE, TWO OR THREE ACADEMICS AGAINST HUNDREDS(YOU PRESENT SUCH MINORITY VIEWS IN ARTICLES YOU TOUCH). SUCH CLEAR MINORITIES BELIEFS HAVE NO PLACE HERE. FOR THAT REASON, YOU CAN NOT ASK FOR EQUAL PLACE, FOR SOME UNKNOWN HISTORY OF ALBANIA, WITH THE HISTORY OF ARMENIA THAT IS TREATED BY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THROUGH THE CENTURIES. YOU CAN NOT PRESENT EQUALLY(IN YOUR CASE EVEN DELETE THE MAJORITY THESES), TWO POSITIONS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT PRESENTED EQUALLY IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD, AND WHEN THERE IS A CLEAR DISPROPRTIONATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TREATING ONE THESES AGAINST THE OTHER. AGAIN, I REPEAT, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE TO PROVE SOMETHING, YOU'VE DONE THAT, BY BELIEVING THAT YOUR PSEUDOPROVES COULD JUSTIFY THE DELETION OF THE MAJORITY VIEW. Do you imagine if we were to invite many political scientists that work with political parties like you, from various countries, we will never see the end of debates? Just frankly answer. Fadix 15:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disclaimer

Dear editors, please, be aware that previously banned vandal sockpuppets are actively posting abusive and spurious messages to various talkpages, where I have been active in the past (e.g. this talkpage, Talk:Azerbaijan, Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, Talk:Artsakh etc.). Their sole aim is to attack me, create a confusion and an environment of animosity, and eventually, disrupt Wikipedia. I ask you to disregard all their spurious posts and if certain that certain post is by a vandal sockpuppet, simply delete them.

For additional information on recently created sockpuppets, including this "WikiAdm" (Rovoam) and their concerted 'campaign' against me, please, see, my requests for clarification to the ArbCom, which has already solved the issue by effectively blocking the known sockpuppets. See, request followed by second appeal. I ask editors to check the "birthdate" and contribution log" of any new "user" that suddently emerges and advances spurious allegations and attacks. Thus you can spot the vandal more easily . --Tabib June 30, 2005 11:17 (UTC)

Gogarena: Inaccuracies in "ancient maps"

As I wrote above, Caucasian Albania is extremely understudied issue in the historiography, particularly the Western historiography. I also mentioned that often maps, especially the "ancient maps" some of which were posted above and were spuriously used for advancing some "historical" claims, are not quite reliable in terms of their historical accuracy.

Here's an example, which demonstrates the deficiencies of maps. Please, see four different maps, all of which were referred to in this talk. These maps mention one of the historical provinces of Caucasian Albania - Gogarena. As you can see, these four maps significantly differ in their placement of Gogarena in the map (see encircled area)

source: http://www.geocities.com/master8885/Maps/1729.jpg

(used by Panonian, source: same Armenian-created web-site as above)

(posted above, and earlier by now banned vandal Rovoam)

File:Gogarena (Caucasian Albania)-4.jpg

Where is Gogarena?: Fourth version

(also posted above and before)

The confusion in these maps regarding the placement of Gogarena probably comes from two different versions/references to the term "Gogarena".

One attribution is that Gogarena is the place inhabited by the Gargars, which inhabited the right bank of Kura river, particularly Artsakh, and were one of the biggest Albanian tribes (overall there were 26 Albanian tribes, mentioned by Strabo). Btw, according to ancient chroniclers the Albanian alphabet was based on the Gargarian dialect.

The second attribution is that Gogarena was a region outside of the boundaries of Caucasian Albania, on the border of present-day Georgia and Armenia, which was conquered by ancient Armenians and derives its name from Gougarq.

In any case, the fact that these maps give so much drastically different pictures, it is obvious that these maps cannot be blindly relied on.--Tabib June 30, 2005 12:10 (UTC)

Such a contradiction should be illegal. :) Was it not you that was presenting maps of Urartu and entered in a debate regarding Urartu by presenting maps? Why so when someone show you maps, you point out that we can not relly on such maps because there are others that show else? Why this double standard? Fadix 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And another thing, while you claim we can not rely on those maps because of the drastic differences, you told above that you will show correct maps. What is a correct map Tabib? A map that support your nationalist POV? Fadix 15:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On the economy of Caucasus

Can someone remove the statement that says "Cheese is a major product of this region"? While the stament is correct, it doesn't do justice to the extremely diversified economy of the Caucasus region. It's like saying "Wine is a major product of California" in a California article without mentioning California's hi-tech sector, the movie industry, agriculture, etc.

Hebrew link

can you please add the Hebrew link to this page [[he:קווקז]] 82.81.75.232 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

satelite picture

I think it would be beneficial to add a satelite image of caucasus to the article. The image is available from Nasa's project Visible Earth. I briefly looked at copyright terms - images on Visible Earth are not considered a public domain, but are governed by Nasa'a two of the following regulations (with some exceptions that images of the Caucasus are not part of):

For all non-private uses, NASA's Terms Of Use are as follows:

  1. The imagery is free of licensing fees
  2. NASA requires that they be provided a credit as the owners of the imagery

The image is located at Nasa Visible Earth - Caucasus

this DEFINITELY needs current maps

Screw the ancient maps and discussion, this section should have a nice map covering Dagestan, Ossetia, Ingushetia and all that! This way the article doesnt give any info on the caucasus. Like this one [6].

Its CIA, so is it copyrighted or no? Anybody know?--The Minister of War 08:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad move

The move by Master Scott Hall to the new, piped and much longer title was not particularly helpful or useful. Now, every time users wants to link to this article, they have to use "(geographic region)" with piping and all, while the obvious redirect to this page, Caucasus, redirects to Caucasus (disambiguation), which contains only one title that could be confused with this article, Caucasus (mythology), a redlink.

Could some admin please undo this mess?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The region is the most common definition. --Khoikhoi 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. I wonder though which meaning is more prevalent and should have the simpler title (arrows indicate where I think these articles should be at):

The first two aren't synonymous. The order above (for the first two *) is at least reflected in my edition of Webster's College dictionary, though Oxford marries the two into one def. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

But most Wikipedia articles that currently link to Caucasus are refering to the region. --Khoikhoi 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I know! You'll note above that's where I think the raw term Caucasus should be at; I'm merely pointing out that others may (and do, hence the move) view it differently. E Pluribus Anthony 05:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; i'd support a move. Anybody ask User:Master Scott Hall already why he did this? The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 16:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

See his talkpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Caucasus" can hardly refer synonymously to "Caucasian languages" or "White people". But whether "Caucasus" [alone, without qualifier] is predominantly intended to mean "Caucasus region" or Caucasus mountains" depends on context. To me, the region is the more obvious choice. //Big Adamsky 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information

I have to point out the information that reads "Four territories in the region claim independence but are not generally acknowledged as nation-states by the international community: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ajaria and South Ossetia" - is incorrect. The territories that claim independence are Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno karabakh. Ajara has never claimed independence. As for Abkhazia and South Ossetia they are part of Republic of Georgia, and held an autonomy status during USSR (the autonomies in different parts of the occupied lands were created by the Soviet governemnt, they occupied Georgia in 1921 and claimed it as part of USSR). I am not sure what is the source of the information, but I would like to find more accurate and complete information. Irma Gogiashvili

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Caucasus (geographic region) → Caucasus – By far, the most common meaning of "Caucasus" is the geographic region, not the mountain range. The Caucasus page already redirects here anyways. —Khoikhoi 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support. --Kober 04:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - for the reasons outlined by Peter above (under "Bad Move").--WilliamThweatt 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template picture

The template picture: { { Caucasus Labelled Map|float=right}} renders in firefox 2.0 overlapping text. Limited by the knowledge I do not have, I decided to not touch this and just report it. The only way I could get it to not cover any real text would be to move it to the bottom of the article text (before the links) and remove float=right. But this is far from ideal.

jptdrake 05:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Check it again. Khoi khoi 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

The disambiguation notice seems too long to me. Is there any way we can constructively shorten it?Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)