![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
(copied to here from AMA request page --TT)
The dispute is as to whether or not the ancient province Caspiane/Paytakaran was part of Caucasian Albania. Also, it is disputed that the city of Paytakaran, which was the centre of the province of the same name is the same city as Beylegan. Tigran, Eupator and Fadix claim that it never was a province of Albania. Moreover, they revert all of my edits, despite each of them being based on reliable sources. This is my version of the article, which was completely reverted: [1] Currently the page is protected because of edit wars. User:Fadix also denies that Caspiane is the same province as Paytakaran, despite there being a consensus with other editors that it is. Fadix acknowledges that he reverted my edits even without reading them, which in my opinion is a violation of Wikipedia policies.
The sources that I quoted support the fact that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania.
According to Strabo:
To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. [2]
Article from Encyclopedia Iranica about the tribe of Caspies. It says, inter alia:
Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn. [3]
Ancient Albanian historian Moses Kalankatuatsi (source is in Russian):
А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. [4]
After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians.
Fadix claims that Caspiane is not the same land as Paytakaran, despite its having its center in the same city of Paytakaran. I cited my sources to demonstrate that it is. For instance, according to professor Robert. H. Hewsen, it is the same land:
BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. [5]
I have more sources, which are available on the talk page of the article. I would really appreciate any assistance in resolving this dispute.
Grandmaster 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here we come, another disruptive behavior by Grandmaster. The description of the situation by Grandmaster above is simply not accurate, embelishing things and claiming things which I allegdly claim. Not everyone has the time time to waste as he does edit warring and POV pushing on every single articles involving his Azerbaijan in some misterious way. The Land of Kaspiane, has no delimitation, it is the land of the Kasps, the same way as some could say of the Land(aka the continent) of America, is the land of America, when claimed to be found by Americo Vespucci the United States of America? Yes? So what is Canada? Bresil etc. ? Grandmaster has a history of attaching claims on quote, which the author doesn't imply. Just like he attempted to claim there was no Armenian in Paytakaran, and forged a signification for a sentence which used the term alien. Grandmaster is also lying when he claims I even treated about the Abania, it is a total none-issue, as the term Paytakaran is used to refer to the province which borders were invented by Armenia, all his fighting is over this, as usual he want to dissolve an article and place the Albanians in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLES RELATING TO A HISTORIC CITY, PROVINCE, KINGDOM OF ARMENIA. To do this, he will also add some Azeris term in the lead. Grandmaster has no evidence that the term Paytakaran was ever used to refer to a city or a district, the city he is talking about was never called Paytakaran, the Armenian records should 'know best', as the term Paytakaran is Armenian and that there was a reason why that province was called that way. What best evidence there is than quoting the actual scholar who started the rumor that both were called the same way, claiming that he is not sure of this? The only reason why Grandmaster want to equal both terms is to justify his inclusion of the Azerbaijani term.
The quotes he provides have absolutly no value, as the article already mention Albania, indirectly without implicitly saying anything, which is good since such theories are all speculations, one of those speculations Grandmaster is attempting to present as Truth when it is specified on the NPOV policy that this is a not to do. The current article has one mistake, which I have already reported, that Caspiane equals to Paytakaran, Grandmaster is using this mistake to introduce ittelevencies in this article. Fad (ix) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have to tell you that I can't stand impersonal messages. Wouldn't it hurt to do a little research on the involved parties before copy pasting messages? I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost two years longer than you and have even written a featured article during that time, i'm quite familiar with all the rules and policies which I often familiarize others with. Why do you AMA guys always assume that the complaining party is sitting on a horse wih high heels boggles the mind. Please do your research before proceeding. The least you can do is read the entire talk page of the article.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Aha, that is of what you were refering to. Grandmaster is not saying the truth there, you should read the talk page before placing such stuff on my talkpage. Paytakaran refers to an Armenian province, much like Constantinople was Greek, Constantinople does not equal Istanbul. Grandmaster prejudicial view of the Armenians, will make him place every irrelevencies he could in encient Armenian towns and cities. He even wanted the incorporation of some Azeris term in the lead for a historic place which existed before the Azeris language even existed. Fad (ix) 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No, most of my blocks were done by the same administrator; I had received emails by two other administrators telling that the block was unjustifiable. You were the reason of the longest block, for the exact same attacks which you have directed against me. The other block was as an answer to someone who calls Wikipedia a mad house and call articles trash, the person having imposed the block imposed it after I have reported to him (the same administrator who placed the block which another administrator openly said he sees no blocking material there and two others privately) my own incivility. I have never been blocked for article disruption; I maintain the 2RR and even 1RR most of the time. From all of my blocks, only two were justifiable, one of those the one on which I have reported myself, the other was meant to cool me down after I had been angered that nothing was done against a racist disruptor. It is funny that you bring my blocks, when you very much know that incivility is the only argument you can bring, when I have never ever been blocked for disruption, for 3RR or anything regarding article content, and that the block which followed your report of my incivility was answered from my part documenting incivilities you directed against me which were worster. Fad (ix) 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the dispute is being discussed, so I will just post here. GM's source Hewsen states that Paytakaran was on Arax's right bank. Baylaqan was on its left bank. This alone shows that they are not the same city.
Iranica merely states there was a city Baylaqan built in 6th c ad, and it was also called Paytakaran. It does not say that the city was the same Paytakaran that was the capital of the province. The capital Paytakaran had been around before 6th c, so yet another proof that it cant be the same city.-- TigranTheGreat 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sir, Strabo states that both Albania and Armenia had regions named Caspiene, which means that caspiene was larger in area than Paytakaran. Iranica further states that Strabo puts the borders of both countries along Kura. P. was south of Kura. Clearly, Strabo puts P in Armenia.
By the way, what is AMA? American Manhood Augmentation? Thanks.-- TigranTheGreat 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Gm, I want to end the Baylaqan issue once and for all. Be honest now! You have been claiming all this time that Beylagan is the same as the city of Paytakaran in the province of Paytakaran. Don't deny this you said this at least a dozen times in the last few day alone, justifying the use of Azeri name and a whole bunch of other nonsense. Here's Hewsen's map of Armenia in the fourth century showing the city of Paytakaran: [8]. Do you see where it is? I'm not saying you were doing this in purpose or anything no, just admit that you were wrong and in turn we can move on with potential concessions.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Caspiene is not Paytakaran. Even GM's article on Casps makes this clear:
CASPIANS (Gk. Ka‚spioi), name of an ancient people dwelling along the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, whether north or south of the river Kura is not clear.
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f1/v5f1a019.html
So, Caspians could very well be living north of Kura (as Strabo makes it clear). P. was south of Kura. P was called Caspiene, but doesn't mean all of Caspiene was P. Strabo states that the Armenian Caspiene (i.e. Paytakaran) was populated by Armenians, while Albanian caspiene (north of Kura) was populated by Kasps. Obviously, Kasps lived north of Kura, their land and the surrounding area was named Kaspiene, while Armenians lived south of Kura, and their part of Kaspiene was called both Kaspiene and Paytakaran. -- TigranTheGreat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Euro's map makes it very clear that B is not P. The modern juncture of Arax and Kura is clearly shown on the map--it's way far from the city of P. the river on which the city P. is located is not the main course of Arax, and it's clear from the map.
Also, neither Bosworth or the other Iranica source state that Paytakaran and Baylaqan are the same. They merely say that Baylaqan was called Paytakaran. That's not the same. There could be 2 Paytakarans.
As for Hewsen equating Kaspiene and Paytakaran, he does no such thing. The ending letters of a label do not mean the border of a province. The label merely shows the approximate general area called Kaspiene.-- TigranTheGreat 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I was just informed that AMA stands for Member's Advocates. So, Sir here is GM's advocate--i.e. his representative. Clearly he is going to take GM's side. So, what are we doing here?-- TigranTheGreat 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
James, an AMA advocate, has contacted me, out of the blue, to help. I don't know him, and I don't know any of you. And I can assure you, I don't know much of anything about the topic being discussed. But I'm here to help, if I can.
Grandmaster, please rewrite the statements of fact at Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources to exactly the way you wish them to appear in the article. In their current form they are either unpolished or unclear. Let's get everything set up correctly before we resume discussions, to prevent confusion. For example, in item...
1) the use of "/" is bad form. The sentence also appears to be two statements of fact in one. If there is any disagreement amongst the participants of the discussion above that the province was named both Caspiane and Paytakaran, then that needs to be covered in another statement of fact (preferably preceding this one).
2) speaks in the present tense. Also, no dates or time frame is given.
3) "Population of Paytakaran" isn't a statement at all. Please complete it.
4) "Islamic times" is vague, as the reader may not know what time period that refers to, or what you mean by it. I don't. The religion Islam is very much alive today, so we are living in Islamic times now. Please rephrase statement #4 to get your idea across clearly. Also, "/" is bad grammatical form. Maybe parentheses would work better.
Once everything is set up clearly, and exactly the way you want it to appear in the article, then we can begin discussing the accuracy or appropriateness of each statement based upon its sources. Setting things up clearly now will hopefully prevent confusion in subsequent discussion. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I've posted to the statements subpage the rewrite you posted on my talk page. I split each paragraph up and numbered each sentence to make them easier to refer to.
I haven't included all of the references from your original posting at the top of that page, as I thought you would be better qualified to organize those within the rewrite. Would you do that please?
Also, several sentences have no references. Could you add them?
I've reworded a little. If you wish to change my rewording of anything, please do so. Once everything is set up in such a way that is completely clear, then debate on each point can begin without confusion. That's why I've numbered each sentence - to make it easier for participants in the upcoming discussion to refer to and access.
In the upcoming discussion, I intend to remain neutral, and will try to help things move along more smoothly. Such as focusing on one statement of fact at a time, suggesting when to move on to the next statement, and asking questions to clarify what is being communicated.
The Transhumanist 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make a short comment on Tigran’s sources. What he does is called original research, which is against the wiki rules. He claims that there were two different Caspianes, however he cites no sources that explicitly say so, instead he provides his own interpretation of various sources and draws his own conclusions, which is not allowed here. We only report what reliable sources say, and none of them says that there was more than one Caspiane in the region. Same with his claim that Paytakaran was not the same as Caspiane, I cited a source that says that it was, and he cited none saying that it was not. He only provides personal interpretations of sources, which is, as I said above, an original research. Every statement that I propose to include in the article is based on reliable sources, as required by the wiki rules. Grandmaster 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Transhumanist, Grandmaster description of this situation is not accurate.
Tigran did not affirmatively say that there was two Caspianes. Grandmaster takes the land of the Kasps as a clearly defined land, with official borders. While sources place the said Caspiane both in Armenia and in the land of Albanians. Sources also provide different borders, which too Tigran has documented. Something can not be at two different places, can it? This was the point Tigran was making, he said that the only conclusion is that they are not the same Caspiane. The Armenian Caspiane was not located at the same place, thosefor could not be the same Caspiane; and Tigran has provided sufficient evidence to support that. Nowhere has Tigran presented original research.
Indeed there is a mistake in the current version since it equal Caspiane with the more modern Armenian province called Paytakaran. A mistake I myself admitted, Grandmaster has used this mistake, to extend it and infiltrate in an Armenian province article some irrelevancies. First, Grandmaster included some modern Azeris term of some Azeris town in the lead as the Azeris term for this Armenian province. When, the town has nothing to do with the province, and that the Azerbaijani language did even not exist when Paytakaran was a province, neither was there any Azerbaijanis living there at the time. He did this because the Armenian name was in the lead. But there is an etymologic reason for this. The English term Paytakaran is recognized etiologically as an Armenian word, it derives from an Armenian name for that province, and the name is on the lead. It is relevant to include it, according to name conventions for geographic places. It is relevant for readers to know the etymology of the word. Besides, the Azeris term there isn’t even original etymology of its own pronunciation; it is the retranscription in modern Azeris alphabet of an Arabic word for a town, while the article is about a province. Here I provide one example, the rest of Grandmaster requests are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with Paytakaran. It is like Grandmaster has a problem with the article simply because it relate to an Armenian province, which covered regions now in the republic of Azerbaijan and as if this will question the legitimacy of that republic. I don’t get how, this article was meant to be an apolitical article about a historic Armenian province. I don’t believe it is that hard to understand. Is it? Fad (ix) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, when you didn't follow the suggested instructions for the statements/sources page, it didn't dawn on me exactly what was happening. By posting countersources, you were going right into argument/debate mode, and sucked everybody back into it, including me! But we're just not ready to do that yet. Let's get the statements of fact that are to be submitted to the debate ready, and then we can begin the actual debate. Grandmaster's statements and sources are all split up between two versions, for instance, and that will only add to the confusion. So please let's wait until he is actually ready to start. Thank you. The Transhumanist 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me look over the sources page, to see if the points are clear or not. Once they are made clear, then we can start discussing one point at a time rather than have this discussion devolve into chaos like it did before. I've read the arguments from your previous discussions, and they are almost impossible to follow. So bear with me please, and let's keep this organized and civil. I will not be voting or arguing for one side or the other. I'm just here to help things run smoothly, point out confusing or unclear text, ask questions, etc. The Transhumanist 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like #2 on your statements list is the only statement of fact presented there. The rest are all counter arguments.
I requested that only statements of fact which are intended to be included in the article, and their supporting references, be placed on the Statements and sources page. You have included arguments (against Grandmaster's proposed statements) which should be presented in the upcoming debate. We haven't even started the debate yet, so please, let's not skip ahead. Please remove them (or use comment delimiters to hide them). I'm in the process of going over all the statements of fact now, to see if there are any that are not completely understandable. Please bear with me.
The Transhumanist
14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Transhumanist, the #1, 3, and 4 are sources to preclude GM's statement's of facts. I clearly separated my statements of facts, and intermediate facts supporting those statements of facts (you call them arguments). My Statements of facts are numbered. The intermediate facts are in parentheses. Quotes are in italics. If I remove the intermediate facts, you will be confused as to how each source supports the statements of facts. -- TigranTheGreat 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And I stated very clearly (in the intro to my sources) why I put #1, 3, and 4. If I just present the sources meant for those items, without the brief statement of preclusion, you will be confused as to the purpose of the sources.
Now, if you wish, you can modify the segment, but I still think what I posted was for maximum clarity. I can always go back to the history of edits if I need to.-- TigranTheGreat 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, since you only have one statement of fact presented, it is easier to start with that:
According to Strabo, both Caucasian Albania and Armenia had provinces with the name "Caspiane."
Why is this included? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what its purpose is here. Is it to help the reader be careful not to get the two provinces confused?
Was the other province also called Paytakaran? Are there any sources that you know of that mention whether it was or was not?
In the article, "Paytakaran" is presented as the Armenian province's main name. Was it the main name, or was the main name "Caspiane"? What was the Albanian province's main name?
"Paytakaran" was the Armenian province's main name. The Armenian sources mainly use that name. The Albanian province was never called Paytakaran, and there is no source that refers to Paytakaran as being part of Albania.
As for my statement of fact, I presented it because Strabo states that Albania has Caspiene, and that Armenia has Caspiene. -- TigranTheGreat 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to ascertain what each of you claim the article is supposed to be about. The article states that there were two (separate) Caspianes. Is that correct? Were the two Caspianes two separate provinces which each included different territory? If so, did those two provinces co-exist at the same time? Or were they the same province (with relatively the same territory) at two different points in time? And most importantly, if the two Caspianes did co-exist at the same time, were they both called "Paytakaran"? Please clarify. The Transhumanist 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Trans, the article doesnt' state that there were 2 Caspienes. It merely states that Strabo stated that both countries had provinces named Caspiene. But Paytakaran itself was only in Armenia. We can let the reader decide--either Strabo was wrong, or Caspiene's borders were blurry, while Paytakaran's were fixed and within Armenia.-- TigranTheGreat 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please finish the rewrite on the sources page. You posted it incomplete on my talk page and I copied it to the sources page for you to complete. You need to integrate all the material from your original section into it. Right now, having two versions is confusing. When we start the debate, we will be discussing only the final version of your submissions, whatever you want that to be. So please, edit the rewrite into the version you wish to be discussed. During the debate we'll be referring to specific statements and sources, so it is important that they are all organized well and numbered so we can refer to them easily. The Transhumanist
I hope the map I brought from "History of Armenian People" [14], book published in Yerevan, Armenia here [15], "bible" on Armenian History will help Eupator and TigranTheGreat understand where the exact location of Paytakaran city and region was. I also regret that, being of Armenian origin and probably aware of this well known book too, they did not refer to this map earlier to end the dispute. As you can see, Paytakaran is on exact location where Beylagan is today, not in the shores of the Caspian, near Salyan or Neftchala as you (Eupator and Tigran) claim [16]. I am sure this work is superior to other sources you brought, as both Yeremyan and Voskonyan, who worked on this map are considered to be ace of the subject. I suggest to keep Paytakaran, but in Beylagan page make reference to Paytakaran and mention that this is the old name of the city and larger region. References to the meaning of "Paytakaran" also needs to be changed in my opion. It is not in Armenian, but in Iranian (Pahlavi)and means the capital of Aran/Arran. "Paytakht", even in modern Iranic languages mean "capital". Indo-European roots need to be referred, if there is compromise. -- Ulvi I. 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is both province and the city and on exact location of modern Beylagan. Look at the map, enlarge it or look at the original book - do you see the spot/dot of Paytakaran city there, as the center of Paytakaran province? Beylagan, is newer and if you want corrupted version of Paytakaran. As Atropatakan became Azerbaijan throughout the centuries, Paytakaran became Beylagan, as simple as that. Beylagan/Paytakaran was/is not in the shores of the Caspian as you guys claim. That's why, the current article on Paytakaran should mention about Beylagan, show its current location according to millions of sources brought by GM, Dacy69, including the one I brough and the page/article on Beylagan should make a reference to Paytakaran, but this latter is another issue. Now after all these, do you know where Paytakaran is/was?
--
Ulvi I.
13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Both you and I are new to these discussions, but I think the only difference between you and me is that I have read through all discussions, but you have not had time to do the same yet, am I right? My mentioning of "millions of sources by Grandmaster" was about identifying the location of Paytakaran. I have looked at Tigran's sources, they are good, but quite contradicting to each other about the location of Paytakaran. There is also confusion or misunderstanding on sections/periods of history. As far as I remember, Caspiana included Paytakaran, when Paytakaran did not exist as such. Caspiana was also larger than Paytakaran and indeed reached the shores of the Caspian Sea. But when Paytakaran came into scene, Capiana as the name of the region was long gone.
--
Ulvi I.
11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
of Grandmasters proposed additions to the article will begin. At that time, all statements referring to sources will need to be accompanied by those sources, which can be placed in an evidence section on the statements and sources page.
What is that map of, exactly? That is, is it a modern map, or an historical one? And if it is historical, what period is it supposed to represent? Also, is there documentation (a title, anything) that specifies what period the map covers? The Transhumanist 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Ulvi I. 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do have some questions. Let me see if I have this straight:
I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Question 3 - Let Tigran argue with his own Historians. I think Armenian Historians are right in this issue and would not make such a big and shameful mistake. Question 4: Because that's where Paytakaran city was and is today as Beylagan, then center of Paytakaran province. Queston 5: the Book is in Russian, probably for a larger audience. Thus the map is also in Russian for the same purpose. Let's be realistic, how many historians in former USSR and West could read or understand modern Armenian? Question 6: Yes, they are actual Greek, Parthian, Urartian, Caucasian names of that period. Authors have even mentioned ancient, pre-"Greater Armenia", Urartian and probably Hittit names of, for example lakes Van, Sevan, Urmia and etc.-- Ulvi I. 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the acceptability of maps as sources, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policy (that I'm aware of) that states sources have to be printed in words. I'm fairly certain that graphical sources (pictures, films, maps, etc.) are not precluded by policy. It is a gray area, yes, but maps are a type of source, and can be cited, as far as I know. The sticky issue is that the reading of maps is commonly referred to as "interpretting the map", but if what the map shows is clear, then it probably shouldn't be construed as interpretation, but as simply reading the map. I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If the map is authentic, it's outdated. The book it refers to was published at teh latest in the 70's. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, published in 1986, clearly places P. below Kura. So does Hewsen (his map is provided in my list of sources.--
TigranTheGreat
19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, what do you mean by saying "if the map is authentic"? Do you want to question the authencity of the map I provided and think that I am doing nothing but forgery and change of "Armenian maps"? Also, what is this "late 70's" issue? The preface of the book is also provided - it is published in 1980 and I do not agree that small article in Encyclopedia by one author is stronger thant the book on the subject written and checked by 10 scholars, mere 6 years earlier. -- Ulvi I. 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but 1986 is still more recent than 1980. The Enyclopedia (which by the way was checked and written by 100+ authors) reflects the consensus of the official Armenian historiography. So, your map is outdated. -- TigranTheGreat 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the rewrite of your section of the page on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources complete? You stated that it was, but I need to make sure. If the rewrite is complete, then it is safe for me to remove the original from the page. Are you ready for that? When we start, you will have one presentation on the page. Right now you have two, with the rewrite slated as being the final submission. Does the final submission have everything in it that you want in it from your original submission? (The rewrite doesn't appear to be complete, such as missing statements of fact and sources that appear in the original submission). I suspect there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the word "rewrite". Synonyms here would be "new complete version" or "revision" or "new edition". Please let me know when your final version is ready, then I can begin analyzing each point for clarity. The Transhumanist 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1a - Your statement presents 4 forms of the province's/town's name. The source only presents 2: Iranian = BAYLAQAÚN and Armenian = P¿aytakaran. I don't see any sourcing for Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, Armenian: Փայտակարան, or Persian and Arabic: Baylaqan. Please explain this discrepancy.
1b) Did you mean to say it was "the province"? Shouln't it read "a province"? And by being part of the 3 political entities, that means it changed hands over time. Right? So perhaps it should say "was at various times". Like this: "also known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors, was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia. Paytakaran was also the name of the principal city within that province."
1c) this statement refers to "It". It doesn't differentiate between the province or the city. Shouldn't it say: "The province was located"...
Where was the city located? Shouldn't that be presented too?
1d) "is located in" should probably be "lies within". The former expression implies that the area moved rather than jurisdiction.
Where are the sources for 1d? Though the statement can remain if nobody objects to it.
1e) Seems straight forward. Though I have no way to access the source.
1f) Remove the first comma.
2a) Punctuation: Caspiane needs to be in italics or placed in quotes.
2b) ...same for "parcies".
3a) This statement of fact mentions the city. But what happened to the province? What did it get called?
3b) Change "it ruins" to "its ruins".
I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 08:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious, but maybe I was mistaken.
Labels and simplification
Be Grandmaster claim that Paytakaran was a town and a Province be accepted as a fact.
Testing the thesis that Beylaqan is a synonymous for the word Paytakaran
If A1=Paytakaran is the town; then is a must, B1=Beylaqan is the town If A2=Paytakaran is the province; then is a must, B2=Beylaqan is the province
Grandmaster accepts as statement of fact, A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are contained in A, while B1 and B2 are contained in B.
Is A1=B1? According to Grandmaster it is, he provides sources for that, I and Tigran have provided sources, claiming it is not. Starting from there, “the also called” being Beylaqan is not valid, since according to some it is and according to others it is not. The majority of sources support that it is not. So right from there, Beylaqan can not be used as a synonymous for the term Paytakaran.
The second point is;
Is B1=B2? According to everyone, including Grandmaster it is not, as Beylaqan has never been the name of the province, this term was coined when there was no province left.
A; which includes A1 and A2, could for those reasons not be equal to B; which includes B1 and B2.
The statement that A=B is then wrong.
In a more complex was, the conditional equality A=B is maintained while B=A is not.
Let me develop on that too.
Beylaqan is claimed to be a synonymous for the word Paytakaran
Be
A=Beylaqan B=Paytakaran
Lets test if always A=B and B=A
Let use Grandmaster statement of fact.
Is Beylaqan the town the same as Paytakaran, he says yes, so A=B Now, is Paytakaran the province Beylaqan the province, everyone admits no, the condition B=A is not true.
Grandmaster claims that a city called Paytakaran was replaced by another name called Beylaqan. First, two authorities on Paytakaran history question that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is situated, as even Armenians were calling the town Beylaqan (Arabic word) and not Paytakaran (which is an Armenian word). So that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is, is a matter of debate. And this Tigran has provided sufficient sources for that.
Suppose that indeed Beylaqan was built exactly in the place where a city by the name of Paytakaran was built. Still, the word Beylaqan was never used to call the province.
So, while according to Grandmaster A=B, which is Beylaqan a town was called Paytakaran, even Grandmaster admits that B does not equal A.
The majority of times, Paytakaran refers to the province, and the article is about the province called Paytakaran, so the majority of times Paytakaran is not Beylaqan, and given that the article is about the province, Paytakaran is not Beylaqan.
Sure, like Eupator said, there could indeed be a little mention in the article, that according to so some city of the same name existed which was by some called also Beylaqan, but even then, the Azeris term is not justified, as the word is Arabic and that during the period covered the Azeris language did even not exist.
I hope I have been more clear now, oh and sorry for the size of my reply. Fad (ix) 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In 1a, a number of names are given for Paytakaran. And since you are referring to two different entities named Paytakaran, please clarify which of the names you provided apply to the province, and which ones apply to the city. The Transhumanist 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And just as soon as the discrepancy in 1a is clarified. Then...
Assuming there are no objections, the basic procedure will be as follows...
First, I will archive all previous discussion, so the debate can start with a clean slate. Then the participants in the debate will discuss each statement of fact, one at a time, with each side presenting its position on whether it should or should not be added to the article, along with each side's arguments, and supporting evidence. I will continue to ask questions for clarification, and will do my best to keep things moving forward. Once it appears that all arguments have been presented, I'll ask for final comments from both sides before declaring that the debate move on to the next statement of fact to be considered.
Discussion will continue until all arguments and counterarguments of substance by each side are presented concerning each statement of fact. "Yes it is!" and "No it is not!" are not arguments of substance, for instance. We're looking for actual reasons, not unsubstantiated opinions. Another example of an unsubstantiated opinion is "I don't believe that statement should be included in the article." In that argument no reason is given. We need to know why each statement of fact should be included or excluded from the article.
Once all of the arguments have been presented from both sides, I will then place notices for feedback everywhere (appropriate) on Wikipedia I can think of, to bring here as many people as possible to interpret the arguments and evidence presented in the debate - if you are still in disagreement as to what should go in the article. These people will be asked to examine the debate, and will determine which position is the most sound. With wide enough participation, a fair and accurate consensus should be reached.
If no consensus is reached by the community, then the article will remain as it is.
Is this procedure acceptable to all of you?
Are there any questions, suggestions, or comments before we begin?
The Transhumanist 19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
(copied to here from AMA request page --TT)
The dispute is as to whether or not the ancient province Caspiane/Paytakaran was part of Caucasian Albania. Also, it is disputed that the city of Paytakaran, which was the centre of the province of the same name is the same city as Beylegan. Tigran, Eupator and Fadix claim that it never was a province of Albania. Moreover, they revert all of my edits, despite each of them being based on reliable sources. This is my version of the article, which was completely reverted: [1] Currently the page is protected because of edit wars. User:Fadix also denies that Caspiane is the same province as Paytakaran, despite there being a consensus with other editors that it is. Fadix acknowledges that he reverted my edits even without reading them, which in my opinion is a violation of Wikipedia policies.
The sources that I quoted support the fact that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania.
According to Strabo:
To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. [2]
Article from Encyclopedia Iranica about the tribe of Caspies. It says, inter alia:
Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn. [3]
Ancient Albanian historian Moses Kalankatuatsi (source is in Russian):
А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. [4]
After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians.
Fadix claims that Caspiane is not the same land as Paytakaran, despite its having its center in the same city of Paytakaran. I cited my sources to demonstrate that it is. For instance, according to professor Robert. H. Hewsen, it is the same land:
BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. [5]
I have more sources, which are available on the talk page of the article. I would really appreciate any assistance in resolving this dispute.
Grandmaster 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here we come, another disruptive behavior by Grandmaster. The description of the situation by Grandmaster above is simply not accurate, embelishing things and claiming things which I allegdly claim. Not everyone has the time time to waste as he does edit warring and POV pushing on every single articles involving his Azerbaijan in some misterious way. The Land of Kaspiane, has no delimitation, it is the land of the Kasps, the same way as some could say of the Land(aka the continent) of America, is the land of America, when claimed to be found by Americo Vespucci the United States of America? Yes? So what is Canada? Bresil etc. ? Grandmaster has a history of attaching claims on quote, which the author doesn't imply. Just like he attempted to claim there was no Armenian in Paytakaran, and forged a signification for a sentence which used the term alien. Grandmaster is also lying when he claims I even treated about the Abania, it is a total none-issue, as the term Paytakaran is used to refer to the province which borders were invented by Armenia, all his fighting is over this, as usual he want to dissolve an article and place the Albanians in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLES RELATING TO A HISTORIC CITY, PROVINCE, KINGDOM OF ARMENIA. To do this, he will also add some Azeris term in the lead. Grandmaster has no evidence that the term Paytakaran was ever used to refer to a city or a district, the city he is talking about was never called Paytakaran, the Armenian records should 'know best', as the term Paytakaran is Armenian and that there was a reason why that province was called that way. What best evidence there is than quoting the actual scholar who started the rumor that both were called the same way, claiming that he is not sure of this? The only reason why Grandmaster want to equal both terms is to justify his inclusion of the Azerbaijani term.
The quotes he provides have absolutly no value, as the article already mention Albania, indirectly without implicitly saying anything, which is good since such theories are all speculations, one of those speculations Grandmaster is attempting to present as Truth when it is specified on the NPOV policy that this is a not to do. The current article has one mistake, which I have already reported, that Caspiane equals to Paytakaran, Grandmaster is using this mistake to introduce ittelevencies in this article. Fad (ix) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have to tell you that I can't stand impersonal messages. Wouldn't it hurt to do a little research on the involved parties before copy pasting messages? I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost two years longer than you and have even written a featured article during that time, i'm quite familiar with all the rules and policies which I often familiarize others with. Why do you AMA guys always assume that the complaining party is sitting on a horse wih high heels boggles the mind. Please do your research before proceeding. The least you can do is read the entire talk page of the article.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Aha, that is of what you were refering to. Grandmaster is not saying the truth there, you should read the talk page before placing such stuff on my talkpage. Paytakaran refers to an Armenian province, much like Constantinople was Greek, Constantinople does not equal Istanbul. Grandmaster prejudicial view of the Armenians, will make him place every irrelevencies he could in encient Armenian towns and cities. He even wanted the incorporation of some Azeris term in the lead for a historic place which existed before the Azeris language even existed. Fad (ix) 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No, most of my blocks were done by the same administrator; I had received emails by two other administrators telling that the block was unjustifiable. You were the reason of the longest block, for the exact same attacks which you have directed against me. The other block was as an answer to someone who calls Wikipedia a mad house and call articles trash, the person having imposed the block imposed it after I have reported to him (the same administrator who placed the block which another administrator openly said he sees no blocking material there and two others privately) my own incivility. I have never been blocked for article disruption; I maintain the 2RR and even 1RR most of the time. From all of my blocks, only two were justifiable, one of those the one on which I have reported myself, the other was meant to cool me down after I had been angered that nothing was done against a racist disruptor. It is funny that you bring my blocks, when you very much know that incivility is the only argument you can bring, when I have never ever been blocked for disruption, for 3RR or anything regarding article content, and that the block which followed your report of my incivility was answered from my part documenting incivilities you directed against me which were worster. Fad (ix) 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the dispute is being discussed, so I will just post here. GM's source Hewsen states that Paytakaran was on Arax's right bank. Baylaqan was on its left bank. This alone shows that they are not the same city.
Iranica merely states there was a city Baylaqan built in 6th c ad, and it was also called Paytakaran. It does not say that the city was the same Paytakaran that was the capital of the province. The capital Paytakaran had been around before 6th c, so yet another proof that it cant be the same city.-- TigranTheGreat 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sir, Strabo states that both Albania and Armenia had regions named Caspiene, which means that caspiene was larger in area than Paytakaran. Iranica further states that Strabo puts the borders of both countries along Kura. P. was south of Kura. Clearly, Strabo puts P in Armenia.
By the way, what is AMA? American Manhood Augmentation? Thanks.-- TigranTheGreat 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Gm, I want to end the Baylaqan issue once and for all. Be honest now! You have been claiming all this time that Beylagan is the same as the city of Paytakaran in the province of Paytakaran. Don't deny this you said this at least a dozen times in the last few day alone, justifying the use of Azeri name and a whole bunch of other nonsense. Here's Hewsen's map of Armenia in the fourth century showing the city of Paytakaran: [8]. Do you see where it is? I'm not saying you were doing this in purpose or anything no, just admit that you were wrong and in turn we can move on with potential concessions.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Caspiene is not Paytakaran. Even GM's article on Casps makes this clear:
CASPIANS (Gk. Ka‚spioi), name of an ancient people dwelling along the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, whether north or south of the river Kura is not clear.
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f1/v5f1a019.html
So, Caspians could very well be living north of Kura (as Strabo makes it clear). P. was south of Kura. P was called Caspiene, but doesn't mean all of Caspiene was P. Strabo states that the Armenian Caspiene (i.e. Paytakaran) was populated by Armenians, while Albanian caspiene (north of Kura) was populated by Kasps. Obviously, Kasps lived north of Kura, their land and the surrounding area was named Kaspiene, while Armenians lived south of Kura, and their part of Kaspiene was called both Kaspiene and Paytakaran. -- TigranTheGreat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Euro's map makes it very clear that B is not P. The modern juncture of Arax and Kura is clearly shown on the map--it's way far from the city of P. the river on which the city P. is located is not the main course of Arax, and it's clear from the map.
Also, neither Bosworth or the other Iranica source state that Paytakaran and Baylaqan are the same. They merely say that Baylaqan was called Paytakaran. That's not the same. There could be 2 Paytakarans.
As for Hewsen equating Kaspiene and Paytakaran, he does no such thing. The ending letters of a label do not mean the border of a province. The label merely shows the approximate general area called Kaspiene.-- TigranTheGreat 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I was just informed that AMA stands for Member's Advocates. So, Sir here is GM's advocate--i.e. his representative. Clearly he is going to take GM's side. So, what are we doing here?-- TigranTheGreat 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
James, an AMA advocate, has contacted me, out of the blue, to help. I don't know him, and I don't know any of you. And I can assure you, I don't know much of anything about the topic being discussed. But I'm here to help, if I can.
Grandmaster, please rewrite the statements of fact at Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources to exactly the way you wish them to appear in the article. In their current form they are either unpolished or unclear. Let's get everything set up correctly before we resume discussions, to prevent confusion. For example, in item...
1) the use of "/" is bad form. The sentence also appears to be two statements of fact in one. If there is any disagreement amongst the participants of the discussion above that the province was named both Caspiane and Paytakaran, then that needs to be covered in another statement of fact (preferably preceding this one).
2) speaks in the present tense. Also, no dates or time frame is given.
3) "Population of Paytakaran" isn't a statement at all. Please complete it.
4) "Islamic times" is vague, as the reader may not know what time period that refers to, or what you mean by it. I don't. The religion Islam is very much alive today, so we are living in Islamic times now. Please rephrase statement #4 to get your idea across clearly. Also, "/" is bad grammatical form. Maybe parentheses would work better.
Once everything is set up clearly, and exactly the way you want it to appear in the article, then we can begin discussing the accuracy or appropriateness of each statement based upon its sources. Setting things up clearly now will hopefully prevent confusion in subsequent discussion. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I've posted to the statements subpage the rewrite you posted on my talk page. I split each paragraph up and numbered each sentence to make them easier to refer to.
I haven't included all of the references from your original posting at the top of that page, as I thought you would be better qualified to organize those within the rewrite. Would you do that please?
Also, several sentences have no references. Could you add them?
I've reworded a little. If you wish to change my rewording of anything, please do so. Once everything is set up in such a way that is completely clear, then debate on each point can begin without confusion. That's why I've numbered each sentence - to make it easier for participants in the upcoming discussion to refer to and access.
In the upcoming discussion, I intend to remain neutral, and will try to help things move along more smoothly. Such as focusing on one statement of fact at a time, suggesting when to move on to the next statement, and asking questions to clarify what is being communicated.
The Transhumanist 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make a short comment on Tigran’s sources. What he does is called original research, which is against the wiki rules. He claims that there were two different Caspianes, however he cites no sources that explicitly say so, instead he provides his own interpretation of various sources and draws his own conclusions, which is not allowed here. We only report what reliable sources say, and none of them says that there was more than one Caspiane in the region. Same with his claim that Paytakaran was not the same as Caspiane, I cited a source that says that it was, and he cited none saying that it was not. He only provides personal interpretations of sources, which is, as I said above, an original research. Every statement that I propose to include in the article is based on reliable sources, as required by the wiki rules. Grandmaster 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Transhumanist, Grandmaster description of this situation is not accurate.
Tigran did not affirmatively say that there was two Caspianes. Grandmaster takes the land of the Kasps as a clearly defined land, with official borders. While sources place the said Caspiane both in Armenia and in the land of Albanians. Sources also provide different borders, which too Tigran has documented. Something can not be at two different places, can it? This was the point Tigran was making, he said that the only conclusion is that they are not the same Caspiane. The Armenian Caspiane was not located at the same place, thosefor could not be the same Caspiane; and Tigran has provided sufficient evidence to support that. Nowhere has Tigran presented original research.
Indeed there is a mistake in the current version since it equal Caspiane with the more modern Armenian province called Paytakaran. A mistake I myself admitted, Grandmaster has used this mistake, to extend it and infiltrate in an Armenian province article some irrelevancies. First, Grandmaster included some modern Azeris term of some Azeris town in the lead as the Azeris term for this Armenian province. When, the town has nothing to do with the province, and that the Azerbaijani language did even not exist when Paytakaran was a province, neither was there any Azerbaijanis living there at the time. He did this because the Armenian name was in the lead. But there is an etymologic reason for this. The English term Paytakaran is recognized etiologically as an Armenian word, it derives from an Armenian name for that province, and the name is on the lead. It is relevant to include it, according to name conventions for geographic places. It is relevant for readers to know the etymology of the word. Besides, the Azeris term there isn’t even original etymology of its own pronunciation; it is the retranscription in modern Azeris alphabet of an Arabic word for a town, while the article is about a province. Here I provide one example, the rest of Grandmaster requests are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with Paytakaran. It is like Grandmaster has a problem with the article simply because it relate to an Armenian province, which covered regions now in the republic of Azerbaijan and as if this will question the legitimacy of that republic. I don’t get how, this article was meant to be an apolitical article about a historic Armenian province. I don’t believe it is that hard to understand. Is it? Fad (ix) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, when you didn't follow the suggested instructions for the statements/sources page, it didn't dawn on me exactly what was happening. By posting countersources, you were going right into argument/debate mode, and sucked everybody back into it, including me! But we're just not ready to do that yet. Let's get the statements of fact that are to be submitted to the debate ready, and then we can begin the actual debate. Grandmaster's statements and sources are all split up between two versions, for instance, and that will only add to the confusion. So please let's wait until he is actually ready to start. Thank you. The Transhumanist 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me look over the sources page, to see if the points are clear or not. Once they are made clear, then we can start discussing one point at a time rather than have this discussion devolve into chaos like it did before. I've read the arguments from your previous discussions, and they are almost impossible to follow. So bear with me please, and let's keep this organized and civil. I will not be voting or arguing for one side or the other. I'm just here to help things run smoothly, point out confusing or unclear text, ask questions, etc. The Transhumanist 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like #2 on your statements list is the only statement of fact presented there. The rest are all counter arguments.
I requested that only statements of fact which are intended to be included in the article, and their supporting references, be placed on the Statements and sources page. You have included arguments (against Grandmaster's proposed statements) which should be presented in the upcoming debate. We haven't even started the debate yet, so please, let's not skip ahead. Please remove them (or use comment delimiters to hide them). I'm in the process of going over all the statements of fact now, to see if there are any that are not completely understandable. Please bear with me.
The Transhumanist
14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Transhumanist, the #1, 3, and 4 are sources to preclude GM's statement's of facts. I clearly separated my statements of facts, and intermediate facts supporting those statements of facts (you call them arguments). My Statements of facts are numbered. The intermediate facts are in parentheses. Quotes are in italics. If I remove the intermediate facts, you will be confused as to how each source supports the statements of facts. -- TigranTheGreat 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And I stated very clearly (in the intro to my sources) why I put #1, 3, and 4. If I just present the sources meant for those items, without the brief statement of preclusion, you will be confused as to the purpose of the sources.
Now, if you wish, you can modify the segment, but I still think what I posted was for maximum clarity. I can always go back to the history of edits if I need to.-- TigranTheGreat 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, since you only have one statement of fact presented, it is easier to start with that:
According to Strabo, both Caucasian Albania and Armenia had provinces with the name "Caspiane."
Why is this included? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what its purpose is here. Is it to help the reader be careful not to get the two provinces confused?
Was the other province also called Paytakaran? Are there any sources that you know of that mention whether it was or was not?
In the article, "Paytakaran" is presented as the Armenian province's main name. Was it the main name, or was the main name "Caspiane"? What was the Albanian province's main name?
"Paytakaran" was the Armenian province's main name. The Armenian sources mainly use that name. The Albanian province was never called Paytakaran, and there is no source that refers to Paytakaran as being part of Albania.
As for my statement of fact, I presented it because Strabo states that Albania has Caspiene, and that Armenia has Caspiene. -- TigranTheGreat 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to ascertain what each of you claim the article is supposed to be about. The article states that there were two (separate) Caspianes. Is that correct? Were the two Caspianes two separate provinces which each included different territory? If so, did those two provinces co-exist at the same time? Or were they the same province (with relatively the same territory) at two different points in time? And most importantly, if the two Caspianes did co-exist at the same time, were they both called "Paytakaran"? Please clarify. The Transhumanist 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Trans, the article doesnt' state that there were 2 Caspienes. It merely states that Strabo stated that both countries had provinces named Caspiene. But Paytakaran itself was only in Armenia. We can let the reader decide--either Strabo was wrong, or Caspiene's borders were blurry, while Paytakaran's were fixed and within Armenia.-- TigranTheGreat 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please finish the rewrite on the sources page. You posted it incomplete on my talk page and I copied it to the sources page for you to complete. You need to integrate all the material from your original section into it. Right now, having two versions is confusing. When we start the debate, we will be discussing only the final version of your submissions, whatever you want that to be. So please, edit the rewrite into the version you wish to be discussed. During the debate we'll be referring to specific statements and sources, so it is important that they are all organized well and numbered so we can refer to them easily. The Transhumanist
I hope the map I brought from "History of Armenian People" [14], book published in Yerevan, Armenia here [15], "bible" on Armenian History will help Eupator and TigranTheGreat understand where the exact location of Paytakaran city and region was. I also regret that, being of Armenian origin and probably aware of this well known book too, they did not refer to this map earlier to end the dispute. As you can see, Paytakaran is on exact location where Beylagan is today, not in the shores of the Caspian, near Salyan or Neftchala as you (Eupator and Tigran) claim [16]. I am sure this work is superior to other sources you brought, as both Yeremyan and Voskonyan, who worked on this map are considered to be ace of the subject. I suggest to keep Paytakaran, but in Beylagan page make reference to Paytakaran and mention that this is the old name of the city and larger region. References to the meaning of "Paytakaran" also needs to be changed in my opion. It is not in Armenian, but in Iranian (Pahlavi)and means the capital of Aran/Arran. "Paytakht", even in modern Iranic languages mean "capital". Indo-European roots need to be referred, if there is compromise. -- Ulvi I. 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is both province and the city and on exact location of modern Beylagan. Look at the map, enlarge it or look at the original book - do you see the spot/dot of Paytakaran city there, as the center of Paytakaran province? Beylagan, is newer and if you want corrupted version of Paytakaran. As Atropatakan became Azerbaijan throughout the centuries, Paytakaran became Beylagan, as simple as that. Beylagan/Paytakaran was/is not in the shores of the Caspian as you guys claim. That's why, the current article on Paytakaran should mention about Beylagan, show its current location according to millions of sources brought by GM, Dacy69, including the one I brough and the page/article on Beylagan should make a reference to Paytakaran, but this latter is another issue. Now after all these, do you know where Paytakaran is/was?
--
Ulvi I.
13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Both you and I are new to these discussions, but I think the only difference between you and me is that I have read through all discussions, but you have not had time to do the same yet, am I right? My mentioning of "millions of sources by Grandmaster" was about identifying the location of Paytakaran. I have looked at Tigran's sources, they are good, but quite contradicting to each other about the location of Paytakaran. There is also confusion or misunderstanding on sections/periods of history. As far as I remember, Caspiana included Paytakaran, when Paytakaran did not exist as such. Caspiana was also larger than Paytakaran and indeed reached the shores of the Caspian Sea. But when Paytakaran came into scene, Capiana as the name of the region was long gone.
--
Ulvi I.
11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
of Grandmasters proposed additions to the article will begin. At that time, all statements referring to sources will need to be accompanied by those sources, which can be placed in an evidence section on the statements and sources page.
What is that map of, exactly? That is, is it a modern map, or an historical one? And if it is historical, what period is it supposed to represent? Also, is there documentation (a title, anything) that specifies what period the map covers? The Transhumanist 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Ulvi I. 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do have some questions. Let me see if I have this straight:
I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Question 3 - Let Tigran argue with his own Historians. I think Armenian Historians are right in this issue and would not make such a big and shameful mistake. Question 4: Because that's where Paytakaran city was and is today as Beylagan, then center of Paytakaran province. Queston 5: the Book is in Russian, probably for a larger audience. Thus the map is also in Russian for the same purpose. Let's be realistic, how many historians in former USSR and West could read or understand modern Armenian? Question 6: Yes, they are actual Greek, Parthian, Urartian, Caucasian names of that period. Authors have even mentioned ancient, pre-"Greater Armenia", Urartian and probably Hittit names of, for example lakes Van, Sevan, Urmia and etc.-- Ulvi I. 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the acceptability of maps as sources, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policy (that I'm aware of) that states sources have to be printed in words. I'm fairly certain that graphical sources (pictures, films, maps, etc.) are not precluded by policy. It is a gray area, yes, but maps are a type of source, and can be cited, as far as I know. The sticky issue is that the reading of maps is commonly referred to as "interpretting the map", but if what the map shows is clear, then it probably shouldn't be construed as interpretation, but as simply reading the map. I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If the map is authentic, it's outdated. The book it refers to was published at teh latest in the 70's. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, published in 1986, clearly places P. below Kura. So does Hewsen (his map is provided in my list of sources.--
TigranTheGreat
19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Tigran, what do you mean by saying "if the map is authentic"? Do you want to question the authencity of the map I provided and think that I am doing nothing but forgery and change of "Armenian maps"? Also, what is this "late 70's" issue? The preface of the book is also provided - it is published in 1980 and I do not agree that small article in Encyclopedia by one author is stronger thant the book on the subject written and checked by 10 scholars, mere 6 years earlier. -- Ulvi I. 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but 1986 is still more recent than 1980. The Enyclopedia (which by the way was checked and written by 100+ authors) reflects the consensus of the official Armenian historiography. So, your map is outdated. -- TigranTheGreat 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the rewrite of your section of the page on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources complete? You stated that it was, but I need to make sure. If the rewrite is complete, then it is safe for me to remove the original from the page. Are you ready for that? When we start, you will have one presentation on the page. Right now you have two, with the rewrite slated as being the final submission. Does the final submission have everything in it that you want in it from your original submission? (The rewrite doesn't appear to be complete, such as missing statements of fact and sources that appear in the original submission). I suspect there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the word "rewrite". Synonyms here would be "new complete version" or "revision" or "new edition". Please let me know when your final version is ready, then I can begin analyzing each point for clarity. The Transhumanist 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1a - Your statement presents 4 forms of the province's/town's name. The source only presents 2: Iranian = BAYLAQAÚN and Armenian = P¿aytakaran. I don't see any sourcing for Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, Armenian: Փայտակարան, or Persian and Arabic: Baylaqan. Please explain this discrepancy.
1b) Did you mean to say it was "the province"? Shouln't it read "a province"? And by being part of the 3 political entities, that means it changed hands over time. Right? So perhaps it should say "was at various times". Like this: "also known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors, was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia. Paytakaran was also the name of the principal city within that province."
1c) this statement refers to "It". It doesn't differentiate between the province or the city. Shouldn't it say: "The province was located"...
Where was the city located? Shouldn't that be presented too?
1d) "is located in" should probably be "lies within". The former expression implies that the area moved rather than jurisdiction.
Where are the sources for 1d? Though the statement can remain if nobody objects to it.
1e) Seems straight forward. Though I have no way to access the source.
1f) Remove the first comma.
2a) Punctuation: Caspiane needs to be in italics or placed in quotes.
2b) ...same for "parcies".
3a) This statement of fact mentions the city. But what happened to the province? What did it get called?
3b) Change "it ruins" to "its ruins".
I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 08:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious, but maybe I was mistaken.
Labels and simplification
Be Grandmaster claim that Paytakaran was a town and a Province be accepted as a fact.
Testing the thesis that Beylaqan is a synonymous for the word Paytakaran
If A1=Paytakaran is the town; then is a must, B1=Beylaqan is the town If A2=Paytakaran is the province; then is a must, B2=Beylaqan is the province
Grandmaster accepts as statement of fact, A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are contained in A, while B1 and B2 are contained in B.
Is A1=B1? According to Grandmaster it is, he provides sources for that, I and Tigran have provided sources, claiming it is not. Starting from there, “the also called” being Beylaqan is not valid, since according to some it is and according to others it is not. The majority of sources support that it is not. So right from there, Beylaqan can not be used as a synonymous for the term Paytakaran.
The second point is;
Is B1=B2? According to everyone, including Grandmaster it is not, as Beylaqan has never been the name of the province, this term was coined when there was no province left.
A; which includes A1 and A2, could for those reasons not be equal to B; which includes B1 and B2.
The statement that A=B is then wrong.
In a more complex was, the conditional equality A=B is maintained while B=A is not.
Let me develop on that too.
Beylaqan is claimed to be a synonymous for the word Paytakaran
Be
A=Beylaqan B=Paytakaran
Lets test if always A=B and B=A
Let use Grandmaster statement of fact.
Is Beylaqan the town the same as Paytakaran, he says yes, so A=B Now, is Paytakaran the province Beylaqan the province, everyone admits no, the condition B=A is not true.
Grandmaster claims that a city called Paytakaran was replaced by another name called Beylaqan. First, two authorities on Paytakaran history question that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is situated, as even Armenians were calling the town Beylaqan (Arabic word) and not Paytakaran (which is an Armenian word). So that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is, is a matter of debate. And this Tigran has provided sufficient sources for that.
Suppose that indeed Beylaqan was built exactly in the place where a city by the name of Paytakaran was built. Still, the word Beylaqan was never used to call the province.
So, while according to Grandmaster A=B, which is Beylaqan a town was called Paytakaran, even Grandmaster admits that B does not equal A.
The majority of times, Paytakaran refers to the province, and the article is about the province called Paytakaran, so the majority of times Paytakaran is not Beylaqan, and given that the article is about the province, Paytakaran is not Beylaqan.
Sure, like Eupator said, there could indeed be a little mention in the article, that according to so some city of the same name existed which was by some called also Beylaqan, but even then, the Azeris term is not justified, as the word is Arabic and that during the period covered the Azeris language did even not exist.
I hope I have been more clear now, oh and sorry for the size of my reply. Fad (ix) 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In 1a, a number of names are given for Paytakaran. And since you are referring to two different entities named Paytakaran, please clarify which of the names you provided apply to the province, and which ones apply to the city. The Transhumanist 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And just as soon as the discrepancy in 1a is clarified. Then...
Assuming there are no objections, the basic procedure will be as follows...
First, I will archive all previous discussion, so the debate can start with a clean slate. Then the participants in the debate will discuss each statement of fact, one at a time, with each side presenting its position on whether it should or should not be added to the article, along with each side's arguments, and supporting evidence. I will continue to ask questions for clarification, and will do my best to keep things moving forward. Once it appears that all arguments have been presented, I'll ask for final comments from both sides before declaring that the debate move on to the next statement of fact to be considered.
Discussion will continue until all arguments and counterarguments of substance by each side are presented concerning each statement of fact. "Yes it is!" and "No it is not!" are not arguments of substance, for instance. We're looking for actual reasons, not unsubstantiated opinions. Another example of an unsubstantiated opinion is "I don't believe that statement should be included in the article." In that argument no reason is given. We need to know why each statement of fact should be included or excluded from the article.
Once all of the arguments have been presented from both sides, I will then place notices for feedback everywhere (appropriate) on Wikipedia I can think of, to bring here as many people as possible to interpret the arguments and evidence presented in the debate - if you are still in disagreement as to what should go in the article. These people will be asked to examine the debate, and will determine which position is the most sound. With wide enough participation, a fair and accurate consensus should be reached.
If no consensus is reached by the community, then the article will remain as it is.
Is this procedure acceptable to all of you?
Are there any questions, suggestions, or comments before we begin?
The Transhumanist 19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)