![]() | 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 |
Someone has suggested splitting the article up. Please discuss that issue here... The Transhumanist 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article should remain in the state achieved by the mediator through very hard work, any attempts to hijack it are clearly disruptive. Per: [1].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, conflict was not resolved, mdiator took a break. and later discussion was continued. Moreover, Grandmaster supplied refrences which should stay.-- Dacy69 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it seems Grandmaster killed the mediation, and the whole thing got to a dead end. Grandmaster's references are nothing new, they were discussed in the mediation, and we supplied our referneces. Transhumanists's version was a compromise between the two, and it should remain. I have no idea why Grandmaster deleted enormous amoung of sourced referneces, particularly from Strabo, which is against the rules. Most notably, we provided references (from Hewsen etc) that BAylaqan and Paytakaran lay on difference sides of the river Arax, so they can't be the same.-- TigranTheGreat 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Here’s another source for you, it shows that the province of Paytakaran existed in the 7th century, after Armenia stopped existing as an independent state in 387:
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468.
Do you still insist that Paytakaran was only the province of Armenia? Grandmaster 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder - VartanM makes rv, he never participated in discussion. This is another Euaptor meatpuppet.-- Dacy69 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran,this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
Thanks for the insult Grandmaster, is this the warm welcome you give to all the new editors in articles you had been "contributing"? VartanM 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have new source and maps on Armenia and Albania, Azerbaijan, that I noticed at Armenian Sacra exposition at Louvre, Paris. I was lucky to catch this exebition before it ended on May 21, yesterday. I will post some of the maps online here, but the book is also avialable separately [2]. Thankfully, Louvre personnel allowed me to take the photos of the maps, unlike exponats. By the way, very good and historically not biased expo. Please stop edit warring, until we finish the discussion. -- Ulvi I. 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please refrain from accusations?
I for one do not believe that anyone here is a meat puppet. I would appreciate if you would all assume good faith. Nobody owns the article, and nobody is assuming ownership of the article. What we have here is a lot of editors who are concerned with the quality of the article and its references, and that's a good thing.
What I've witnessed is a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the references and what facts they do and do not support. You simply disagree on the acceptibility of certain references. No amount of discussion seems to get either side to budge.
I've found it frustrating to be a mediator, because I'm pledged to remain neutral. I don't know how I got talked into this. I would like nothing more than to dive in and support one side or the other on each of the various points. But I can't.
What I can do, is put everything else on hold and see if we can find a means to decide between your diametrically opposed positions.
Neither side has been willing to concede, and this conflict has been going on for months.
Both sides have presented its case.
It is time to let the community decide.
What this debate needs is more participants.
I'll see what I can do.
In the meantime, please get prepared to explain your sides to the newcomers who will be showing up here.
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the Paytakaran talk page, and thank you for coming here to help us resolve some issues we've been stuck on for months. I'm a mediator, so I won't be taking sides. I will however be making suggestions on how to proceed and try to get everyone to behave as mature human beings. No mudslinging please.
There are two issues being debated here...
One side believes that it is the name of a province of the now non-existent kingdom of Greater Armenia, and that to apply the name to the same region at a different time when it was part of other political entities (empires, etc.), would be a mistake, since those would not constitute the same province. They'd be provinces of other countries at other times, with their own names. Like Constantinople is to Istanbul. This side also believes that to list all the synonyms for the region throughout history on the first line of the article represents those synonyms ambiguously, and that because of this readers may mistakenly use them to refer to the region during the wrong period - that is, the province known as Paytakaran was Paytakaran at a particular time in history and no other - which holds for the other names as well, each representing the name of a region, not necessarily with the same precise boundaries, at a different time.
The other side believes that a region is a region is a region. Like North America. And to present its history in one article is entirely appropriate, regardless of what it was called throughout the ages. This side believes that to split the article up into seperate articles, one for each name the region had over time, is ludicrous, because it will give us a bunch of small articles about the same place on Earth.
What do you think?
One side believes there isn't enough information to verify the location of the city.
The other side believes it was in a particular location.
Please correct me if I've misremembered this issue, as it's been awhile since I've read through the myriad of discussions here.
Each side of the debate should present its position on this issue, replacing my descriptions above.
And if I've forgotten an issue, please jog my memory. Thank you.
Let the games begin!
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I'll review the discussions and will improve the descriptions of the disputes here as I find the time. At the moment, I'm listing this page on RfC, and everywhere else appropriate I can think of. Suggestions are welcome.
I have always abstained from editing any azerbaijan-armenia related pages, because I thought i could be biased, despite i was in the arbitration, but i have rarely contributed to such articles. but what happens in this page is not just an editing, but remove of sourced infos and balanced versions, and pov-pushing, so i think this is one of the first time, and i hope last, when i intervened. i restored the balanced version wich was deleted before without explanation. arbcom has assigned some users to explain their edits at talk pages but this does not mean that other users can remove sourced infos and balanced versions without any discussions. i will seek a third party to monitor this page, because it is useless if one side in any dispute remains deaf, this wont help to find a resolution. Ateshi - Baghavan 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement over the definition of the word Paytakaran (as it is applied in the first sentence). One side wants it defined as a particular province of a particular kingdom. The other side wants it to stand for the region throughout its entire history. The problem with the first treatment is that this article is intended by some editors to be about the region throughout its entire history, and to leave the various names out of the lead defeats that purpose by not giving them equal weight. The problem with the second treatment is that it implies that the region was called "Paytakaran" while it was part of Medes and Caucasion Albania, and this could lead readers to make errors in perception causing them to misunderstand the subject. It also makes the title erroneous, for if the article is about all the political entities that piece of land was over time, then the article would be about more than just Paytakaran - it would also be about Caspiane, which isn't indicated in the article's title.
One possible solution was to create a seperate article for each political entity by which the region was known (just as Constantinople and Istanbul are about the same place at different times), but that idea was rejected because the resulting articles would be too small.
So what is needed here are some new suggestions.
What about renaming the article to include all its names?
Please make further suggestions on how to solve this problem.
All ideas are welcome.
The Transhumanist 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no excuse for removing sourced info which continues. Balanced version should include all relaible information.-- Dacy69 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now lets take a look at the whole quote.
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
The quote isn't saying that Paytakaran exicted, it only says that Armenians knew the region as Paytakaran. VartanM 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To help work out what to do, could we compile a list of terms with rough guides as to what they refer to, and how strong the data is to support each. John Vandenberg 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please clarify:
The current version which some people claim to be "mediated" is very unbalanced and includes false information, like silly claim about 2 Caspianes. It never had any consensus. Also, even if we split the article to Caspiane and Paytakaran, the article about Paytakaran would still need to say that the region was part of other states under that name. Please see above the quote from Dowsett that I provided. I suggest to move it to a double title Caspiane/Paytakaran, that would end the dispute. Grandmaster 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Grandmaster for the suggestion of the double title. Now we need to find out if both sides can agree on this. Note that links to Caspiane could lead specifically to the section of the article on Caspiane, and links to Paytakaran could lead specifically to the section of the article on Paytakaran, using a pipe to specify one or the other.
Feedback on the double title idea is needed.
The Transhumanist 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Present some examples if you know of any.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 01:02, 5 June 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 |
Someone has suggested splitting the article up. Please discuss that issue here... The Transhumanist 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article should remain in the state achieved by the mediator through very hard work, any attempts to hijack it are clearly disruptive. Per: [1].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, conflict was not resolved, mdiator took a break. and later discussion was continued. Moreover, Grandmaster supplied refrences which should stay.-- Dacy69 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it seems Grandmaster killed the mediation, and the whole thing got to a dead end. Grandmaster's references are nothing new, they were discussed in the mediation, and we supplied our referneces. Transhumanists's version was a compromise between the two, and it should remain. I have no idea why Grandmaster deleted enormous amoung of sourced referneces, particularly from Strabo, which is against the rules. Most notably, we provided references (from Hewsen etc) that BAylaqan and Paytakaran lay on difference sides of the river Arax, so they can't be the same.-- TigranTheGreat 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Here’s another source for you, it shows that the province of Paytakaran existed in the 7th century, after Armenia stopped existing as an independent state in 387:
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468.
Do you still insist that Paytakaran was only the province of Armenia? Grandmaster 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder - VartanM makes rv, he never participated in discussion. This is another Euaptor meatpuppet.-- Dacy69 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran,this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
Thanks for the insult Grandmaster, is this the warm welcome you give to all the new editors in articles you had been "contributing"? VartanM 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have new source and maps on Armenia and Albania, Azerbaijan, that I noticed at Armenian Sacra exposition at Louvre, Paris. I was lucky to catch this exebition before it ended on May 21, yesterday. I will post some of the maps online here, but the book is also avialable separately [2]. Thankfully, Louvre personnel allowed me to take the photos of the maps, unlike exponats. By the way, very good and historically not biased expo. Please stop edit warring, until we finish the discussion. -- Ulvi I. 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please refrain from accusations?
I for one do not believe that anyone here is a meat puppet. I would appreciate if you would all assume good faith. Nobody owns the article, and nobody is assuming ownership of the article. What we have here is a lot of editors who are concerned with the quality of the article and its references, and that's a good thing.
What I've witnessed is a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the references and what facts they do and do not support. You simply disagree on the acceptibility of certain references. No amount of discussion seems to get either side to budge.
I've found it frustrating to be a mediator, because I'm pledged to remain neutral. I don't know how I got talked into this. I would like nothing more than to dive in and support one side or the other on each of the various points. But I can't.
What I can do, is put everything else on hold and see if we can find a means to decide between your diametrically opposed positions.
Neither side has been willing to concede, and this conflict has been going on for months.
Both sides have presented its case.
It is time to let the community decide.
What this debate needs is more participants.
I'll see what I can do.
In the meantime, please get prepared to explain your sides to the newcomers who will be showing up here.
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the Paytakaran talk page, and thank you for coming here to help us resolve some issues we've been stuck on for months. I'm a mediator, so I won't be taking sides. I will however be making suggestions on how to proceed and try to get everyone to behave as mature human beings. No mudslinging please.
There are two issues being debated here...
One side believes that it is the name of a province of the now non-existent kingdom of Greater Armenia, and that to apply the name to the same region at a different time when it was part of other political entities (empires, etc.), would be a mistake, since those would not constitute the same province. They'd be provinces of other countries at other times, with their own names. Like Constantinople is to Istanbul. This side also believes that to list all the synonyms for the region throughout history on the first line of the article represents those synonyms ambiguously, and that because of this readers may mistakenly use them to refer to the region during the wrong period - that is, the province known as Paytakaran was Paytakaran at a particular time in history and no other - which holds for the other names as well, each representing the name of a region, not necessarily with the same precise boundaries, at a different time.
The other side believes that a region is a region is a region. Like North America. And to present its history in one article is entirely appropriate, regardless of what it was called throughout the ages. This side believes that to split the article up into seperate articles, one for each name the region had over time, is ludicrous, because it will give us a bunch of small articles about the same place on Earth.
What do you think?
One side believes there isn't enough information to verify the location of the city.
The other side believes it was in a particular location.
Please correct me if I've misremembered this issue, as it's been awhile since I've read through the myriad of discussions here.
Each side of the debate should present its position on this issue, replacing my descriptions above.
And if I've forgotten an issue, please jog my memory. Thank you.
Let the games begin!
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I'll review the discussions and will improve the descriptions of the disputes here as I find the time. At the moment, I'm listing this page on RfC, and everywhere else appropriate I can think of. Suggestions are welcome.
I have always abstained from editing any azerbaijan-armenia related pages, because I thought i could be biased, despite i was in the arbitration, but i have rarely contributed to such articles. but what happens in this page is not just an editing, but remove of sourced infos and balanced versions, and pov-pushing, so i think this is one of the first time, and i hope last, when i intervened. i restored the balanced version wich was deleted before without explanation. arbcom has assigned some users to explain their edits at talk pages but this does not mean that other users can remove sourced infos and balanced versions without any discussions. i will seek a third party to monitor this page, because it is useless if one side in any dispute remains deaf, this wont help to find a resolution. Ateshi - Baghavan 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement over the definition of the word Paytakaran (as it is applied in the first sentence). One side wants it defined as a particular province of a particular kingdom. The other side wants it to stand for the region throughout its entire history. The problem with the first treatment is that this article is intended by some editors to be about the region throughout its entire history, and to leave the various names out of the lead defeats that purpose by not giving them equal weight. The problem with the second treatment is that it implies that the region was called "Paytakaran" while it was part of Medes and Caucasion Albania, and this could lead readers to make errors in perception causing them to misunderstand the subject. It also makes the title erroneous, for if the article is about all the political entities that piece of land was over time, then the article would be about more than just Paytakaran - it would also be about Caspiane, which isn't indicated in the article's title.
One possible solution was to create a seperate article for each political entity by which the region was known (just as Constantinople and Istanbul are about the same place at different times), but that idea was rejected because the resulting articles would be too small.
So what is needed here are some new suggestions.
What about renaming the article to include all its names?
Please make further suggestions on how to solve this problem.
All ideas are welcome.
The Transhumanist 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no excuse for removing sourced info which continues. Balanced version should include all relaible information.-- Dacy69 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now lets take a look at the whole quote.
It is clear that the Balakanachik who in 840/1 are defeated by Esay Abu Muse are the same people who revolted in 830/1, and the present passage is a confirmation of the (approximate) period of 12 years given in 111.19 as the duration of the Goroz rebellion. As to the identity of these Balakanachik', Professor Minorsky has pointed to Baylaqan, and notwithstanding the unexpected Arabic form of the name of the province the Armenians knew as P'aytakaran, this is historically feasible. The province of P'aytakaran would, like Siwnik', have revolted against Babek who, despite his alliances with local personalities like Step'annos Ablasad and Esay Abu Muse, was unable at this period of his career to control the large territory he sought to wrest from Arab authority.
The quote isn't saying that Paytakaran exicted, it only says that Armenians knew the region as Paytakaran. VartanM 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To help work out what to do, could we compile a list of terms with rough guides as to what they refer to, and how strong the data is to support each. John Vandenberg 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, please clarify:
The current version which some people claim to be "mediated" is very unbalanced and includes false information, like silly claim about 2 Caspianes. It never had any consensus. Also, even if we split the article to Caspiane and Paytakaran, the article about Paytakaran would still need to say that the region was part of other states under that name. Please see above the quote from Dowsett that I provided. I suggest to move it to a double title Caspiane/Paytakaran, that would end the dispute. Grandmaster 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Grandmaster for the suggestion of the double title. Now we need to find out if both sides can agree on this. Note that links to Caspiane could lead specifically to the section of the article on Caspiane, and links to Paytakaran could lead specifically to the section of the article on Paytakaran, using a pipe to specify one or the other.
Feedback on the double title idea is needed.
The Transhumanist 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Present some examples if you know of any.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)