Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Summary

Summary of what has happened so far: User:Grandmaster has submitted some statements which he would like to add to the article. Those statements and their supporting references are presented on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources.

Please read them over. The Transhumanist   17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation continues

According to Grandmaster, his draft is complete.

Let's start with 1a on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources. Please read it.

Does anyone dispute the factual accuracy of statement 1a?

The Transhumanist   17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

copied from participants' talk pages:

(To Fadix) The statements for inclusion to the article have been revised to accomodate your reservations. Have your objections been dealt with adequately in the latest version of the draft? I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist   17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I have exchanged a block of 24 hours for personal attacks against not getting involved in disputes for 72 hours. Fad (ix) 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, being that cooperation is the opposite of disputing, perhaps you could look over Grandmaster's statements of fact and let me know which ones you agree with. The Transhumanist   18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He already know. 1)Paytakaran is the province mostly, this is the only fact. 2)Paytakaran has only been an Arenian province, Albania had Caspiane not Paytakaran. Just like Istanbul is a Turkish city not Greek, Constantinople was a Greek city. 3)There was no Paytakaran being a central city also known as Beylaqan. Presenting this as fact is to impose one position against the other. Beylaqan was a town, some transliterate it as Paytakaran, but this would go in a disambiguation page and could not be presented in parallel in the main article which is about the province. Anyway, you are corrupting me :) I am supposed to contribute in science related articles for those 72 hours, the was the promess I mad to the administrator who blocked me. Fad (ix) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can ask the admin to allow you to contribute to this particular page, if you wish. Grandmaster 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've identified the main problem in the Paytakaran discussion. The main cause of the dispute is not a disagreement on the part of the participants. It is miscommunication. The two sides have been having trouble getting their points across, and/or understanding what the other side means. This has caused them to continue to argue over points that could easily be resolved if they each knew what the other side was trying to say. It was hard to spot at first, because it's rather subtle...
I didn't understand your last answer, for instance. You didn't answer the specific question I asked but a more general one, and I didn't realize this until after I started to type a reply. Your answer doesn't use the number scheme used on the statements and sources page, leaving me to guess or assume your intentions from an interpretation of your answer, and therefore I can't really be sure which statements you wouldn't mind having included in the article.
To avoid the need for interpretation, I need very specific answers. The statements aren't listed as 1) 2) 3) 4), but as 1a), 1b) 1c), etc. Please look them over, and let me know precisely which ones you don't have a problem with (and which you agree can be placed in the article). That may help the mediation move forward smoothly and avoid further disputing.

The Transhumanist   11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your general answer

I look forward to your reply to my query above. I'll also do my best to interpret your previous (general) answer. My replies are indented...

He already knows.

I'm not sure he does. I sure don't, and I read the entire discussion too.

1) Paytakaran is the province mostly, this is the only fact.

There is no 1). There are 1a) through 1f). Are you saying you appove of all of those?

2) Paytakaran has only been an Arenian province, Albania had Caspiane not Paytakaran. Just like Istanbul is a Turkish city not Greek, Constantinople was a Greek city.

You said "Arenian". Did you mean "Armenian"? So even though Constantinople and Istanbul is the same city (with the same location and many of the same buildings), it isn't the same city by virtue of who controls it, occupies it, and what it is named?
Therefore, you wish that care should be taken that the synonymns don't misrepresent the place at inappropriate times in history. That is, if I'm interpretting you correctly, the historic Paytakaran should not be referred to as "Beylaqan" (in parentheses immediately following "Paytakaran").
What if Grandmaster included the dates in which the alternate names applied? Would that fix it to your satisfaction?

3) There was no Paytakaran being a central city also known as Beylaqan. Presenting this as fact is to impose one position against the other. Beylaqan was a town, some transliterate it as Paytakaran, but this would go in a disambiguation page and could not be presented in parallel in the main article which is about the province.

Paraphrase: There was no city named Beylaqan in the province of Paytakaran. To present Beylaqan as a synonym misleads the reader to believe it was called Beylaqan way back then.
Since the scale involved here is much smaller than Constantinople, and since Grandmaster's details are relevant to the geographical region and may help the reader put history into perspective in relation to the present, would it be okay with you if the existence of Beylaqan was explained in the body text of the article?

Anyway, you are corrupting me :) I am supposed to contribute in science related articles for those 72 hours, the was the promess I mad to the administrator who blocked me. Fad (ix) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the administrator wishes to see peaceful cooperation. I also believe that the administrator did not intend to disrupt cooperation on the Paytakaran article by disallowing one of the key participants from cooperating. Be courteous, and try to accomodate to the best of your ability. Help me find a common solution that both you and Grandmaster can live with. Rather than merely objecting, you could go one step further and provide alternatives which you would be happy to support. That will help the other side generate new ideas on how to solve this problem too.
I believe that Grandmaster wants to present the facts. He just doesn't see the same ramifications that you do. Once they are presented to him in an understandable way (I had trouble understanding them too), he has shown himself to be accomodating. So please, let's continue moving forward toward a common solution. The Transhumanist   12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I do not agree with 1a), it is POV, presented as absolute truth. Kasp, Caspiane was once to the Medes, that Caspiane was Paytakaran is not certitude, check Tigran evidence page. The same goes with “Caucasian Albania.” Kasp or Caspiane should have its own article, much like Constantinople and Istanbul have their own article. That sentence would be fine for Caspiane, but not Paytakaran, which was more modern. Even Armenians had two different terms for the two entities, one was the Kasp, the other was Paytakaran.

1b), I disagree with, there are conflicting evidences there, more so when Paytakaran being an Armenian word, has never been used to name that town in the Armenian literature.

1c) is fine but too strong.

1d) is fine.

1e) is fine, but Grandmaster selectively quote Strabo, this wasn’t all he had said.

1f) is more about Caspiane, Paytakaran is a more modern entity.

1g) this is conflicting, and selectiveness, even Goldberg, who is very pro Azeri, write in her work, includes the Armenians being a significant portion of the population. Strabo, in the same section where he says being Armenian, say they all spoke the same language.

2a) is simply too bogus, for me to even comment on.

2b)We don’t know who the parcies are.

2c) Grandmaster is implying, most revolutions have been done by revolutionaries of the same nation the government represent. This doesn’t mean they were not Armenian. Also, Grandmaster has dumped much stuff with different periods. Again, I stress that Caspiane and Paytakaran are two different entities of different periods.

2d) Grandmaster is interpreting Hewsen, beside even Goldberg disagree.

3a) Again, Grandmaster is transformating the article, by reinterpreting what was Paytakaran. Being the province, every other thing that could be implied goes in a disambiguation page.

3b) Grandmaster is connecting Paytakaran with a Turkic tribe, a millennium after, what became of a Muslim town, has no relevancy with the province of Paytakaran. Fad (ix) 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Those of you who are participating in this discussion, please look over Fadix's reply above. There are a few points he agrees can be added to the article. Do you concur? Right now I just want to find out where we are in agreement, before getting into further debate over the points where there is still disagreement.

Fadix has approved of 1c, 1d, and 1e. Do the rest of you agree that those are okay to add to the article? The Transhumanist   17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1c and 1d are fine. 1e is problematic because Strabo's quotes, when out of context make little sense. Because Strabo's information is often contradictory I wouldn't mind if we had a section devoted entirely to Strabo.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But what's wrong with quoting Strabo? We can add any other quotes from this source you wish to add. I don't see how it is out of context, you may wish to provide the context as well. Grandmaster 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing necessarily. We're just determining where the common ground is. The Transhumanist   21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since those items have consensus, they can be added to the article, and the debates can skip those items. I should have time to make a new post to this mediation tomorrow morning. The Transhumanist   21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

If you guys agree not to edit war, I'll request that the page be unprotected. It'll make it easier to add the bits you guys agree on. I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist   11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's unprotected, probably because of the arbitration you are all in. Does anyone object to me adding to the article the statements above which have consensus? The Transhumanist   11:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Grandmaster 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speeding things up

Sorry for my unavailability - I've been trying to break a bottleneck in another project. To make up for my absense here, I'll present my recommendations for each point from the Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources page, in separate sections below.

1a - Synonyms for Paytakaran

Grandmaster suggested that the following item be added to the article to replace the first sentence:

1a) Paytakaran (Armenian: Փայտակարան, Persian: to be added) was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.

Fadix objected due to period confusion which it might cause. Istanbul was not the name of Constantinople during Byzantine times, for instance, so it is not a direct synonym for that city in the context of the period in which the city existed as Constantinople.

Generally, throughout this encyclopedia, there's no problem with providing the history before and after in an article on an entity, and/or links to articles on the entity during those other periods. The important thing is to make sure that the temporal context of the names of the entity is presented correctly.

Therefore, the various alternate names presented above that don't coincide with the period the article covers should be presented later in the article, with an explanation of when they applied, and not in the opening sentence.

Does anyone object to this suggested solution?

If not, then we need date ranges for the various names. Could someone supply those please?

Sincerely, The Transhumanist   17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty of a name

There was also some concern about the certainty of the alternate names. That uncertainty should be explained in the presentation of any disputed name.

Any objections?

The Transhumanist   17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead should either list all the states the province was a part of, or mention none, saying that it was an ancient province in the South Caucasus that was part of different states at various times. Grandmaster 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that as mediator, I neither agree nor disagree, but I must point out that the standing consensus favors the present treatment on the page. Without further community support to change it or the scope of the article, it must remain the same. The Transhumanist   21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1b Paytakaran (city)

The conflict over the city of Paytakaran is a little more complicated...

Fadix basically stated above that the town was never named Paytakaran while the Kingdom of Armenia existed.

Here is the map of the Kingdom of Armenia from the article of the same name:

Image:Armenian empire.gif
750px

In addition to this problem is the existance of more than one site. A city falls to ruin, and a new city is built miles away. Are they the same city?

So in order to sort these problems out, we need a timeline covering the sites at issue (not for the article, but for my sanity). Can anyone fill in the missing information below?

Timeline of the naming of cities or towns in the direct vicinity of Paytakaran city from prehistory to present

Feel free to add new items with more specific date ranges.

  • time - name
  • _____ BC to ____ BC (Caucasian Albania?) - _________
  • _____ to 190 BC (Medes?) - ___________
  • 190 BC to 428 AD (Kingdom of Armenia) - _________
  • 428 AD to _____ AD (Islamic rule?) - __________
  • _____ AD - the town "_____" was destroyed
  • _____AD to _____ AD - new town built, called _________

Please correct the information in the list above, and fill in the missing information, where possible.

Thank you. The Transhumanist   18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement by Fadix is not accurate. The city existed when the province was called Caspiane, and the province was initially called Caspiane by Armenians as well, but at a certain point in the history the name of the capital supplanted the name of Caspiane, probably because the tribe of Caspies or Caspians “disappeared”, as Strabo reported. See the following text from the Russian World Encyclopedia, Volume II:
Caspiane, which had its center in Paytakaran and the rulers of which considered themselves Arsacids, was also under the Armenian dominion. During the IVth century all these regions broke away from Armenia, and after the death of Tiridat III some Sanatruk declared himself a king, took control of Paytakaran and announced the conquest of the whole Armenia. The rulers of Paytakaran relied on the help of Sasanians and later assisted Shapur II during the wars with Armenia. In the 60s of the 4th century other Albanian lands also broke away from Armenia and also fell under the influence of Persians.
Here’s a quote from the Armenian primary source, Faustus of Byzantium:
About Kasps
Then sparapet Musheg took cruel revenge on the country of parcies and the city of Paytakaran, because the people of that country broke away from the Armenian king and betrayed him.
The footnote:
From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or Parracies, mentioned by Starbo. Faustus of Byzantium. History. 5.14
As you can see, contemporary Armenian chronicles also referred to the region as Kaspk, i.e. Caspiane. Grandmaster 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I need that timeline above filled in, because I'm having a real hard time visualizing the sequence of events here with respect to the town, or the two towns, etc. Can you help me out here? The Transhumanist   08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no info on when the city was founded. We only know that the city of Paytakaran was the center of the province of Caspiane, and later the province of Paytakaran. We also know that in Islamic times the city was known as Beylegan. The Islamic history is more detailed, and plenty of info can be supplied on it. But pre-Islamic history is quite obscure. Grandmaster 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1c

I added the following to the article, as per the consensus reached above:

1c) The province was located in the area of the lower courses of the rivers of Kura and Araks, adjacent to the Caspian sea.


However, I wasn't sure how the reference should be applied, so somebody needs to add that to the article:

reference: Moses of Chorene [1]

The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1d

This one was already in the article, but lacks a reference:

1d) Today, the area lies within the territory of modern day southeastern Azerbaijan and northeastern Iran.

The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of an original research, however none of the parties objects to it. We know that the confluence of Aras and Kura is located in Azerbaijan, at the same time some parts of Caspiane/Paytakaran like Bagawan are now in Iran, see: 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 . [2] Grandmaster 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as nobody objects, then there is no problem. The Transhumanist   08:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1e

I also added this passage to the article, based on previous discussions:

1e) Caspiane was contested between the regional powers. 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".

The reference provided by Grandmaster was:

(reference) Strabo, 11.4

Please add the reference to the article in the proper manner. The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grandmaster 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2a - 2d

2a thru 2d are all about Caspiane, which predates Paytakaran. Fadix strongly opposed their inclusion because they are all beyond the scope of this article.

Mention of Caspiane is made in its own section of the article, so might I suggest that a new article on Caspiane be created, and a link to the new article be provided in the Caspiane section of the Paytakaran article. The link would go at the top of the Caspiane section and look like this:

Main article: Caspiane

Is this solution acceptable to everyone?

The Transhumanist   19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(Conflicts over the contents of the new article can be worked out on the talk page of that article.) --TT

I do not think it is a good idea to duplicate the same article under a different name. We know that Caspiane had its capital in the city of Paytakaran, and we know that Caspiane became known as Paytakaran at a later time, probably because the name of the capital supplanted the name of the tribe that initially populated the area. See: 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. [3] Grandmaster 06:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Paytakaran was a province not a city. Fad (ix) 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
it was both and I have a ton of sources to attest to that. Grandmaster 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You did nothing such, Paytakaran is the province, the sources you have provided states the city of. Paytakaran when used alone without any contradiction of sources refers to the province. Quebec is a province of Canada, the city of Quebec is the capital of the province of Quebec. The article Quebec on Wikipedia does not refer to the city, does not refer to both, it refers to the province of Quebec. Stop pushing this. Fad (ix) 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Paytakaran was both province and city, but this section is not about that. Grandmaster 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No it is not, find a precedent on any other Wikipedia article. Paytakaran is the province. Fad (ix) 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an Armenian source, Ovannes Draskhanakertsi, the footnote says:
Пайтакаран — город, центр одноименного наханга, близ современного Орен-Кала на Мильской равнине. В 338 г. Пайтакаран «стал временной столицей Албанского царства, здесь находилась резиденция мазкутских Аршакидов. (Армения по «Ашхарацуйц»-у, с. 88). [4]
Paytakaran – city, the center of nahang (province) of the same name near the modern Oren-kala in the Mil plain. In 338 Paytakaran became a temporary capital of Albanian kingdom, the residence of Mazkut Arshakids was located there.
Grandmaster 18:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not Beylaqan, what now constitute Beylaqan was NEVER writen in Armenian Paytakaran. You just don't want to listen, how many quotes do you want me to provide? Here ANOTHER ONE: One Baylaqan lay north of the Araxes and south of Barda'a (in the Mil steppe), and the other north of the Alazan (in Georgian Belokani) near Jar. A third Baylaqan is referred to in Persian Kurdistan on the way from Daynavar to Sisar. A History of Sharvan and Darbad in the 10th-11th centuries, V. Minorsky W. Heffer & Sons ltd. Cambridge (1958) p. 15 There are other transliterations (two others) which I will left down, I have provided another work, and also two other authors. Paytakaran was the province, it was a regional name. Stop it, how far you could try to link it to a Beylaqan to justify an Azeri term being used? Stop dissolving articles. It could be perged the day provinces article like Quebec could be merged with their cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
This section is not about the city of Paytakaran, read carefully. But you cannot write an article about the province without mentioning its capital city. We have a separate article on the city of Beylegan, but the city should be mentioned in this article as well. Grandmaster 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, there are 3 Beyleqan towns. In either way, Beyleqan isen't even an Azeri term, it is a Persian term, there is not a single Western encyclopedia in the world which write in Azeri any single historic cities. Stop it with that, the Azeri alphabet didn't even exist during that period and there was still no Turkic tribs living there. How far you can push this and try to link some current town in the Azerbaijani republic to throw a modern Azeri term, don't claim that you are doing it for the accuracy of the article. Fad (ix) 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, it wouldn't be duplicated, since the new article on Caspiane would have a lot more material in it than the paragraph included in this article. A great many articles on Wikipedia provide summaries of topics that have their own articles. In such cases, the template {{main}} is used. For an example of how it is used, see Geometry, in which it is used twice. It is a perfectly acceptable method. We don't have to cram everything onto one page - that's what hypertext links are for. The Transhumanist   08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

3a - 3b

Fadix objected to these on similar grounds. That is, they occurred after the Kingdom of Armenia and its provinces no longer existed, and therefore fall outside the scope of the article.

Might I suggest that another section be created, such as "Post-history" with a brief statement of what the region was called afterwards? Then a link to another article can be provided (if and when one is created).

Is this okay with everyone?

The Transhumanist   19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem on creating a section on that. Fad (ix) 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that Paytakaran did not cease to exist immediately. Paytakaran had no Armenian population and was a land Armenia conquered from its neighbors. At certain point it left the Armenian orbit for good, but it is not clear whether it was immediately abolished as an administrative entity or not. It is hard to tell when exactly Paytakaran transformed to Beylegan, but according to professor Hewsen:
Paytakaran, a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Korjaik, originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.
The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. Robert. H. Hewsen. Historical Geography, p 16
I don't mind a new section, but I think it should be called something like "Later history" or similar. Grandmaster 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not what Golberg work says, stop requesting positions to be presented as fact and stop interpreting sources. Fad (ix) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Who's Golberg? And I'm not interpeting anything, in fact I suggest quoting Hewsen verbatim and let the reader judge. Grandmaster 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oups, I meant Goldenberg, I already told you about it, but you would repeat it over again, here:
Following the partition of Armenia in AD 384, Artsakh, Utik and Paytakaran became part of the Sasanid Persian province of Arran (or Albania), a proportion of the people remained Armenian, and the local monarch remained a member of the Arsacid dynasty, a kinsman of the dynasty that had ruled Armenia since AD 53. Transcaucasian Boundaries, Suzanne Goldenberg, Richard Schofield, John F. R. Wright; UCL Press, 1996 p.91 Sabro also say the population spoke the same language. You are interpreting Hewsen. Fad (ix) 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) p.91
I'm not. Hewsen says that Paytakaran was an alien land to Armenia, which it indeed was. And Suzanne Goldenberg is not an expert on the region's history and not even a historian. Check: [5] She is not a reliable source, while Hewsen is an expert in the ancient history of Armenia. Grandmaster 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You are in no position of questioning the sources, stop doing that it is called OR. As for Hewsen, yes you are interpreting the sources. This also is called OR. Fad (ix) 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not an OR, I'm just checking the credentials of your source and I see that the author is not a historian, but a newspaper reporter. I refer only to specialist historians and primary sources. Grandmaster 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OR, this is called OR, the work is notable, you are in no position to dismiss a work, your analysis of the author and the work is OR. Fad (ix) 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not OR, OR does not apply to analysis of sources, in fact, the rules even encourage it. OR applies to what you do with Strabo, ascribing to him things that he never said. As for Goldenberg, it is a fact that she is not a historian, check for yourself and prove me wrong, if you can. Grandmaster 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you read what I wrote? I said that if the source is misinterpreted, then that should be fixed, not deleted. Fad (ix) 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean you misinterpreted Goldenberg, and I should fix that? Sorry, I cannot follow you. Grandmaster 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Answering wrong one. As for the sources, no you are making up rules. The work is notable, and is sourced, you are also interpreting Hewsen. Stop it. Fad (ix) 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it notable? Yes, it says that Paytakaran had a certain proportion of Armenian people, but it does not mean it was not an alien land for Armenia, as the expert on Armenian studies Hewsen says. California also has a certain proportion of Armenian people, but it is an alien land to Armenia, same as Tbilisi or Baku. But again, the author of your source is not a historian, so it cannot be given much weight. Grandmaster 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You just contradicted yourself. Fad (ix) 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How? Grandmaster 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You are kidding me right? Fad (ix) 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Fadix, please do not use rhetoric. Simply point out the contradiction, please. Thank you. The Transhumanist   07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the history of the discussions, now he claims that there actually was Armenians living there while before he claimed by providing Hewsen that it meant no Armenians. I told him he was interpreting Hewsen, he said no, he just in his last answer provided another interpretation, while I said that Hewsen was not clean with what he wrote. Exactly as Grandmaster for the second time changed his interpretation. Fad (ix) 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we keep running into the temporal issue of the article's subject. Therefore, I've disambiguated the article's name, so that it is about something very specific, with it's own time-frame implicitly built-in. If Paytakaran existed as a province of another country at another time, then a separate article can be written for that. Fadix has graciously supported the addition of a section called post-history. Please write up a (short) paragraph about Paytakaran after it was no longer the Armenian province.

There's no need to squabble over splitting up the information amongst several articles. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there are virtually no limits upon the number of pages it can have. Fadix is not saying you can't present information on each political entity, he is merely asking that you do not change the scope of the article by expanding it beyond the period the political entity covered by the article existed.

The way consensus works on Wikipedia is that if an article is edited, and someone objects to the edit, then consensus must be reached in order for the change to remain. In the case of a tie, the previous consensus stands. Since the sides in this debate are about equal in numbers, a new consensus on the scope of the article has not been reached. Therefore, the best solution is compromise, and write up a paragraph for the post-history section to see if Fadix and the others would approve it.

There is something about each of your styles of communication which is causing you two to be in continuous conflict. I think it because you are both arguing to force your position through, by "proving" your case. A much softer approach, which may help to move past the disagreement to a speedier resolution, is to ask questions for clarification and to make suggestions. "Might we do this...?", "Would you mind if I...?", "Here's a passage I would like to include, is it okay with you?", "What is it exactly that you object to, and what would it need to say for you to agree to let it be placed in the article?"

Fadix, instead of just pounding the gavel upon the table with a resounding "NO!", you might try to be a little more hands on, and write up some material to help move the situation forward. For example, instead of simply suggesting that a disambiguation page be created, why not actually create one? Once something is created and in place, it might not be seen as such a bad idea. It runs along the same lines as "a picture is worth a thosand words", or the Missouri saying "Show me."

The Transhumanist   07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand why the page was moved to its current title without discussion on talk. I don’t think we should have articles Paytakaran (Armenian province), Paytakaran (Albanian province), Caspiane (province of Medes), Caspiane (province of Caucasian Albania), Caspiane (province of Armenia), etc. It the same as if we had articles like Ganja (Iranian city), Yelizavetpol (Russian city), Kirovabad (Soviet city), Ganja (Azerbaijani city) etc. It is the same place, which changed hands and names, why do we have to split it into so many articles, while the info is so scarce? Grandmaster 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Because you will not be able to expand the article beyond its present scope (that this article is about a specific province of the Kingdom of Armenia), because it is defended by enough editors that you will not be able to overturn the standing concensus. Therefore, your only option for presenting the bulk of your material on Caspiane and post-Armenia Paytakaran, and my only hope of resolving this dispute, is for you to create new articles. The move represents the scope of the article precisely as per the standing consensus. Note that parentheses are not used on articles by default. Parenthetical qualifiers are included in cases of disambiguation, and this article was clearly suffering from ambiguity issues. It's time to move forward with development of the material. Perhaps in the future, you can have the pages merged. But the important thing is to make the material available in some form for the benefit of readers, and to do that these petty arguments must stop.

Grandmaster, you need to become more flexible and more resourceful. When confronted with a brick wall, as you have been on this article (in the form of Fadix and others), you need to be willing and able to move around the obstacle and find alternative solutions. I call this dancing. But instead of dancing, you seem to want to fight fight fight. And that is not good. It is disruptive to the community and to the encyclopedia's operations. The best way to resolve a dispute like this is to simply walk away. But I have a hard time doing that as well, so what I do in similar cases is try something different, try something else, try something new. If you can't go through, then try going over, under, or around.

Let me give you an example. I created a template called template:Philosophy navigation, to be placed at the bottom of major philosophy articles, upon which I included various philosophy-related links. Not long after I created the template, another user started editing it too. He did not agree with my link selection, and I did not agree with his. We edit warred for weeks, even taking the battle to TfD, and wasted an incredible amount of our own and others' time. He showed no signs of ever giving up, as if his life depended on it. I realized that if I didn't want to spend a good portion of every day battling over the contents of that template, I had to either walk away, or find another way to get the material presented on Wikipedia. I chose the latter option. I created or expanded several pages to make sure that the links had other outlets, including the Glossary of philosophical isms, Lists of philosophy topics, and List of basic philosophy topics. That was almost a year and a half ago. And you know what happened? Those lists became so central to the philosophy subject on Wikipedia that they got included on the template! So my link selection is well-presented, all over Wikipedia, and on the template. Yet, other editors have continued to fight over the other links on the template ever since, partaking in endless debates on the talk page because the template is often protected due to the disputes. But I have been free.

Sometimes, you should just walk away. After awhile you may learn of other ways to accomplish your goal of presenting specific material for users to read.

Keep in mind that Fadix isn't blocking your ability to present the material on Wikipedia per se, he is defending the scope of this article. There is nothing to stop you from creating new articles. Fadix has compromised by agreeing to let the article have pre- and post-history sections. I recommend that you show some flexibility too. Fighting is a waste of time.

Remember what Ben Franklin said: Dost thou love life? Then waste not time, for time is the stuff that life is made of.

The Transhumanist   11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So far I was more flexible than the other party and made any compromise that was possible without affecting the quality of the article. For instance, I agreed to split the article about the city to help move ahead with dispute resoltion, however it is not a one way street. I do not think that splitting the article into many smaller ones just to please someone is a good solution. I never objected to inclusion of sourced and accurate info into the article, but in this case the other party to the dispute objects to inclusion of accurate and verifiable info, which is a violation of the rules. Maybe we can find a better solution by using different wording or getting more third party editors involved into the dispute? I think that Fadix violates WP:OWN here by not allowing me edit this article and include verifiable info. Grandmaster 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, compromising alone does not mean much, being reasonable does. I can request on the article about Earth to take a third of the article developping the Flat Eart theory, and then telling, OK, I'll leave it to one sixth. While it is being "fexible" it does not mean being reasonable. What non-sourcing are you talking about? Fad (ix) 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, WP:OWN pertains to situations in which an editor defends his edits to an article in defiance of consensus, and to instances in which a user forces his edits to a page in defiance of consensus. That is, without community support. Fadix has not done that. Note, that in the case of a tie, the standing consensus prevails. The problem you have encountered is that you have been trying to make changes to the page in the face of roughly equal opposition. Only with enough support from other editors can an existing consensus be overturned.

Grandmaster, you are entirely correct about bringing in more editors. According to WP:CON:

Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus.

See Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.

I hope this helps. The Transhumanist   22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to attract attention of third party editors to this article, opinion of other editors might be very helpful. Grandmaster 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Current version

I will comment in more detail on your above proposals, but I would like to make a general statement on the current version of the article. It says that Paytakaran was a province of Armenia without mentioning Caucasian Albania and Medes. In my opinion, we should either list all the owners of the territory in the lead, or mention none of them specifically, i.e. Paytakaran was an ancient province in South Caucasus in the territory of modern day Azerbaijan Republic. Also, the following line: According to Strabo, both Caucasian Albania and Armenia had provinces with the name "Caspiane.” should be deleted, as Strabo says no such thing and this line is an original research. Grandmaster 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Caspiane not Paytakaran. As Paytakaran refers to the Armenian province, Caspiane is another entity of a different period, that section could have clarification on Caucasian Albania, but Paytakaran as is refers to the Armenian province. Fad (ix) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've dealt with this issue specifically in the section #2a - 2d above, including a recommendation for solutions. The Transhumanist   . Please read each section above, and comment there. Thank you. 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is evident I agree, this is basically my proposition. Fad (ix) 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that misinterpretation of Strabo should remain in the article? Grandmaster 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Which one? Fad (ix) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This one: According to Strabo, both Caucasian Albania and Armenia had provinces with the name Caspiane. Strabo says no such thing, this line should be deleted. Grandmaster 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Give it up Grandmaster, it is sourced. You can not pick what you want from Strabo. Fad (ix) 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Show me then where Strabo says that there were 2 Caspianes. No personal interpretations, just the quote please. Grandmaster 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh PLEASE, He once say Casipane belonging to Armenia and then says belonging to the Albanians. Clarification does not support removal. Fad (ix) 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But that does not mean there were two territories with the same name, he talks about the same land at different times. He does not say anywhere that there were 2 Caspianes. Original research should be removed from the article. We can quote Strabo verbatim, if needed, but no personal interpretations are allowed. Grandmaster 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, non clarification does not justify deleting a source. Fad (ix) 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Then provide a quote from Strabo that says there were 2 Caspianes, a quote, not your interpretation. Grandmaster 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you read what I wrote? I said that if the source is misinterpreted, then that should be fixed, not deleted. Fad (ix) 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's fix that then. Grandmaster 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, just quoting him, I don't want any of your interpretations going there. Fad (ix) 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course. He said that Artaxiad conquered Caspiane from Medes, we should include that as a quote. Grandmaster 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Not from the Albanians. The point Tigran was making. Fad (ix) 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said that he took it from Albanians. Originally it was a province of Medes, then Armenia, then Albania, again Armenia, again Albania. Grandmaster 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So you are admitting that it was to Armenia before Albania? Fad (ix) 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I never denied it, moreover, I said that from the very beginning. Caspiane was originally the province of Medes, which was conquered by Armenia, and later lost to Albania. Grandmaster 10:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, that while I'm not here to take sides on the facts or content of the article, as Mediator, one of my responsibilities is to clarify Wikipedia's policies...

Grandmaster, please keep in mind that even though Wikipedia does not allow original research or original thought to be included, original description is not only allowed, it is necessary for Wikipedia to exist. "Original description" is the reporting of a subject in one's own words. It is the basic method of contributing to Wikipedia, also known as "descriptive writing". If we didn't write the encyclopedia in our own words, Wikipedia would be one big copyright violation, because everything would be copied from somewhere. So not only are we allowed to report topics in our own words, we are required to do so in most cases. Note that all paraphrasing and non-verbatim use of language is a form of interpretation in the linguistic sense, but it is not necessarily scholastic interpretation. Fadix was merely reporting sources in a descriptive manner, which is completely acceptable, from a policy standpoint.

Though copyrights aren't an issue with mere quotes, we aren't forced to quote. That is left up to the discretion of the writer, and is more of a style issue. Different writers have different styles.

If you would like the quotes included, please write up a sentence or two including them, to see if the others in this discussion would approve of your proposed text. If they aren't too long, Fadix and the rest probably would not mind.

The Transhumanist   06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, and since the second Strabo quote is large, I provided a short description of it. It was like this:
1f) Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes.
This should be included in the article. I also think we should simply describe how this land changed hands between 3 regional powers, i.e. Medes, Armenia and Albania, without spliting the article into many smaller ones. Grandmaster 09:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, Grandmaster does have a point. Since the lands of Albania and Armenia did overlap (though not at the same time), it is conceivable that the Caspiane of each rested in the same location, so the name may have carried over from one Caspiane to the other. So in this case there seems to be an ambiguity which Grandmaster would like to clear up, so that the reader does not make the wrong assumption about the locations of the "two Caspianes". Would you be willing to add a brief explanation to disambiguate that issue in the article? An alternative would be to provide sources which establish the location of each Caspiane. The Transhumanist   07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I already told him that if the source is misrepresented it should be fixed, not deleted. We do not have clear delimitations as to where exactly is Caspiane, I thing Tigran sources provide that pretty much well with the contradictions between sources, while Oaytakaran had a clear delimitation. My point about the different Beylaqans, was about the town which Grandmaster wanted to equal with the province. Fad (ix) 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There was only one Caspiane, Strabo does not say that there were 2 Caspianes anywhere. So this should be corrected. It is the same land that changed hands frequently. Grandmaster 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the full context of Strabo’s second quote, he does not say that there were 2 Caspianes:
According to report, Armenia, though a small country in earlier times, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadris, who formerly were generals of Antiochus the Great, but later, after his defeat, reigned as kings (the former as king of Sophene, Acisene, Odomantis, and certain other countries, and the latter as king of the country round Artaxata), and jointly enlarged their kingdoms by cutting off for themselves parts of the surrounding nations,--I mean by cutting off Caspiane and Phaunitis and Basoropeda from the country of the Medes; and the country along the side of Mt. Paryadres and Chorsene and Gogarene, which last is on the far side of the Cyrus River, from that of the Iberians; and Carenitis and Xerxene, which border on Lesser Armenia or else are parts of it, from that of the Chalybians and the Mosynoeci; and Acilisene and the country round the Antitaurus from that of the Cataonians; and Taronitis from that of the Syrians; and therefore they all speak the same language, as we are told. [6]
I highlighted the relevant parts. Grandmaster 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Source required

Could someone please provide a quote from the source a reference to which is made to support the following statement:

According to Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("World Atlas," 7th c. AD), Paytakaran was the 11th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. It consisted of 14 cantons (gavars): Hrakot, Perozh, Vardanakert, Yotnporakyan Bagink, Krekyan, Vovtibagha, Kaghanost, Buros, Pitchanhani, Atshi, Bagavan, Spandaran-perozh, Vormizd-perozh, and Alevan. It was bounded by the Capsian Sea to the east, Araxes river to the north and north-west, Atropatene to the south, and the Armenian province of Vaspurakan to the west.

I would like to see what Shirakatsi actually states about this territory. I have already asked for this, but it's never been supplied. Grandmaster 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-history (write up this section here please)

I'm taking a 2 week wikibreak

While I'm gone, please try to resolve your differences in a collaborative cooperative manner. Try to move past arguing to passing sample text back and forth. Let the other know what you would be willing to accept rather than just what you won't. If you still have difficulties, please keep in mind...

...that my userpages will be attended to by some very competent editors who are taking over my responsibilities while I am gone, and so if you need further assistance, post a message to my talk page, and they will be happy to assist you in any way they can. I've posted an explanation of this mediation to them, so they know what is going on.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist   08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank The Transhumanist for all the time and effort he spared on mediating the dispute, he was very helpful, and while I understand that people have other things to do in real life, I think we cannot stop dispute resolution at this point, as it has been going on for quite a long time now. I will take his advice and ask people who watch his talk page to help us resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 11:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Good evening (GMT time) all; I'd be willing to mediate this case in place of TT. However, I do have my own style of Mediation which is rather more to-the-point; if this is acceptable, drop me a message at my talk page and I'll get straight on the case.
Kind regards,
anthony[cfc] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)