This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 24 April 2007 (→The region vs. the province: grammatically awkward). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:42, 24 April 2007 by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) (→The region vs. the province: grammatically awkward)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. |
Armenia Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Azerbaijan Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
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)
Archive
Prior conversations have been archived to the third archive; if you wish to restore a conversation, simply copy the entire thread to this page.
This archiving has been undertaken in order to keep this page readable; I hope this is an acceptable action amongst the disputing editors.
Kind regards,
anthony 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mediatior
Good afternoon (GMT time) all; The Transhumanist and Grandmaster have gave their blessing on my taking over this case as mediator, pending the former's WikiBreak. Any editors that would like to object to my mediating this case, please immediately drop me a message; the same goes for my actions as a mediator.
Before mediation re-commences, I'd like to start by making a brief introduction of myself. My experience on Misplaced Pages is not as extensive as The Transhumanist, but I have mediated over fifteen successful cases for the Mediation Cabal/Mediation Committee, as well as several as a Member's Advocate. I operate a strict neutrality policy, which is viewable here; the general outlook I follow in Mediation cases is viewable here.
My duties as Mediator are often restricted to:
- Keeping the talk page tidy and archived;
- Determining consensus in "requested edits";
- Cautioning over civility on rare occasions this is necessary.
Questions concerning this should be directed to me immediately; in the meanwhile, I invite all editors to continue the discussion that was being undertaken during The Transhumanist's time here.
Kind regards,
anthony 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Page move
The page has been moved without consensus on talk, so I moved it back until the consensus is reached. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you really enjoy creating conflicts? discuss it instead of reverting it. Artaxiad 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you check the archives, this is what I do for quite some time now. But the page cannot be moved without a consensus. So we need to discuss any such edits prior to making them. I understand that this is what The Transhumanist proposed as a possible way of resolution of the dispute (i.e. split of the article into many smaller ones), but I think he should have discussed the move first. Grandmaster 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Grandmaster's action was probably spurred on by the undesirable effect the rename had on ArbCom. ::Was the moved because "Paytakaran" is/was used to refer to the same region by different independent states throughout the ages; could someone summarise what other topics other than the Armenian province would have a claim to the name "Paytakaran"; is/was it used in Azerbaijan at any time? John Vandenberg 05:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- We have a long edit conflict over this issue, which is currently being mediated at my request. Paytakaran was also a province of Medes and Caucasian Albania. And yes, my revert of the page move was in part caused by the current arbcom case, since a lot of the links point to the original name of the article. Grandmaster 06:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is my proposed version, each line is supported by references: Grandmaster 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you move it to Caspiane without even discussing it? That's just outright wrong!-- Ευπάτωρ 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not move it to Caspiane, I moved it back to its original title, as there was no consensus for the move. And stop inserting your interpretation of Strabo, he does not say anywhere that there were 2 Caspianes. Provide the exact quote instead. Grandmaster 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you move it to Caspiane without even discussing it? That's just outright wrong!-- Ευπάτωρ 00:09, 30 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.
- Eupator, so why do you include original research in the article? This quote could be summarized as follows: Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes, because this is what he says, Artaxias conquered Caspiane from Medes. Any personal ideas and comments should be kept out of the article as per WP:NOR. Grandmaster 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Artaxias retook an Armenian speaking land back from the Medes according to Strabo. They spoke the same language remember? Anyway, I will be on vacation in the sunny south until April 9. So barring TigrantheGreat's unexpected return do not make any changes to the article. I will be more actively involved when I return.-- Ευπάτωρ 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again interpretation. He did not "retake", he conquered the land from Medes. It was not Armenian speaking before that, Strabo says that they all speak the same language "therefore", i.e. because of that conquest. He does not say anywhere that there were 2 Caspianes, it is your original research, which I'm removing from the article. Grandmaster 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Artaxias retook an Armenian speaking land back from the Medes according to Strabo. They spoke the same language remember? Anyway, I will be on vacation in the sunny south until April 9. So barring TigrantheGreat's unexpected return do not make any changes to the article. I will be more actively involved when I return.-- Ευπάτωρ 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eupator, so why do you include original research in the article? This quote could be summarized as follows: Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes, because this is what he says, Artaxias conquered Caspiane from Medes. Any personal ideas and comments should be kept out of the article as per WP:NOR. Grandmaster 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) I'm going to step in here, as things are getting quite heated. In order for me to understand exactly what is wrong here (I don't expect to have to sift through screeds of debate on a topic that I have no prior knowledge on), I'd like involved editors to post a quick summary of their argument for or against the page move. In the meanwhile, I'd like to keep it at it's current title - this is not an endorsement of the current page at all, but simply to prevent any further move warring. Please do not move the page again - please treat it as fully protected from moves. Going back to the requests for argument outlines, here's an example:
- Again, what are we trying to achieve? Strabo does not talk about 2 Caspianeas, but one. Similiarly there was one Paytakaran region and one Paytakaran city. I brought the text to its previous position. Let's discuss before we run into another disagreement. --Ulvi I. 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguments regarding page move
- First page title: Paytakaran
- Second page title: Paytakaran (Armenian province)
Anthony cfc
- (This is an example - I am not taking any stance in the argument)
I am against the page move because:
- The first title is correct because XYZ (links to sources, etc.., please - not condensed versions of above arguments unless they conform to this criteria)
anthony 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Section blanked - please follow the template above; the idea is to not have screeds of discussion. Thank you.
Regards,
Anthony cfc (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster
I oppose the page move because I see no point in creation of a separate article about every period it changed hands from one state to another. As is known, the region was part of Medes, Armenia and Caucasian Albania, so creating 3 articles about the same region at different times is not a good solution, considering that the region is very obscure and sources are very scarce. Grandmaster 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- If no one objects, I would like to add my proposed edits to the article. If there are objections, let's discuss them. Grandmaster 07:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the region does not need to be split into multiple articles unless there is a lot of information about them, and for the same reason I think that information about the city of Paytakaran should be primarily contained in the history section of Beylagan (town). Could people familiar with this subject check this image for accuracy of the borders of this region and location of the town, as I think it is necessary to rough maps for the region and the location of the town available on the articles. John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have another map here: Image:Historical Armenia & neighbouring states.jpg. The two maps provide identical information about the location of the province, but differ with regard to location of the city of Paytakaran. Grandmaster 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was no discussion for months on this article, since the other party to the dispute ignores the talk. The article cannot remain in its present condition forever, and people have a right to edit it. I'm readding my edits in the form agreed with the Transhumanist. Anyone objecting to any line or part should present his objections on talk, blind reverts will be reported to the admins. Grandmaster 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not going to happen. You can't single handedly add your personal original research. That's strictly prohibited in Misplaced Pages.-- Ευπάτωρ 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not original research, it is well referenced info you just removed again. Grandmaster 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- No matter how many times you say it, it's not going to make it so.-- Ευπάτωρ 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not original research, it is well referenced info you just removed again. Grandmaster 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not going to happen. You can't single handedly add your personal original research. That's strictly prohibited in Misplaced Pages.-- Ευπάτωρ 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- There was no discussion for months on this article, since the other party to the dispute ignores the talk. The article cannot remain in its present condition forever, and people have a right to edit it. I'm readding my edits in the form agreed with the Transhumanist. Anyone objecting to any line or part should present his objections on talk, blind reverts will be reported to the admins. Grandmaster 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just check the article:
- Prior to becoming Paytakaran, the region was known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors. 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". Strabo also mentions Caspiane among the lands conquered by king Artaxias I from Medes.
- It clearly says that the region was part of Albania and Medes. Yet you reverted the mention of that in the intro. I think that this is gonna be next arbcom case, involving me and you. Grandmaster 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm back from wikibreak
Though it will take me a day or three before I can find the time to refamiliarize myself with the details. In the meantime, please refrain from threats, and from escalating any conflicts over the article. The article is improving, albeit slowly, and we are all dedicated to its further improvement. Let's do so as mature adults and resolve this here. Arbcom already has its hands full, and doesn't need any more cases. Let's do our part to minimize the burden placed on Arbcom.
Note that I moved the article believing that there would be no objections. Since there were objections, I have no problem with it being reverted back to the original title. Grandmaster, I ask that you take the same approach. If you disagree with a revert of an edit you've made, simply take that as an invitation to discuss the edit for consensus building.
I read fast, and so I don't mind poring through "screeds of debate". I'll be back up to speed soon. The Transhumanist
- Thanks, this is what I did from the very beginning and do now. If you check the discussion just above this section, you'll see that I tried to find out what the problem was with my edit, why I was reverted without any edit summary, and did not receive a satisfactory response. This article was one of those that resulted in that arbcom case, so it would good to find a resolution to this dispute. I think that reconciliation of positions is not gonna work in this particular case, as one of the sides simply denies any evidence cited, no matter what it is. I'm actually considering further actions to have this dispute finally resolved. But anyway, thanks for rejoining us, I'm willing to cooperate as usual. Grandmaster 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The region vs. the province
Paytakaran was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.
- I think the sticking points on the article have been mostly grammatical/semantic. Your "opponents" are sticklers for detail, and it seems to me that they merely wish to keep the article free from ambiguity and error. The above sentence for instance may lead readers (who don't bother to read the whole article) to assume that the region was called Paytakaran while in the hands of each of the named kingdoms. For example, referring to Constantinople (which is time-period-specific) as Istanbul could be rather confusing, and may lead readers to make erroneous assumptions, such as that Constantinople was a Turkish city, that it was always called Istanbul, etc.
- Someone reading just the lead of this article may easily assume that the province was called Paytakaran throughout its history, and this would be an erroneous assumption. It is in this sense grammatically awkward. Grandmaster, can you think of a way to fix the above sentence to accomodate these concerns?