This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brandmeister (old) (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 31 May 2009 (→Statement by uninvolved The Diamond Apex: sock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Moses of Chorene

Initiated by Grandmaster at 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Third opinion:
• Mediation proposed:

Statement by Grandmaster

This request results from the problems with the article Moses of Chorene, which is guarded by a group of users supporting certain POV, who prevent other users from including information they do not like. The dispute about the dating of ancient historian Moses of Chorene started in the article Sisak, with this edit by Marshall Bagramyan, which seemed to claim that the opinion of American historian Robert H. Hewsen about the dating of Moses of Chorene is not the mainstream view: . I looked into this issue and quoted at talk a number of prominent western experts, who shared the opinion of Hewsen, and made this edit: , which MarshallBagramyan revised like this: , claiming that the opinion of Hewsen was the opinion of minority. I rolled it back, asking for a source: , and made a clarification that there's a dispute about when Moses of Chorene lived: This last edit was reverted by MarshallBagramyan:

After this I did more research on the subject, and it became apparent to me that the majority of international experts date Moses of Chorene later than the 5th century. However the article about Moses of Chorene claimed 5th century dating as a fact, and the opinions of scholars who challenged this view were criticized. This is the version of the article that existed before I started editing it: It contained statements such as:

Up until the mid-twentieth century, many scholars doubted that Movses wrote the work in the fifth century due to historical inconsistencies, addressed him as "Pseudo-Movses", and moved him and the History to the seventh to ninth centuries. Stepan Malkhasyants, an Armenian philologist and expert of classical Armenian literature, likened this period to a "competition", whereby one scholar attempted to outperform the other in their criticism of Movses. Although these views have now been discredited and "much of this criticism has been rejected," there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work and criticize it heavily as a historical source.

1. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, pp. 305-306.
2. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, pp. 3-5.
3. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, p. 3.
4. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, p. 306.

As one could see, despite the dating being in dispute by the modern scholarly community, the article claimed that the later dating "has been discredited", etc. I made a few edits to fairly represent the alternative opinions: They were all reverted by MarshallBagramyan, removing the source that I cited: I restored my edits, and asked MarshallBagramyan at talk why he reverted my edits: MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , claiming that my edits were OR and weasel wording, and in his comment at talk rejected the scholars such as Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff and Robert W. Thomson , who are all well known experts in Armenian studies. Quite interestingly that while accusing me of weasel wording, he himself included in the article quite questionable weasel statements, such as "there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work". I quoted a number of authoritative publications and authors (including Britannica ), and stated that the opinions of above scholars are notable and must be quoted in the article: Also, I noticed that users Folantin and dab were previously involved in editing of this article, so I notified them about the dispute, and asked them for help with dispute resolution: I was not familiar with these users before. Folantin commented: , and dab reverted MarshallBagramyan: and commented at talk: MarshallBagramyan commented, , and then Eupator made quite an incivil comment about dab: In the meantime time dab made a series of edits, trying to introduce the alternative position: , MarshallBagramyan reverted all of dab's edits: , Folantin restored them: , Eupator reverted: . dab made another rewrite in a few edits: , MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , dab rvd back:

According to the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2, MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1rv per week parole because of edit warring: , which was logged here: After he made first 3 rvs I warned him about the violation: Despite that he kept reverting, so I filed an arbitration enforcement request here: , as result of which he was blocked for 2 days: Back from his block, MarshallBagramyan rewrites the article, essentially reverting it to his original version with minor variations, and deleting the info and sources that he did not like: I rolled back Marshall's edits: Gazifikator joins and reverts: , and is reverted by Paul Barlow: 91.103.31.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appears to be Gazifikator who forgot to sign in, reverted back: This is when Nishkid64 protects the article. In the meantime there was a long discussion at talk of the article, where I provided numerous quotes from leading experts in Armenian studies, who said that the dating of Moses of Chorene was disputed, or that he lived later than the 5th century. Despite that, the discussion was stonewalled by MarshallBagramyan, Eupator and Gazifikator, and no progress was made. dab, Folantin and Paul B left the article.

I attempted dispute resolution, and asked for a third opinion. SimonP read the sources quoted at talk and provided a third opinion: After more than one month of discussions me and Marshall agreed on compromise version of the intro, and I agreed to drop the words "dating is disputed" to reach a compromise with MarshallBagramyan, despite other users insisting that the intro should say so: The only one objecting to this compromise was Gazifikator: After more than a month the article was unprotected, , and I included the intro that was agreed at talk: I waited another day, to see if MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator would introduce the alternative opinions themselves. This did not happen, so I made a couple of changes to include the opinions of notable American experts who challenged the 5th century dating. In particular, I quoted Robert W. Thomson, a retired Harvard professor, who translated the work of Moses of Chorene into English. Considering that much space in the article is dedicated to criticism of this scholar by some obscure Armenian authors, it would be in line with WP:NPOV to fairly represent the position of the other side of the dispute and explain what Thomson actually says. My edits were immediately reverted by MarshallBagramyan, who accused me of edit warring and POV pushing. I don't understand how inclusion of sourced info from leading experts in Armenian studies could be considered POV pushing. I restored my edits, , however I was reverted by The Diamond Apex: , who was absent from discussion for about a month. Nishkid64 again protected the article at MarshallBagramyan 's preferred version. I made another attempt at dispute resolution, and proposed to request a mediation: Gazifikator refused: , and so did MarshallBagramyan:

As one could see, for about 2 months the article about Moses of Chorene has been in a deadlock. It is impossible to add any information to the article, if it does not conform with the opinion of MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator. Third party editors are being driven out of the article by relentless edit warring, discussions are being stonewalled, and dispute resolution attempts are being sabotaged. It is a clear violation of WP:OWN and other policies. Thus, the arbitration is my last resort to resolve the problems with this article.

Additional comment. Responding to Newyorkbrad's question, if there was any possibility to resolve the problem by other means, I would not take it here. However I don't think that the problems with the article could be resolved unless the community takes it under the strict control. So far the other involved parties did not show any willingness to cooperate with any dispute resolution. I mean, if they wanted to resolve the dispute, why did they refuse from mediation? In particular, Gazifikator, who says that the dispute would be working itself out, did nothing but edit war on almost every article that he edited. For instance, on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, the article with unclear purpose that he created, he made already 10 rvs to remove the information about the number of ardent believers. On Moses of Chorene he was the only one objecting to the compromise wording of the intro. How can one reasonably expect this user to work any problems out in cooperation with other editors? From what I see, this group of editors wants to keep the things the way they are. They will be stonewalling the discussions, so that no progress would be made, refuse from any dispute resolution, and keep the article protected as long as they can. If the article becomes unprotected, they will not let anyone edit it, and eventually an admin will protect it for them. It seems that they expect that the editors wishing to add info on alternative dating will get tired of pointless arguments, and give up. Btw, this already happened, when a group of editors left after the article got protected the first time. Since this tactic is working, I expect that they will be employing it in the future. I believe that if nothing is done to resolve the stonewalling issue now, the problem will be reemerging on other articles. You saw that it started in the article about Sisak, which is an article of a very minor importance, and then spread over to other articles. The content dispute itself is a very quick one to resolve, like in many other cases, there are 2 different views on the subject. As usual, both views should be presented alongside each other, so that the reader could form an opinion about both positions. It takes just ten minutes to do that. But the article has been in a deadlock for 2 months now.

Also, I find it quite strange that dab is being accused of bad manners. He may have made statements about the nationalistic historians in Armenia, but never made any personal comments about other editors. As I showed above, dab's very first edit was met with an incivil comment, and personal attacks continued until he left the page. Just check this one:

And it turns out that The Diamond Apex was MarshallBagramyan's sock, judging by the block logs: Surprise. Grandmaster 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fedayee, this is not about content issues, and I see no point in discussing them here. I never made any connections between Urartu and Moses of Chorene. These are just two issues that cause much of polemic between the scholars in Armenia and the West. MarshallBagramyan mentioned Armen Aivazian during our discussion at Sisak as one of the "prominent experts of Movses (known as Movses Khorenalogists)". Therefore, the information about this author was relevant to the discussion. Aivazian is mentioned in the book of Armenian politologist Razmik Panossian, as one of the most vehement critics of later dating of Moses of Chorene: And here Panossian provides more info about the dispute between historians in the West and Armenia: But the problem on this article is not the content dispute, the problem is the disruption by MarshallBagramyan, Eupator and Gazifikator. As we've seen, MarshallBagramyan went as far as to use socks to edit war, and a group of users supporting a certain POV, which happened to match with that described by Razmik Panossian, for 2 months edit warred, socked, blocked any dispute resolution attempts and stonewalled the discussions. This is the problem that I want the arbitration committee to address. If it was a content dispute between the two parties, who were willing to resolve it by standard dispute resolution procedures, I would not take the issue here. But the problem is that there's a group of users, which wishes to control the article in question, and does not want anyone from outside involved. That's why they are not interested in any dispute resolution, and we need the community to take this article under its strict control to prevent such situation from occurring in the future. Plus, the stonewalling tactics employed by this group of users probably needs addressing too. --Grandmaster 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

I'm going to make my thoughts brief and concise considering GM's gross need to grossly exaggerate the situation: I never opposed inserting alternative opinions and my opinion has been noted numerous times on Movses Khorenatsi's talk page. What I did oppose was the problematic wording that was being POV-pushed by Grandmaster and Dbachmann himself, who turned a fine article into a heap of rubble. I asked both users to not get carried away with their edits and to resolve all disputes diplomatically. What I got was a hurl of insults from an intolerant admin (dab) and edit-warring by GM. Less than a few hours after the article was unlocked, GM inserted controversial edits and has as of yet ignored each and every request to discuss his edits and it's extremely dishonest for him to portray himself as an innocent editor given his heavily-POV-laden edits. Movses Khorenatsi is perhaps the best known Armenian history and while I have refrained from saying so in the past few months, is also a visible target. It's all to clear that GM is over-emphasizing the dating issue to create a counterfeit controversy and has showed absolutely no interest on Movses' other details.

Thus, there's absolutely no need to waste everybody's time with another arbitration case. I invite GM to the talk to propose his wordings and we can insert Thomson's and Toumanoff's and anyone else's opinions to his heart's content, in a npov manner and with counter arguments, of course. Calling Armenian scholars "obscure", as if they are unqualified, is a rather amateurish attack by GM, for he would never make such an unprofessional remark if he saw how much Western scholars have benefited and profited from their sweat and labor over the past 40 years. The French article on Movses looks fine and I wouldn't mind seeing the English one resemble something like that. It's that simple. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Folantin

I'm commenting here because I've edited this article in the past. I removed it from my watchlist shortly after the dispute broke out because I was too busy dealing with problems elsewhere and it looked like it was going nowhere fast. Consequently, I'm unaware of the details of the talk page arguments (though I may look into them if this case goes ahead). What I can say is that my understanding of the content issue is that every modern English-language source I've come across puts the date of the history attributed to Moses of Chorene later than the traditional one of the 5th century.

If John Vandenberg's supposition about the cause of this dispute (the Sisak (eponym) article) is correct, then that's yet more depressing evidence that all too many editors are seeing every article about Armenia and Azerbaijan on Misplaced Pages through the lens of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see how this benefits the general reader. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: queries from Arbs. I'm not entirely sure ArbCom is the best way of solving this dispute. --Folantin (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

My involvement started back when Sisak and Hayk were mentioned back in October 2008 at User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Request_for_review. (I am a WP:TPW of Rlevse) We had an article for Hayk but we didnt have one for Sisak, so thought it would be helpful if I assisted him in the requested review by creating Sisak (eponym). my version was neutral, I think. The dating issue took over, and I stayed out of that until an anon started removing a very appropriate quotation. At this time, even Marshal Bagramyan was of the opinion that "we should, nevertheless, not suppress it" I performed a single revert of the anon, and I left the battle with a note on the talk page asking the parties to put more emphasis on expanding the article, including a question about Armenian art that mentions Sisak (still unanswered).

It is worth pointing out to this committee that my creation of that article was viewed suspiciously, and was part of the general ruckus during the election. I ask the arbitrator to read this in full: User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive_52#AA, but I will quote just two sentences:

The same dating dispute moved to Moses of Chorene, which has been locked in dispute due to Nishkid64 protecting it twice.

The first protection occurred after a revert by an IP registered to the Armenian Ministry of Economy, and resulted in a complaint at User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive_57#Moses_of_Chorene. Nishkid64 rightly recommended WP:3O, which was obtained. While both sides tried to integrate the changes recommended by the third opinion, another edit-war erupted with MarshallBagramyan saying in an edit summary (emphasis mine):

Nishkid protected it again an hour later. Since Nishkid64 isn't involved in this specific article, and there was an edit war going on, it is within reason that Nishkid64 protected the article. However each time he protected it at an "Armenian" preferred version and, coincidences aside, he is clearly not impartial when it comes to A-A disputes, especially when Grandmaster is involved.

Nishkid64's role in the Ehud Lesar case was of a similar nature, where user:Khoikhoi and user:Nishkid64 blocked user:Ehud Lesar, however the committee at the time extended good faith to them.

I urge the committee to accept this case limited to this one issue, as this dispute is a meaty bite sized example of the broader dispute. If you guys and gals can resolve this one, the principle will hold for the large majority of the others in the A-A topical area. John Vandenberg 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@The Diamond Apex, it is a bit rich to call yourself a "non-involved editor"; you have been active on the talk page where your comments are well informed but not impartial, and it was your revert that occurred 10 minutes before Nishkid64 decided that protection of the article was necessary.. Due to the low level of your involvement I am not surprised that Grandmaster omitted you from the list of parties, but perhaps you could do the honour. John Vandenberg 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@Fedayee: Over at the Sisak discussion, MarshallBagramyan asserted back in November 2008 that "The Movses Khorenatsi article currently presents the current view held by the Movses Khorenatsiologists who have studied the language and history of Movses and are not slavishly regurgitating the tripe echoed by European scholars that surfaced during the 19th century." Not surprisingly, it then became necessary to address the bias in the Movses Khorenatsi article before the Sisak discussion could resume. I doubt that any involved party is unaware of the importance of this dating issue in relation to Sisak. It is surprising how many third opinions have been needed in order to fix this one simple issue. John Vandenberg 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

@NYB, the suggestion to use "two days involvement before having the right to make a revert" is a minor change of the rules and much more complicated to enforce. The games will go on as they have for over three years now. John Vandenberg 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

@Coren: This is not a content dispute. Any uninvolved editor would have known that the 5th century dating was not the only view that has currency. Rather than attempt to fix this, the editors with a history of supporting the Armenian point of view stonewalled discussion, left Grandmaster to do the edit and then reverted him. They talk sweetly now about the compromise that was made - that is to the introduction of one article where the sources are plentiful. And they tried to block this at every stage, such as suggesting keeping the same dating but using "circa", as if that would resolve the 3-5 century differences in the dating, and "I would like to see more imput from the involved parties" (heaven forbid that uninvolved parties keep stating the obvious) At this pace, that one article will not be a good article candidate for another 10 years. And not for trying. The edit history will be littered with users who later become banned.

It is one example dispute that demonstrates effectively the user conduct and gaming that occurs in this topical area. 1RR has not worked; the deck is rigged. Any user that engages in these practices needs to be reverted and placed on 0RR indefinitely until they can demonstrate that they can write for the enemy.

See ARBCOM08 Q&A: AA-edit-wars for some of my thoughts on this issue. John Vandenberg 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved The Diamond Apex

In my humble opinion, and provided that it will not be discounted, the primary offender on the Khorenatsi article is neither of the two parties but Mr. Dbachmann, whose disparaging remarks toward MarshallBagramyan and Eupator Grandmaster did not bother to include in his summary above. It is paramount to read this section,so that the administrators have a clearer picture of what I am speaking: . To the best of my understanding, you cannot impose something which is disagreed upon and then report someone for reverting you. Also, to Mr. Folantin, please see this and the tables provided in talk here,. There was indeed a compromise in the lead, which unfortunately you did not acknowledge. Both parties should discuss, bit by bit, however painful and micromanagable it wlll seem, every addition that they wish to make; and that was the justification behind my revert. This will force both parties to work from a certain version. They have already compromised on the lead section of the article and there is no reason for us to assume that they cannot do so for the rest (alas, Rome obviously was not build in one day).

If it would not hurt to include my second point, an observation if you will, I would like to note that I have seen that many editors are restricted to one revert per week. This has created obvious problems (particularly the case of Mr. Meowy). It would be more logical to enforce such a limit on the articles and with a requirement that those who revert were actually engaged in the conversation beforehand (say, at least for two days prior to the revert and that their discussion includes the element which is disputed). Just changing this policy, or guideline or whathaveyou, I believe, will correct a lot of problems.

MarshallBagarmian's followup is slightly upsetting, but unfortunately I doubt anyone can do anything about that. Misplaced Pages is a popular site; it iss naive of us to think that no one would think of taking advantage of that. We should just be sure that every user uses one account, with whatever tools Misplaced Pages has, and only then impose the policy I mentioned above, requiring the article revert restriction to at least two, and not one, days, to prevent others from taking advantage of it.

Therefore, I, too, disapprove of the need for making a case out of nothing here (unless of course we are speaking about rectifying Mr. Dbachmann's etiquette). Regards to all,--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

Also, it is important to note that Jayvdb brought on the locking of the article and was the person who locked it. I personally have not noticed anything suspicious about the locking. His first lock was over 7 hours after the revert. Three editors from one side and two on the other made the reverts for the last day before the fist lock. It should not at all be surprising that there is a probability that this would favor the side who had more editors involved, and again, the article was locked several hours after the last revert. On the second series of reverts, I was the last involved in the revert (and I admitted I may have been a little too quick, my mistake), and besides me only MarshallBagramyan and Grandmasters were involved. That makes Grandmaster being outnumbered 2 to 1, on that paricular case and I understand his frustration as I realised it afterward. It's true the article was locked 10 minutes afterward, but it’s also true that I reverted Grandmaster less than half an hour after his revert, its not as if someone was waiting my revert out there to lock (that's what I am under the impression John suppose). If we're going to check the heart of each administrator (how is this even possible), we may just as well check Sandstein’s here , whose behavior and castigation toward Meowy has been, to say the least, ridiculous. We can probably deduct a lot of things behind the locks, but I see Jayvdb is an arbitrator and it is very unbecoming of him to indirectly imply misconduct. If I am mistaken in saying this, I do apologise.

I also do thank Jayvdb for his feedback and, true to my word, I will take it to heart. If he feel I was not impartial, he should have perhaps told me on the talk page (which he was not a part of; I'm glad he has taken the time to read my comments which are pretty long, but a reply would have been very nice). I don't remember having communicated with him asides from my comments here, . I’m afraid that I must admit that my comment has bordered rudeness there. I truly apologise for my temper but for the sake of an argument, I wonder what he was expecting. He left a link which was unrelated to the article, a revisionist booklet of the Tukish government whose only purpose is to deny the Armenian genocide and I believe he certainly did not do himself a service by adding this unreliable link, in an article where several editors out of the blue found interest in. The site added by Jayvdb is aimed to purports that the Armenian genocide never took place (see the links provided in the 'Link' section of the site on what's more about it). In the two most heated incidents Khorenatsi and Armenian terrorism his actions have poured oil onto the fire, which would have probably caused Armenian editors to be disruptive in their replies, which results could have been more blocks and grief. He should know this; as an administrator he should work toward cooling nationalists down not to feed a fight. Anyway, it's not as if things can't be repaired, they can, bringing this further with a trial is needless and unconstructive. We should all be ready to forgive and forget.

This account was confirmed as a sock of MarshallBagramyan and indef-banned now. brandt 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

My participation in the Ehud Lesar case was strictly on the grounds that I believed the user was a sock of the banned editor AdilBaguirov (who happens to be Azeri). Ban and block enforcement is something I quite frequently deal with, c.f. my sock blocks of banned nationalists from Europe, Eurasia and Asia.

I first came across Moses of Chorene on April 18 most likely after following a series of wikilinks. I noticed an edit war was in progress and that a resolution was unlikely to be reached on the article talk page in a timely manner. I decided to protect the article, as I figured it was just another in the long list of disputed Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. I was then left a stern note by Dbachmann, who was upset with the version I chose to protect. My protections are never an endorsement of the current version of the page. I always protect articles in their current state, regardless of the nationalist slant that might be present, unless it contains vandalism, BLP issues, etc. I revisited Moses of Chorene on May 22 after I saw the page listed on the contributions of The Diamond Apex, who I encountered at a discussion on Talk:Genocides in history (on an aside, I actually argued there that the Khojaly Massacre (a 1992 Armenian massacre of Azeris) should be listed in Genocides in history). On the article history of Moses of Chorene, I noticed that an edit war had once again flared up, just hours after it had been unprotected by MSGJ. I protected the article to the current version – with no biases to the Azeri or Armenian sides of the dispute or the Armenian and Azeri editors involved. I'm sorry if the Azeris (and John) feel that I had been colluding against them. This clearly was not my attention. My policy has always been the same: I don't look kindly to editors who put their nationalist agendas ahead of building a neutral encyclopedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gazifikator

I am lost as to why this case was filled, we actually found a compromise for the lead, and whatever version Nishkid locked the article to (why bring old woonds as John is doing), the results were clearly beneficial, a compromise before this day has never been achieved since my pariticipation on Misplaced Pages. Grandmaster's submition for third opinion was constructive which helped to find an acceptable wording for the lead. As The Diamond Apex has said, it's working, slowly but we're there. Pushing us in an arbitration case will have all our energy in that case rather than working on the article.

The Diamond Apex proposition on imposition restriction on articles rather than editors is great and Im willing to try his approach on two days involvement before having the right to make a revert. Everyone could be warned, then any new editors could be warned of that. This will fix a lot of problem and part of it seems to be currently voted on the Macedonia case. We just need a motion about that, no need for a new case. Gazifikator (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved PMAnderson

I have no intention of involving myself in this case; enough is enough. But the following (from the current English edition of Pauly-Wissowa, now in the process of publication) may be helpful on the underlying content dispute:

Moses of Chorene Influential Armenian historian. His three-volume ‘History of Armenia (Patmutiwn Hayoc ) describes the country's past from prehistoric times until the death of Mesrop Maštoc (439), the creator of the Armenian alphabet (Armenian). Attached is an epilogue lamenting the state of the country and its church at that time (bk. 3, ch. 68). Since M. refers to himself as a pupil of Mesrop (bk. 3, ch. 61), his book, which deals with the most varied sources (Armenian authors, Josephus Flavius, Eusebius of Caesarea, among others; overview in ), is frequently dated to the 5th cent. AD. Stylistic and thematic characteristics (support for the Armenian-Georgian dynasty of the Bagratids, first citation at the beginning of the 10th century etc.), however, argue for the 8th century....

It goes on to cite Thomson's Bibliography of Classic Armenian Literature for the later date; and to explain that the Geography traditionally ascribed to Moses is probably 7th century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: A proposal for mediation has been rejected here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fedayee

Like the other editors I'm a bit lost here. What's the rationale with this request? Grandmaster fills it, then immediately afterward John replies with a recuse and strongly suggesting the case be accepted. I fail to understand how the article about Sisak is related with this particular recent conflict on Khorenatsi's datation, besides Khorenatsi having referred to Sisak in his work. Grandmaster replied here about something which is related with territorial disputes. Someone somewhere, either John or Grandmaster, has to explain to other editors about that. John wasn't even involved with the article, other than loading Carrière's (who supports Grandmaster position) book out of the blue on wikisource and created his article while the dispute sparked in Khorenatsi's page. If there is anything related with territorial disputes behind the datation dispute as it seem obvious à priori for both Grandmaster and John, I have not seen it. I agree with Folantin when she writes: If John Vandenberg's supposition about the cause of this dispute (the Sisak (eponym) article) is correct, then that's yet more depressing evidence that all too many editors are seeing every article about Armenia and Azerbaijan on Misplaced Pages through the lens of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see how this benefits the general reader. Having chatted with both Eupator and MarshallBagramyan on the issue, not once have both shown any clue on the relation of that datation conflict and current territorial disputes. Just a side note, The Diamond Apex's proposal, of restricting articles to 1RR is great, it's been voted on the Macedonia case. This, plus a requirement of having engaged in the discussion, could benefit us all. Perhaps a motion? Because frankly, Grandmaster's request of opening a case and John's strong support of it is mind boggling.

Reply to NYB: There are articles with are in worse shape out there, where consensus was never achieved. Now Grandmaster is dragging us in another case for the rare one which compromise was achieved (parties should receive barnstars for the compromise in the lead and advised to continue on that direction... not Arbcommed). For once something is working... requesting arbitration is like sabotaging it. All we need now is placing those articles on 1RR and requiring editors to be engaged in the discussion at least for two days before they be given the right of that one revert. Their engagement should include clear elements of what has been reverted with evidence that they've read and know the opposing argument. This will prevent SPA accounts to disrupt, as it was recently the case in other articles. All it takes is a motion.

PS: It should not be surprising that The Diamond Apex is calling himself uninvolved, he's been there for only three months and only recently started learning about how Misplaced Pages works. He must have assumed that since his name was not in the list of involved parties that this made him uninvolved. I think John is jumping the gun a little too quick, he should give a chance to a new user. - Fedayee (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To PMAnderson: No one questioned Pauly-Wissowa, the true reason of the revert war is that in the version pushed by Grandmaster it is claimed that the majority of Western scholars support a later dating. It's the main point of contention. Eupator rectified Grandmaster's table which shows there is no consensus as Grandmaster implies, to which Grandmaster replied with an OK. As you note, since all those scholars were brought in the discussion Grandmaster could not have ignored that his table was wrong. If you read the discussion you will see authors changing their tone over the years, The Cambridge History of Iran 1991 opposes the earlier version Grandmaster quoted, even in his reply Grandmaster writes when the 1991 was provided: this is what it says in one of its earlier volumes: Since the obvious changing of tone over the years, a source of the 70s can not be claimed to represent the recent view when using the term 'majority.' Thomson is the translator of the work in the English language, and in his introduction he provides that thesis of later dating. So obviously, those who read the work will have Thomson's annotated translation where it is said 'majority of the scholars', the work was published in the 70s. Now, all it takes to claim this information (which stipulates such majority) is outdated is to check what the same scholars wrote in the 70s and more recently. And that was what was done! I am not saying that all the blame is on Grandmaster, but it is not that easy as John and Grandmaster put it. MarshallBagramyan's main argument was that we need to survey scholars and that was never done.

John, your insinuations based on that diff on Eupator's comment are baseless. If as an arbitrator you have such interpretations from such an unclear diff, I pity those who might fall victim of your misjudgments. Ask Grandmaster privately, he might have a clue on why Eupator made that supposition. Besides you and him, no one in their dealing with Khorenatsi considered any territorial dispute. And I am speechless at your proposal of 0RR. When the following articles pass the stage of being even acceptable (I'm not even talking about 'good article'), we'll talk: Auguste Carrière, The History of the Country of Albania.

Why are you so much concerned of article 'quality' in this one particular case? There are couple of articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan which are filled with OR, misuse of sources, extensive quoting from the same authors etc., is it because the culprits are from the other side?

To Paul, this early history of Karabakh reference to Khorenatsi is totally unrelated with the dating issue. MarshallBagramyan already sent you a reply, so I won't rehash his points.

This case has no base at all. Where was the arbcom when on AA2 we reported content disruption on a mass scale which was viewed as only a detail? Or all the reports which we filled on such disruptions which only Moreschi has shown any interest to fix? How convenient to surgically cut one article. - Fedayee (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to arbitrators, Grandmaster is referring to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, note that it was initially a case between Hajji Piruz (Iranian Azerbaijani) vs Grandmaster, Atabek and Dacy69 (Armenia or Armenians were not even involved). Armenian editors had been taken by surprise when Grandmaster and co. included Armenian editors out of the blue and transformed it into Armenia-Azerbaijan by dragging as much Armenian editors in the conflict as possible. Also note, that Jayvdb had also sided with Grandmaster on Hajju Piruz's affair on several occasions (not in the case itself, but in articles where he reverted Hajji Piruz to AdilBaguirov's versions).

Also, the three users who were responsible of Armenia-Azerbaijan (the first case), being AdilBaguirov, Dacy69 and Atabek have ended up later to have shown very severe disruptions. AdilBaguirov was banned, Dacy69 was later indefinitely banned by Moreschi and Atabek on three different occasions had a topic banning, the last one indefinitely. Having said that, there would have not been any AA1 if those three users were not involved on Misplaced Pages. There would not have been any AA2 if Grandmaster and co. didn't drag Armenian users (out of the blue) in their conflict with Hajji Piruz and extended the case to make it another Armenia-Azerbaijan affair.

Before even accepting such a baseless request as this one now, let that be very clear! Just changing the remedy of AA2, by placing articles rather than editors on restriction, and requiring prior engagement in talkpage, relevant to the actual future revert would fix a lot of problems. Particularly make the gaming of the system more difficult. We the Armenian editors of Armenian Wikiproject don't have any real expectations or trust with the arbitration, we only hope that the gaming of the rules stop! If Grandmaster really thinks about the quality of the articles, I'm sure he will agree with this proposal. - Fedayee (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A few questions to Grandmaster: In your discussions in the talkpage and elsewhere trying to find support from neutral third parties, you brought the claimed connection between Urartu and Armenians which dab opposed and very harshly in other articles in the past (relevant to Urartu). This can be viewed as soapboxing. How in your opinion was Urartu related with the dating dispute and how was that letter by some scholars which you kept bringing and with quotations about nationalist historians related with the dating dispute? You kept bringing Aivazian, while this author was never used in the article. What was your reason of doing so?

Were you ignoring that, by associating the naming dispute with nationalism and the Urartu dispute which dab has shown to be particularly sensible to on other articles, you would provoke him and as a result turn him against Armenian editors? Turning it into some sort of nationalistic dispute which dab was disgusted of? I can't fail to notice that you made a change to your revert. I am referring to the change here, which of course is just a word but makes a whole lot of a difference; why have you waited so much, in spite of having seen the sources yourself, to make that change? Do you think that Armenian editors would have been receptive if you fixed that prior the revert war? Taking that change into account, what element besides overemphasis or down emphasis (editorial process can deal with that) a position vs the other, would require an arbitration? Also, what was your argument to changing the name of the article? You have not brought any, you just perpetuated the rename after seeing dab was sensible about that.

• You brought in Urartu

• You brought in Nationalism

• You changed the name

Those three points were irrelevant with the dating dispute but dab has shown sensitivity to them in the past and you deliberately did not oppose to somehow tie these to the dating dispute at hand. Result being the expected provocation of dab who answered here and who took the matter as yet another nationalistic dispute.

Second comment to Paul: Your further comment is developed on the assumption that your initial point is accurate. Before making such a conclusion, you should take a look at the initial 'Movses of Khoren' article and the following edits. Created by a totally uninvolved user with only the 5th century dating. Where is that motivation? Note that dab has made several edits, which were yet very acceptable later, see here as of June 2007, this language was encyclopedic and acceptable. It will be Folantin (another uninvolved user), who will be removing it from the lead. Where is this political agenda, which is apparently so obvious? As of May 2008, this was Folantin reverted a version before MarshallBagramyan did his series of edits. Note that, dab version which was changed by Folantin was still acceptable. Note also that the 'Armenian scholars', have published their work in notable peer reviewed Western Journals, it should not come as a surprise that most scholars specializing on an Armenian historian are... Armenian. MarshallBagramyan did make POV edits but so did Grandmaster and dab. Since dab is uninvolved, I will give one example.

dab added this in lead: Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century, is mostly dated to between the 7th and 9th centuries by historians.

He uses Britannica, but Britannica say:

traditionally believed to have lived in the 5th century, Moses has also been dated as late as the 9th century.

You see my point, that was why changing the previous remedy, requiring editors to know what they are reverting and forcing then to address the material they are reverting is what it takes. The rest is editorial process. Had dab proposed the initial Britannica wording, other editors would have been more receptive, dab replied only with his typical 'nationalist...' rhetoric. Besides, you have not commented on the merit of a case, neither what you'd expect from such a case. - Fedayee (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Paul B

Fedayee writes "I fail to understand how the article about Sisak is related with this particular recent conflict on Khorenatsi's datation." Please read the talk page of the Sisak (eponym) article. You will see that the Moses' dates are being used there in an argument about a quotation, the presence of which on the page was disputed. The author of the quotation, Robert H. Hewsen, asserted quite strongly that "Sisak" is a purely mythical person, on the grounds that the name "Sisak" is a late invention "unknown to Armenian historiography before the seventh century A.D". Since Moses mentions Sisak, if his writings date from the 5th century, this would imply that references to "Sisak" exist before the seventh century, and - I assume - imply that Moses may have used historical documents that identified a real Sisak, thus supporting the essential accuracy of Armenian national foundation stories. In contrast, if the later date is correct, his stories become...problematic. How this is related to the modern Nagorno-Karabagh dispute is only too obvious if one reads the current version of our Nagorno-Karabagh#Early_history. Paul B (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Brandmeister

Though an involved part in AA matter, I edited Moses only one or two times in total. Having read the associated talk page some time ago I believe the dating criticism did not come out of nowhere. Some parts of Armenian historiography are criticised even by scholars of Armenian heritage such as the aforementioned Hewsen. At the same time the staunch group advocacy of Armenian issues is common not only in Misplaced Pages and sometimes this advocacy hits the ground. Even when the third-parties like Dbachmann come to assist they could be discarded by several Armenian users. I'm against the enforcement over disputed articles, proposed by The Diamond Apex and supported by Gazifikator since this is a quite plausible indicator that both editors failed to advocate further. I don't want the Moses issue to serve as a scarecrow for all other AA topics, especially when there are few knowledgeable users to help. Lastly, I would like just to point out that the article's protection is not the endorsement of the current version. brandспойт 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Paul B

I became involved in this briefly after the issue was raised on the Fringe theories board, which I frequent (see Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Moses_of_Chorene). This followed several earlier problems raised at the board which concerned "Armenian nationalist" versions of history. Though I have encountered these is some of the articles on my watchlist, I was at the time wholly ignorant of Moses of Chorene. I also had no idea why the question of his living in the 5th or 8th century would matter to either Armenians or Azeris. At the time the article asserted as undisputed fact that Moses was a 5th century writer. Considerable effort had to be made to even allow the acknowledgement that there is a widespread view that he lived at a later period. The "pro 5th century" editors repeatedly attempted to assert that the view that he was from a later date depended on outdated or idiosyncratic scholarship, despite the fact that this seems to be the standard view. My own intervention comprised a few reverts away from the version of the article that asserted baldly that he was a 5th century writer. I also made some talk page comments and read a short book in English by an Armenian historian which intervened in the dispute. However, as I do not speak Armenian, nor could I comment in detail on the scholarship in question, I then left the article. My impression was that a group of editors were attempting to assert that mainstream western scholarship had been supplanted by recent, mainly Armenian, authors, whose view of this writer's date should be given preference. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: my later interpretation of the motivations of the "pro 5th century" faction is indicated in my 'Comments' in reply to Fedayee above. Even though at first I had no idea why anyone cared about Moses of Chorene's dates, it was very obvious from the first that there was a motivation beyond mere academic disagreement. This is a clear case of academic opinion about ancient history being wilfully misrepresented to serve modern politics. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/1)

• Recuse per User:Jayvdb/recusal#AA and because it seems like I instigated this mess by creating the article "Sisak (eponym)". As far as I can recall, my version was neutral, and I have stayed out of this dispute (I am more interested in poetry), but I wont object to being named as a party if someone can demonstrate I contributed to this dispute. Either way, I will submit a statement urging the committee to accept this case. John Vandenberg 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd appreciate brief comments from other parties on Gazifikator's suggestion that the dispute might be working itself out without the need for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm of the same mind as NYB. Right now I'm not sure if it needs acceptance. Wizardman 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to decline per below. Wizardman 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; this appears to be strictly a content dispute, and I very much doubt there is anything the committee could do. I would strongly recommend that mediation be attempted given that the entire dispute seems to revolve around one or two points of disputed fact. — Coren  12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, for now. There are other avenues of dispute resolution to handle the content side of matters. While this appears to be largely a content issue, I also see indications that there may be concerns worth investigating about soapboxing and uncooperative editing. There is also a whole set of content noticeboards that could help clarify both aspects of the matter. The editors should explore the myriad options yet untapped for resolving the content dispute and any potential conduct issues. --Vassyana (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)