This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 10 February 2011 (→Discretionary sanctions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:33, 10 February 2011 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Discretionary sanctions: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Under the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, the following discretionary sanctions apply to this article:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasian Albania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasian Albania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Albania and Arran
I think we should not mix the kingdom of Albania and the region of Arran in Islamic times. Since after the 10th century it was a different thing, with different population, and we have a separate article on Arran, Arran of later times should be described separately, like it is done in Iranica. --Grandmaster 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- For once, I fully agree with Grandmaster. Sardur (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the name, this is what Hewsen says:
Caucasian Albania (Russian Kavkazkaja Albanija) is the term now conventionally used for classical Albania by both Soviet and Western scholars to distinguish it from the modern Albania in the Balkans with which it has no connection. The French Aghovanie based on Armenian Aluank' (Aghouank') is a monstrosity which has fortunately failed to gain currency. The native name for the country is unknown to us.
Grandmaster 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article should draw a line in the 7th century, and the Islamic era history of the region should be discussed elsewhere. I have arranged the Islamic era material under Caucasian_Albania#Islamic_era and placed a {{splitsection}}. I am not sure where this could be best exported to, perhaps medieval history of Azerbaijan, which could become a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should have its own article Arran (Caucasus), same as Iranica has articles both on Albania and Arran. The difference is that Albania was a kingdom, and Arran (which is Persian/Arab for Albania) was just a geographic region, without any statehood. The term falls out of use about 13th century A.D. --Grandmaster 11:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- um, you just linked to the same page twice over, the iranica.com article on "Albania (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ)". If there was any doubt whether the two names were synonyms, this would appear to settle it. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes this merger had been discussed before and Arran is a term for the Islamic era and actually in the same Islamic era, many times it did not include Shirvan. Shirvanshah's ruled the area of Shirvan for most of the Islamic era (mostly as vassal's of larger empires) and are one of the longest continous dynasties that survived many empires. Shirvan has its own article. Iranica does not yet have an article on Shirvan because it has not reached S yet or it has not been written. But Arran and Albania are differentiated and one cannot merge the Shirvanshah to an article on Caucasian Albania. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, Albania is the Latin name and Arran is the Persian one. Both are exonyms. I am not sure it is a good idea to use the Latin vs. Persian name as a marker of historical periods, since obviously the same region was called Albania in Latin and Arran in Middle Persian simultaneously. We need some title that more explicitly delimits the time period after the Islamic conquest (such as Albania (satrapy) for the Sassanid period). --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the Iranica article on Arra . See what it states there: "In pre-Islamic times, Arrān formed the heart of the province of Caucasian Albania (to be distinguished of course from the Balkan Albania), which in fact embraced all eastern Transcaucasia, i.e. Arrān here was a wider concept than that of post-Islamic Arrān, and corresponded grosso modo with the modern Azerbaijan SSR. "
- And this part: ARRĀN, a region of eastern Transcaucasia. It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by Šervān; on the north west by Šakkī (Armenian Šakʿe) and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan; and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Mūqān or Mūgān. Arrān’s situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers.
- That is Arran in pre-Islamic time was Caucasian Albania but post-Islamic era, it was not and was usually between the two rivers. For example in the Ilkhanid era,Hamdollah Mostowfi mentions: "... The Shirvan country extends from the bank of the Kura River to Darband of the Gate of Gates. The revenues thereof during the days of the Khans of Shirvan amounted to one million dinars of the money of our time; but at present, all that is inscribed on the registers is 113,000 dinars. Further in the matter of the military fiefs there are many of these in the divers districts. ... The Arran province is the land Between the Rivers'’ namely from the bank of the Aras to the river Kur.".
- A dynasty by the name Shirvanshah ruled Shirvan for most of its post-Islamic history, but this has nothing to do with a people called Caucasian Albanians or a the Parthian royal Caucasian Albania dynasty and the Sassanid province/satrapy of Albania. Overall, there is a rational for Iranica differentiating between Caucasian Albania and Arran (and Shirvan when the article comes out oneday). Arran really reflects the Islamicate era much better at a time when the name Caucasian Albania was not used anymore. That is extending the name Caucasian Albania to post-Islamic era for Arran and Shirvan (even if they are similar names for the same area) seems a bit out of place. For example most of what we know about Caucasian Albania is from Armenian and Latin/Greek sources and sometimes encompasses both Shirvan and Arran (post-Islamic era). Virtually all we know about post-Islamic Arran is from Persian and Arabic sources and usually this was different than Shirvan. Culturally too, one name reflects a period when Caucasian Albania was Christian, Zoroastrian and Pagan where-as Arran reflects the area when it had Islamicate culture. Also Caucasian Albanians themselves were a group related to modern Lezgins but Arran in the medieval ages had an Iranian (and a large part Kurdish) and then later Turkic speaking population. So overall the differentiator should be the conquest of Islam but one to three centuries of overlap between the articles is fine..It is true Arran in the pre-Islamic era is the same as Caucasian Albania, but Arran in the post-Islamic era is primarily (not always) the land between the two rivers mentioned. So Arran really did not always include Shirvan in the post-Islamic era although it did sometimes. Eventually the name Arran becomes Qarabagh and later on Azerbaijan. The overall boundaries between what constituted Armenia, Arran, Shervan and Azerbaijan were very fluid and you will see overlap between these in various sources (depending on the dynasty too). But Caucasian Albania strictly speaking should be used for the Christian and Zoroastrian, Sassanid, Parthian.. history of the area (in my opinion) and I think there is a good reason why Iranica has two articles on these. The article you mentioned from Iranica is "Aran", but there is one called "Arran" with a full length article. If you merge Arran to Caucasian Albania, then you would have to merge Shirvan and overall this is not really how historians write about the area in the post-Islamic era. Since to extend the definition of Caucasian Albania to post-Islamic Shirvan and Shirvanshah is very akward. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, dab is right, Albania and Arran is the same thing. Albania is the name of the country in Latin, Arran in Persian. But Nepaheshgar is right too, in Islamic times the state of Albania ceased to exist, and the name of Arran became applied to a region between the rivers of Kura and Araks. So Arran/Albania, the ancient kingdom, became a geographic concept, covering only a part of the historical state. I think that is the reason why there are 2 articles in Iranica. We can cover both the state and the region in one article, or have 2 separate articles, like Iranica does. I think both ways are possible, but if we go for 1 article, then the history of Albania needs to be extended until the 13th century A.D., when the name fell out of use. Alternatively, we can split it in 2, since in Islamic times there was a major religious, and later linguistic change, so the population of the region of Arran was not identical to the population of the kingdom. In any case, the article needs to explicitly state that the state of Albania/Arran was a wider concept than the Islamic region of Arran. I agree that Arran is not a good name, as it does not disambiguate between the country and the region. When the name change for the article about Arran was discussed, I suggested to use the name of Arran (geographic region), as opposed to Arran the country. But it received no support, since the Isle of Arran also sometimes referred to as a region. So we can split the info about the region, but we need to select an appropriate title. Btw, the article Albania (satrapy) is more of an OR kind of article, because it is not clear whether Albania was indeed a satrapy. The country was ruled by its own kings, who were vassals of the Persian shahs, and at certain points in history the kings were replaced by Persian governors. But Albania (satrapy) simply duplicates info from this one, and does not clarify when exactly the satrapy existed. So we need to do something about that one too. Grandmaster 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Albania (Azerbaijan)
Albania (Azerbaijan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghvank (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Albania - Arran
It's great! While I was in search for some information in Misplaced Pages, I came to the page of this article, and found out that from the page of Arran one shall be redirected here. When I offered to do it in Russian Misplaced Pages (without knowing that this redirection exists), the same people, who here try to be more polite, neglected my offer. They (in Russian part of Misplaced Pages) go on in creation with their profound knowledge of history of the region and written sources, but here it does not work. Why some of you do not look through the pages in Russian. Even if you do not know letters, you may see the photographs. It is worth to see! You may even ask questions in English. Most of the users know English, and will be happy to help you. More exciting discoveries you will do in Azerbaijani language part of Misplaced Pages! I got a great pleasure of great pics as well! --Zara-arush (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
History template
Marshall, on this talk page I see no "convincing arguments" to exclude the Azerbaijan history template, rather murky edit summaries. Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia is not the only source here that talks about CA in the context of Azerbaijan's history. Brandmeister 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see no convincing arguments either. Albania covered most of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic, so the template belongs here. Grandmaster 18:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is a part of Azerbaijan's history. Not really sure, why the template is removed. It doesn't cause any harm and is not a contested territory or anything. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that Caucasian Albania is part of the history of Azerbaijan is wrong because it would be like saying that Caucasian Albanians are Azeri, although it is certainly not the case. Caucasian Albania is as distinct to Azerbaijan as Georgia and Armenia are. --Davo88 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was a historic realm, that encompassed generally Azerbaijan's territory, so talking about distinctness here is irrelevant. There are numerous similar examples of some other countries. Besides, nobody says C. Albanians were Azeris, but they were their historical predecessors. Brandmeister 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The historic predecessors of Azeris are neither the ancient Albanians, nor the Atropatenians. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people born from the 10th-11th century Turkic migration in the region, and gained independent statehood only in the early 20th century. --Davo88 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was a historic realm, that encompassed generally Azerbaijan's territory, so talking about distinctness here is irrelevant. There are numerous similar examples of some other countries. Besides, nobody says C. Albanians were Azeris, but they were their historical predecessors. Brandmeister 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that Caucasian Albania is part of the history of Azerbaijan is wrong because it would be like saying that Caucasian Albanians are Azeri, although it is certainly not the case. Caucasian Albania is as distinct to Azerbaijan as Georgia and Armenia are. --Davo88 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is a part of Azerbaijan's history. Not really sure, why the template is removed. It doesn't cause any harm and is not a contested territory or anything. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So what? Does that make the history of the iron age kingdom of Urartu that of the Republic of Turkey's just because the latter is found on the territory of the former? It was a realm that was poorly defined and one which had become Armenian in all but name by the eighth to ninth centuries, if not even earlier according to Robert Hewsen. If anything, a history of Armenia template belongs here since the Albanians had very intimate cultural and undoubtedly ethnic ties to the Armenians, having an alphabet that was probably invented by Mesrop Mashtots and a religious see that was directly subordinate to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Albanians had disappeared long before the first Turkic invasions of the late eleventh century and certainly far before the modern borders of Azerbaijan were delineated. It probably makes little difference anyways for Azerbaijan anyways, since, as I highlighted on the Gardman talk page, it seems to claim things outside of its own borders as a part of its own history, from the Armenian temple of Garni on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages to the ancient city of Artashat.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- And what does Urartu have to do with Armenia and Armenians? Nothing at all, yet we have the Armenian topics template there. Like it or not, but C. Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan, and is a part of the history of this country, as any other historic state that existed there. Grandmaster 07:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Read "Armenian ethnogenesis" in the Urartu page. It explains well the relation between Urartu and Armenians.--Davo88 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is ancient Gaul irrelevant to France? Or Neustria? :) There was no gap in the history of Azerbaijan between, say, 1st century AD and 3rd. Caucasian Albania almost entirely embraces the ancient period of Azerbaijan's history, this is promptly verifiable, and I can't still comprehend the stance why CA is irrelevant. I propose ceasing of this lame edit war, at least one of them would depart. Brandmeister 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Read "Armenian ethnogenesis" in the Urartu page. It explains well the relation between Urartu and Armenians.--Davo88 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
lol, I mean, really, Grandmaster? All scholars acknowledge the Armenians as the direct cultural inheritors of Urartu, even if some believe that the Urartians themselves were not Armenians in the first place. We have such illustrious Armenian nakharar families such as the Artsrunis, the Rshtunis and the Amatunis and it is very interesting to note these "uni" endings were Urartian in origin. And let's not even talk about the ethnogenesis of the two peoples...
Ancient Gaul has more going for modern France, though certainly not in a straight line, than an ancient kingdom that was extinguished in the 6th-8th centuries and modern Azerbaijan. Shireen Hunter has done a great deal of research in this area, especially the role of Soviet politics in Azerbaijani historiography. Until the first quarter of the 20th century, no one ever referred to the territory north of the River Araks as "Azerbaijan" because the concept itself did not exist until the 20th century. Just because the modern state was able to carve itself out a niche in a certain region doesn't mean that everything that once existed there is now automatically related to it, moreso since Azerbaijani nation-building was relatively embryonic at the 20th century and was trying to define itself at the time. Also your impatience and your own penchant for immediately reverting an article, even when a discussion is taking place, is problematic and it's surprising how you can quickly pounce to file a report against a new editor like Ліонкінг but still have no qualms regarding your own disruptive actions. Please do not allow it to continue.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is not some, who believe that Urartians were not Armenians, it is generally agreed between scholars that Urartians were not Armenians. The language of Urartians was related to Caucasian languages. It is the claim of nationalistic Armenian authors that Urartu was the same as Armenia, and this was harshly criticized by experts in Armenian studies. How come that the template of Armenia is there? Shireen Hunter has no idea what she is talking about, I can point many factual mistakes in her work. The territory north of Araks was referred to as Azerbaijan before the 20th century, but it has nothing to do with this topic. And it is strange that you are accusing me of reverting the article, while you yourself have already made 3 rvs here, without any consensus at talk that the template must be removed. Grandmaster 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- And indeed, I see that the template of history of France is included in the article about Gaul, while Gauls were not French. So what is the problem here? I wanna see some logical explanation. Grandmaster 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Way to go in overblowing your case. Putting aside the fringe elements, you are never going to encounter a scholar, whether it is Diakonov or B. Piotrovsky, who would even contemplate completely separating Armenia and the Armenians from Urartu. There is a tangible link between the two and, I don't know about you, but we should be very thankful for their trailblazing studies on the subject.
- It was never referred to as such and you know it. From a geographical standpoint, Azerbaijan was the lands south of the Araks, and if some overzealous politicians at Downing Street or Peterhof referred to it as such in the nineteenth century, it was obviously due to their own crude and ahistorical machinations at the height of the period of the Great Game. My second paragraph was directed towards Brandmeister and I don't think many will disagree when I say that his edits are highly disruptive, especially when an active discussion is going on, and he decides to impose his will unilaterally.
- Yes Gaul is included and so is the Carolingian Empire but like I said above, they make a far more stronger case in historical connections than do CA and Azerbaijan even though they can hardly be called "French." What exactly is Azerbaijan's connection to the Albanians? Their religion? their language? the alphabet? their cultural monuments, or lack thereof? If it's simply the fact that it partially occupies the same territory, that translates into nothing. Using your logic, would you include the History of Turkey template onto the articles of Urartu or the Hittie empire? And please refrain from diverting the discussion by dragging in what Armenians are doing. If anything, the Albanians were more closer to the Armenians and the Georgians.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Marshall, Azerbaijan is the Caucasian Albania, unlike armenia who have not even have caucasian chromosome genes. --NovaSkola (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Gaul is included and so is the Carolingian Empire but like I said above, they make a far more stronger case in historical connections than do CA and Azerbaijan even though they can hardly be called "French." What exactly is Azerbaijan's connection to the Albanians? Their religion? their language? the alphabet? their cultural monuments, or lack thereof? If it's simply the fact that it partially occupies the same territory, that translates into nothing. Using your logic, would you include the History of Turkey template onto the articles of Urartu or the Hittie empire? And please refrain from diverting the discussion by dragging in what Armenians are doing. If anything, the Albanians were more closer to the Armenians and the Georgians.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- NS, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want in your fantasy land.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- And what does Gaul have to do with France? What do France and Gaul have in common? Language? Religion? And why then History of France template is there? Because it was located on the territory of France. And yes, history of Turkey template needs to be included in the article about Urartu, it is a part of the history of the territory of Turkey. The templates are included by territorial principle, because the history of every country includes all the states that ever existed on its territory. Inclusion of Armenian topics template into the article about Urartu cannot be justified by any other reason, Urartians were not Armenians, they spoke a completely different language. I also see Iraqian topics template in the articles about Sumer, Assyria and Akkad. Clearly, those nations did not speak Arabic. How about Peru template in the article about Inca Empire? I can cite many more examples. So it is obvious that there's no reason for removal of Azerbaijani history template from this article. Grandmaster 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now you're just grasping for straws, Grandmaster. Anyone who has studied those regions knows that while there is no straight line linking the modern community to that of the ancient one, there are shades of continuity and, above all, evolution. In France, e.g., by the twelfth century, the early French vernacular was being used in literature in a land which was thoroughly Catholic Christian. No, there was no concept of the modern nation-state, but it would be absurd to claim that there was no connection between the two, and even more ridiculous to claim that the medieval world had inherited nothing from Gallic-Roman one. Your logic is a game of mental gymnastics: Turkey was a successor to the Ottoman Empire, which was a cultural and ethnic inheritor of the dilapidated Byzantine Empire and the Turkic groups that migrated there in the eleventh century onwards, but an Iron Age kingdom all because of the fact that they're on the same territory? That's stretching it. You may highlighting problems which may be symptomatic on Misplaced Pages and for that we're all going to have to read this OTHERCRAPEXISTS and treat this article with some common sense.
- Urartians may not have been Armenians and they did not speak an Indo-European language, but they certainly were in material and ethnic contact with one another far before the Urartian empire fell (scholars who believe that the Armenians settled in the Armenian Plateau date that to roughly 1200 B.C.). Urartian words are now found in the Armenian language (such as the Armenian word for eagle, artziv), Urartian-type art was found in the realms of the first real Armenian dynasty, the Yervandunis, and so forth. There is some shared characteristics.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Albanians also played an important role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, but that is not important for this issue. Ethnicity has nothing to do with this. Templates are included according to the different criteria. What is important here is that Albania was located on the territory of modern-day Azerbaijan, therefore it is a part of the history of this country. The rest is immaterial for inclusion of the template. I already demonstrated that the same principle is used everywhere else. If you still insist on removal of the template, let's ask for the third opinion. We've done that before. But I really see no reason to waste other people's time, it is obvious that the template belongs here, and edit warring will not help to remove it. Grandmaster 20:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Urartians may not have been Armenians and they did not speak an Indo-European language, but they certainly were in material and ethnic contact with one another far before the Urartian empire fell (scholars who believe that the Armenians settled in the Armenian Plateau date that to roughly 1200 B.C.). Urartian words are now found in the Armenian language (such as the Armenian word for eagle, artziv), Urartian-type art was found in the realms of the first real Armenian dynasty, the Yervandunis, and so forth. There is some shared characteristics.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The Albanians had been subsumed by the Armenians, Georgians and Arabs by the seventh to eighth centuries, long before the Turkic invasions took place in the 11th and 12th centuries and long before there was the formulation of an Azerbaijani identity in the 20th century. If territory is the only thing you have to go on, then perhaps listening to a third opinion on what the general policy is regarding these templates is not such a bad idea. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Both Albanian capitals were located in Azerbaijan: Qabala and Barda, the latter being the seat of Albanian Church since 551/52. Besides, initially CA was pagan, like nearly all historical predecessors of modern states. Secondly, the inscriptions with Albanian characters were also found in Azerbaijan (Mingachevir). Even some Armenian authors establish CA's immediate relevance to Azerbaijan:
Roughly speaking, historic Armenia... was bounded by Caucasian Albania (present Azerbaijan) on the north-east... Vahan M. Kurkjian, A History of Armenia, Indo-European Publishing, 2008 p. 5
This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran)... Rouben Galichian, Historic maps of Armenia: the cartographic heritage, I.B.Tauris, 2004, p. 10
- I've seen no reliable source, which challenges Albania's relevance to Azerbaijan. Brandmeister 12:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently then you're choosing to believe in your own reality. There was no place called Azerbaijan in the period that Caucasian Albania existed - repeating the same argument over and over again is not bringing you guys any closer to proving your point. There's a 1,500 year gulf, to say nothing about the political, ethnic, and cultural gulf, that separates Albania from Azerbaijan, geography notwithstanding. Robert Hewsen puts it nicely;
That the so-called "Christian" or "New" Albania culture, which flourished after the transfer from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence Upon the Caucasian Albanians" in Classical Armenian Culture, ed. T. Samuelian, Pennsylvania, 1982, p. 34.
Of course, modern authors are going to have to mention where a land 2,000 years ago was located so that contemporary readers can relate it to it more easily. That's why we may read something about the Ionian communities in Asia Minor and add in parentheses "(now in modern-day Turkey)". You guys are having a hard time making your case.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, looks like Hewsen discovered something new :) Why "the so-called"? What Hewsen suggests? That non-Christian Albania has been pagan throughout the entire period of its existence? Why "new"? Which author refers to the realm as "New Albania"? "Transfer from Kabala"? Qabala was the original capital of CA until the 5th century transfer to Barda. I can't trust Hesen anymore, seeing such "arguments". And yes, there was no place called Azerbaijan in the Caucasian Albania period. Likewise, there was no place called France during the aforementioned Gaul period and indeed, there are many other examples. Brandmeister 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is "so called" because the term "New Albania" was invented by the Armenian nationalistic scholar Mnatsakanyan, whom Hewsen criticizes. And if there was at times an Armenian, Persian or Arabic cultural and political influence in certain parts or the whole of the territory of Albania, it is irrelevant to the template issue. Every country was at certain points in history under someone else's influence. What matters here is if Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to all the sources, it was. Another source:
- Wow, looks like Hewsen discovered something new :) Why "the so-called"? What Hewsen suggests? That non-Christian Albania has been pagan throughout the entire period of its existence? Why "new"? Which author refers to the realm as "New Albania"? "Transfer from Kabala"? Qabala was the original capital of CA until the 5th century transfer to Barda. I can't trust Hesen anymore, seeing such "arguments". And yes, there was no place called Azerbaijan in the Caucasian Albania period. Likewise, there was no place called France during the aforementioned Gaul period and indeed, there are many other examples. Brandmeister 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Ajovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran).
V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.
- So there's nothing to argue about. According to the general practice of Misplaced Pages, Azerbaijani history template needs to be included in this article. Grandmaster 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, the nefarious attempts by the Azerbaijani government to claim everything for itself is what causes so much consternation among people. It says that the medieval Armenian monuments are Caucasian Albanian and are therefore part of Azerbaijan. This is a convoluted way of thinking that dominates Azerbaijan and one which thankfully no one else in the world adheres to. It's sheer propaganda and academic dishonesty; what else is one to make of it when every Armenian artifact is denied its identity and distorted to unbelievable levels of falsification. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the Behistun Inscription is enough proof that Urartu and Armenia are exactly the same. The conquests of the Persian king are enumerated in three languages, and in one language the name "Urartu" is used while in two languages the name "Armenia" is used instead. This interchangeability by itself is good to show that Urartu is part of Armenian history. Just by curiosity, is there any similar situation between Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan? I seriously doubt it.--Davo88 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Urartu was neither Christian, nor Armenian-speaking. Nonetheless, as far as I can see, there is no edit war over the presence of Armenian topics template there. Brandmeister 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Urartu is irrelevant to this discussion and I don't see a History of Armenia template there either. The point here is that even the territory of Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds (as Minorsky mentions) to modern Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan considers it a part of its history, in fact throughout its history Caucasian Albania had a vital linkage with the history of Armenia. It is needless to name them all as they have been discussed many times before. I will not cite the numerous sources about the Armenian political and cultural influence on Caucasian Albania, just only a few from Minorsky whom Grandmaster quoted above:
- The special 'Albanian' patriarchate of the Armenian church formed the link between the two banks (p.506, the same work Grandmaster quoted)
- The work of the indigenous historian of 'Albania', Moses Kalankatvats'i, who wrote in Armenian (10th century), contains many important data (p 504, ibid)
- ...we have seen that the conversion of the Albanians to Christianity and the endowing of the Albanians with an alphabet were the work of the Armenians. Armenian settlers and cultural elements contributed to the further absorption of the Albanian nation. The Albanian and Armenian nobility freely intermarried, with the result that there appeared a mixed class of Albano-Armenian aristocracy. The later Armenian kingdoms of Ani and Vaspurakan had little influence in Eastern Transcaucasia but the petty Armenian rulers of Siunik' and Artsakh (south of Barda’a) played a considerable role in the affairs of Albania. (A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries. Cambridge, Heffer and Sons, 1958)
- So taking into account the above quoted, my questions is: yes, I agree, CA is important for the history of Azerbaijan and it is also a very important part of the Armenian history with a direct linkage to it's culture, but who decided that it is more important for Azerbaijan? When did we discuss and agreed that the history of Azerbaijan template is more relevant here than the template history of Armenia? If some users think that only a roughly territorial correspondence is enough to prefer the first one, I will say that we never had such a consensus and there are obviously as many users who totally disagree with that argument. If the history of Azerbaijan template is placed here, the history of Armenia template mus be placed two - that is my proposition to come to a consensus. --Vacio (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you missed what I have wrote above about the capitals, archaeological findings etc. Naturally we don't expect Caucasian Albania to have the same borders as modern Azerbaijan, there are virtually no ancient realms with borders, that perfectly correspond to their successor states. In 488 the Council of Aluen declared the independence of Albanian Church, which until 506 (i.e. until the Council of Dvin) was not monophysite. The only source about alleged Armenian influence on Albanian alphabet is Moses Kalankatvats'i himself, Minorsky and Alexidze believe otherwise, talking about the Udi language. I don't see "many users who totally disagree" here, the only one is Armenian part. Brandmeister 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Albanians and Georgians also joined the Armenians in the Battle of Avarayr to defend Christianity in the Caucasus from Sassanid Persia.--Davo88 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the search option does not show "Albania" or "Albanian" within. In any case we know that CA was different than Armenian Kingdom. Brandmeister 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Albanians and Georgians also joined the Armenians in the Battle of Avarayr to defend Christianity in the Caucasus from Sassanid Persia.--Davo88 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you missed what I have wrote above about the capitals, archaeological findings etc. Naturally we don't expect Caucasian Albania to have the same borders as modern Azerbaijan, there are virtually no ancient realms with borders, that perfectly correspond to their successor states. In 488 the Council of Aluen declared the independence of Albanian Church, which until 506 (i.e. until the Council of Dvin) was not monophysite. The only source about alleged Armenian influence on Albanian alphabet is Moses Kalankatvats'i himself, Minorsky and Alexidze believe otherwise, talking about the Udi language. I don't see "many users who totally disagree" here, the only one is Armenian part. Brandmeister 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- So taking into account the above quoted, my questions is: yes, I agree, CA is important for the history of Azerbaijan and it is also a very important part of the Armenian history with a direct linkage to it's culture, but who decided that it is more important for Azerbaijan? When did we discuss and agreed that the history of Azerbaijan template is more relevant here than the template history of Armenia? If some users think that only a roughly territorial correspondence is enough to prefer the first one, I will say that we never had such a consensus and there are obviously as many users who totally disagree with that argument. If the history of Azerbaijan template is placed here, the history of Armenia template mus be placed two - that is my proposition to come to a consensus. --Vacio (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request here: Grandmaster 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Protected
The slow-burning edit war is not in compliance with normal editing standards. I have protected the page for two weeks to encourage discussion as opposed to a revert every few days (and this is heading for WP:LAME levels). Please post at WP:RFPU if you have come to a consensus before this. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
History template in Caucasian Albania
Should the history section of Caucasian Albania contain the Template:History of Azerbaijan? Brandmeister 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course not. It will be the same as to put a History of Macedonia template being in the articles about Greek history or the historical Greek Kingdom of Macedonia. Aregakn (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- HELLOOO... Brandmeister? Comment here before editing. Aregakn (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, since (the "belonging" of) the history of the country is disputed, it is much better to refrain from placing a history template of both contemporary Armenia or Azerbaijan. It's the best way to keep the article looking neutral and will save us a lot of disputes again. --vacio 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's all in the article. Removal of the template is just an attempt to remove Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, since (the "belonging" of) the history of the country is disputed, it is much better to refrain from placing a history template of both contemporary Armenia or Azerbaijan. It's the best way to keep the article looking neutral and will save us a lot of disputes again. --vacio 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- HELLOOO... Brandmeister? Comment here before editing. Aregakn (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- remove Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history? In what possible way was Caucasian Albania part of "Azerbaijani history"? :Caucasian Albania part of "Azerbaijani history" is a revisionist, internationally-condemned political nonsense. In contrast, Caucasian Albania was tightly connected to Armenia. Consider this: a) a part, if not a major part, of its population was Armenian b) Armenians brought Christianity to Caucasian Albania; Caucasian Albanian church was receiving investiture from Armenian Catholicos. c) Armenians invented Caucasian Albanian alphabet and established Armenian schools (e.g. at Amaras Monastery, see that article). If (talk) and others continue this edit war, they all will be reported and blocked. Either two boxes stay, or none. Xebulon (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan whether you like it or not. Hence the template History of Azerbaijan. Albanian church was subdued to Armenian church only in the first half of the 19th century by orders of the Russian tsar, obviously. The territory of present day Armenia was populated by Muslims who at some period of time constituted the majority. Should we add the History of Azerbaijan template to Armenia too? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was no "Azerbaijan" or "Azerbaijani people" at the time when Turkic-speaking nomads roamed Armenia. Armenia was never "populated" by Muslims - show me a Wiki article supporting that claim. Otherwise, we indeed could add "Azerbaijani History" box in Armenia, per your suggestion, why not? The problem is that "Azerbaijani History" begins in 1918, everything before is just speculation. However, here I note that Tuscumbia (is he another account for Atabey?) and his suspected socks TwilightChill and NovaScola have bizarre, unfounded beliefs that are not supported by any of Misplaced Pages articles on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia's continued involvement in this debate harms Wiki and is against its NPOV policy. Xebulon (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan whether you like it or not. Hence the template History of Azerbaijan. Albanian church was subdued to Armenian church only in the first half of the 19th century by orders of the Russian tsar, obviously. The territory of present day Armenia was populated by Muslims who at some period of time constituted the majority. Should we add the History of Azerbaijan template to Armenia too? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan is a modern state, not a territory. It is hence not a successor state of and has not direct ties with the ancient state of Albania. IMO inclusion of the history template of Azerbaijan would be the same as adding the Template:History of Turkey in the article Byzantine Empire. --vacio 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- A comparison with other articles might help. For example, the Iceni are not given a tag that includes them in the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain, neither is it given to the Kingdom of Mercia. Would the equivalent of Tuscumbia's argument, that the "removal of the History of the Kingdom of Great Britain template is just an attempt to remove Mercia from British history" be reasonable. No, of course not! They are given categories that relate them to regions of Britain - but Britain existed as a region during that time period so that category is justifiable. But the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category is not because the modern state of Great Britain did not exist at that time. Armenia is both a modern state and an ancient region, Azerbaijan is a modern state but it is not an ancient region. The current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan doesn't mean that the history of Azerbaijan should be given a fake extension back to the Classical period because of some dubious appeal to neutrality. A neutral category, such as History of the Caucasus, is perhaps what is needed here. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- And even the Irish Free State article is not included in the History of the Republic of Ireland category! the ROI is the successor state of the Irish Free State, so if even that doesn't get it into the category there is no chance History of Azerbaijan should get Caucasian Albania. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Xebulon, whatever it is you're saying is just the line of Armenian histography. Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was proclaimed in 1918, not history of Azerbaijan, not the region or Azerbaijani Turkic states in the region, including the area of present day Armenia. Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan and it belongs to and is cherished by the current state of Azerbaijan as part of its heritage. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You don't get it. Articles don't exist to massage the identites, cherished or not, of modern nations. Everyone in Britain is aware that the Kingdom of Mercia was an early kingdom on the territory of what became England and then Great Britain, but it is not included in the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category because they are two entirely different entities for the purposes of an encyclopedia. The same is true for Caucasian Albania: it is an entirely different entity from Azerbaijan. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then go change that article. Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage. And, please do discuss your edits. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You don't get it. Articles don't exist to massage the identites, cherished or not, of modern nations. Everyone in Britain is aware that the Kingdom of Mercia was an early kingdom on the territory of what became England and then Great Britain, but it is not included in the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category because they are two entirely different entities for the purposes of an encyclopedia. The same is true for Caucasian Albania: it is an entirely different entity from Azerbaijan. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tuscumbia - you are in an ugly edit war, which will be reported in full. You were asked a million time where you saw that "Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage" and you are stubbornly refusing to engage and respond. Your claim is groundless (no surprise you cannot respond to the questions) and every normal scholar of Azerbaijan ridicules it. See the articles on Azerbaijani pseudo-scholars Ziya Buniyatov and Farida Mammadova. Xebulon (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Xebulon, whatever it is you're saying is just the line of Armenian histography. Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was proclaimed in 1918, not history of Azerbaijan, not the region or Azerbaijani Turkic states in the region, including the area of present day Armenia. Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan and it belongs to and is cherished by the current state of Azerbaijan as part of its heritage. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- And even the Irish Free State article is not included in the History of the Republic of Ireland category! the ROI is the successor state of the Irish Free State, so if even that doesn't get it into the category there is no chance History of Azerbaijan should get Caucasian Albania. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- A comparison with other articles might help. For example, the Iceni are not given a tag that includes them in the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain, neither is it given to the Kingdom of Mercia. Would the equivalent of Tuscumbia's argument, that the "removal of the History of the Kingdom of Great Britain template is just an attempt to remove Mercia from British history" be reasonable. No, of course not! They are given categories that relate them to regions of Britain - but Britain existed as a region during that time period so that category is justifiable. But the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category is not because the modern state of Great Britain did not exist at that time. Armenia is both a modern state and an ancient region, Azerbaijan is a modern state but it is not an ancient region. The current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan doesn't mean that the history of Azerbaijan should be given a fake extension back to the Classical period because of some dubious appeal to neutrality. A neutral category, such as History of the Caucasus, is perhaps what is needed here. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage is a Point of View, Tuscumbia. --vacio 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Vacio, what do you mean it's POV? Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan and it is a part of Azerbaijani cultural heritage as much as Talysh, Lezgi, Mountain Jews, etc residing on the territory of Azerbaijan. It's a multiethnic country. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage is a Point of View, Tuscumbia. --vacio 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, really? So Azerbaijan then automatically inherited the heritage of every civilization that whose lands ended up in modern Azerbaijan? So, we should include a British info template on all pages on history of India, and Mongol template all over the world history pages? Gorzaim (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan didn't inherit it, it's just a part of it since the term Azerbaijani includes many ethnicities, Udi being one of them. That example you just gave actually perfectly applies to irrendentism of Armenian nationalists who claim lands of their neighbors just because there was an Armenian Kingdom on those lands. Then, should Italians claim half of the world because of Roman Empire, or should the Greeks claim half of Asia because there was Alexander the Great, or maybe Ottoman Empire should claim 20 present day sovereign states? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Armenians only claim lands which are part of their historic homeland, that is the lands comprising the Armenian Plateau, which should be the article you should be linking everyone to. And the idea itself is not that controversial, considering that even the Western Allies in 1919 were seriously contemplating to award all the lands stretching from Eastern Armenia to the six easternmost provinces of the Ottoman Empire and even Cilicia to the new Armenian republic on the basis of demographic, historical, and economic grounds. At least the case for Greater Armenia has some basis to it, not some intangible link between an ancient Christian culture which was fully absorbed by the medieval Armenians, Georgians and Arabs, and a modern Turkic state. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- A historical homeland? You mean to tell me there were Armenians from Adam and Eve living on all those territories and all of a sudden the territory started to shrink? Christian culture as much as Judaism in Azerbaijan, Islam and Zoroastrism are all part the melting pot making up the modern day Turkic state. Turks have lived in Azerbaijan since the time of Khazars and according to other theories even earlier. That's why Azerbaijan is referred to as a multiethnic and multi-religious state. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- well, as someone (vacio) said up there, Tuscumbia's opinion is just his personal opinion, which is should keep out of Misplaced Pages. He cannot bring any sources to verify it. Gorzaim (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you don't honestly think the geographical term Armenia just suddenly rose up out of the blue now, do you? There's a reason why the expansive, easternmost Byzantine military theme was known as the Armeniac theme, why the the Arabs designated the entire province in the Caucasus as al-Armaniya, why the latin name for the apricot has the word armenicus in it. The overwhelming ethnic presence of Armenians in the region for almost three millennia justified calling this region Armenia right up until the early twentieth century, when the Armenians were forcibly and ruthlessly removed from their homeland by the Ottoman Turks. A settled Turkic presence in the territory now comprising Azerbaijan can be positively identified to the late eleventh-early twelfth century, tops.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Armenia existed, but as homeland not within the borders described in Greater Armenia. And you don't honestly think Armenians just suddenly rose up out of the blue specifically on those territories and called it Armenia, do you? The point is that whatever the size of empires were, those times are gone. That's why there are international organizations that unite the international community in their efforts to keep the world order. And yes, Turks were there way before the Oghuz Turks. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I still do not see any references to support the idea that C.Albania is part of Azerbaijan's history. Xebulon (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:CHERRY
Starting from the article's top I wonder why the caption "Borders of Caucasian Albania after the 387 AD partition of Armenia..." appeared again, despite its absence in the file description (as if CA was once a part of Armenian realm). The original caption just reads "Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600". Secondly, Mashtots' invention of Albanian script is disputable:
...Koryun... wrote about the fifth-century Armenian monk Mesrop Mashtots, the man who "renewed the alphabet" of Albania and taught the "new alphabet" (Langlois 1869: 10, 12. The phrases "renewed the alphabet" and "new alphabet" used by Koryun, the biographer of Mashtots, indicate that an older version of the Albanian alphabet and writing existed previously. Philip L. Kohl, Mara Kozelsky, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Selective remembrances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration, and consecration of national pasts, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 104
As such, the relevancy of Amaras Monastery is quite little, the coat-like WP:CHERRY issues are to be dealt with. The article's structure in this version is about to be recovered as it seems to be better crafted. Twilightchill t 09:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would replace Amaras with an image of St. Gregory, who built it. As for Mashtots, 4 to 5 contemporaneous primary sources say he invented three alphabets and there are no primary sources saying the opposite. Xebulon (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Then there came and visited them an elderly man, an Albanian* named Benjamin. And he inquired and examined the barbaric diction of the Albanian language, and then through his usual god-given keenness of mind invented an alphabet, which he, through the grace of Christ, successfully organized and put in order.
Therefore, your quote is either misrepresentation of the original text. Wiki editors should carefully examine what sources they use. Xebulon (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a mistranslation, see Jalilov. Besides, Yunusov, who cites Trever, writes: "According to the ancient authors, the Albanians had their own written language at least since the first century B.C. and they sent letters to the Romans". Mashtots lived centuries after that. Twilightchill t 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please use acceptable academic NPOV sources and not Azerbaijani hate sites spreading propagandist misinformation. Xebulon (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And Hay/Armenian (*) alphabet was created not only on the basis of Aramaic, but also Greek and Turkic writings. lol, come on Brand, do you honestly believe that anyone will fall for this kind of nonsense? Claiming that the 26 tribes that made up Albania were Turkic (!) is as good an example of poor scholarship as you can get. Let's get some respected third party sources who actually know what they're talking about.
- And everyone knows that when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Iran in 387, the Iranians undertook a number of administrative changes and made rearrangements to the internal borders of the marzpanate. This included extending the border of the Albanian kingdom to the reaches of the province of Syunik'. And the Gargarians were a mountainous people living in the Caucasus, and should not be confused with the famed Khazars of later centuries, who would make periodic raids into Armenia (though they never settled there because they were always beat back).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that Koryun, who writes about renewed alphabet, and Yunusov/Trever still stand. From the foreign sources I've read it's unclear whether Mashtots created the alphabet just for Gargarians or for the entire Albanian population. Basically, these are the concerns to be addressed. Twilightchill t 08:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Koryun never wrote that. See Charles Dowsett's translation of Movses Kaghankatvatsi's work into English. No concerns are to be addressed. Relax. Xebulon (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that Koryun, who writes about renewed alphabet, and Yunusov/Trever still stand. From the foreign sources I've read it's unclear whether Mashtots created the alphabet just for Gargarians or for the entire Albanian population. Basically, these are the concerns to be addressed. Twilightchill t 08:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And everyone knows that when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Iran in 387, the Iranians undertook a number of administrative changes and made rearrangements to the internal borders of the marzpanate. This included extending the border of the Albanian kingdom to the reaches of the province of Syunik'. And the Gargarians were a mountainous people living in the Caucasus, and should not be confused with the famed Khazars of later centuries, who would make periodic raids into Armenia (though they never settled there because they were always beat back).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Even after being warned not to make controversial edits without proper discussions, you have still went ahead and done them. It's like you acknowledge that your version contains mistakes, then shrug your shoulders and decide to ignore everyone else's complaints and decide to make edits which conform to your own views. Do I really need to call the ArbCom guys to come here and put and end to this disruption Brand?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quick question, Marshall. Why exactly do you think your or account Xebulon's or account Gorzaim's edits are not controversial and TwilightChill's are? Tuscumbia (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles (the line on the partition of Armenia, of Mashots' credit for inventing the alphabet, etc.), I would have been far more indulgent in evaluating the validity of his points. But because I am so familiar with his edits and because his above arguments are so poorly formulated and poorly supported, I'm afraid that assuming good faith will not do us any good here. We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think he removes "any notion of Armenia or Armenians" the way you describe it, at the very least, not any more than you or other Armenians do or try to do. The problem with your approach to sources is that you look at them from your own personal biased point of you, considering Armenian authors superior to any Azerbaijani or other authors disproving the arguments of Armenian authors. What makes a biased Armenian author any more credible than an Azerbaijani author? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is typical disruption. C.Albanian history was written in Armenian, by an Armenian person, and a bulk of its population was Armenian. The first Armenian school was opened there by the guy who invented the Armenian alphabet. Go ahead and restore "Armenian" in the right upper template. Xebulon (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have outlined above the elements which he has removed, without any real justification and with shoddy sources to back him up. I don't consider Armenian authors to be superior to Azerbaijani ones solely on the basis of ethnicity, which is a very poor argument to make. I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. Their works are published in peer-reviewed journals like Revue des Études Arméniennes and reproduced in other prestigious Western publications not because they are Armenian or because of the omnipotent Armenian lobby but because other authors understand that they are trying to look at history from an objective and relatively unsentimental viewpoint. I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value. As Robert Hewsen has admitted:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291
Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural. But for a few exceptions, they almost never let that compromise their academic standing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Marshall, that made my day :))) Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality? Really? The only reason some Armenian American authors have advanced and their works were subsequently used is because their works on the history, culture, ethnic studies since the early 1920's were pretty much unopposed due to the lack of Turkish and especially Azerbaijani diaspora in the West while the mass immigration of Armenians to western countries including the United States, Great Britain, France, Argentina, Uruguay, made its contribution to creation of basis for publications, references and sources on Armenia and Caucasus. Azerbaijani authors were censored and were pretty much limited to Azerbaijan SSR, the most their works would get out to was Moscow where the works would be edited and revised. With the independence in 1991, the realities changed, archives were opened and real contributions to histography made. No doubt that the unopposed and biased Armenian authors would get more recognition when their version of history was never contested and of course, the new emerging sources coming from newly opened archives would be contested. The fact that the new books (including by writers from the Western countries) published within the last 10 years say a different story than what was available for th last 7-8 decades because of the availability of archives and works of Azerbaijani authors. And, please, for the love of God, don't refer to Hewsen. Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
All I can infer from above is more nonsensical arguments. Figures like Nicholas Adontz, Dickran Kouyumjian, Richard G. Hovannisian, Sirarpie Der Nersessian and Nina G. Garsoian stand out not because of their ethnic heritage, which you keep bringing up ad nauseum, as if it is some sort of impediment to them being respected scholars, but because they all have a genuine interest in understanding history without making preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be. Even Armenian scholars of the Soviet Union, such as Hakop Manandyan, Suren Yeremyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Hrach Bartikyan, and Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, were well-known in the West, not because of their supposed connections to the diaspora, but because of the breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise in their areas. The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements. After independence, Azerbaijan's bold claims seem to have been magnified several fold, as they have been making even more grandiose and embarrassing assertions that would have ever been permitted in the USSR. If anything, we should be warier than ever to even consider consulting them for such sensitive topics. That you so whimsically discount Hewsen's opinion, on account of his partial Armenian heritage, shows just why such arguments never gain sway in the scholarly world.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good for you. That's your personal belief. The fact that not a single words comes out about hundreds of thousands of Anatolian and Caucasian Turks from books of these "scholars" is just another proof they were not there for history, but were there to write a new version of it. Not sure why you even mentioned the Soviet Armenian authors. Armenian literature, politicians, etc always were permitted a higher position within the Soviet state. It's not because of Gorbachev, not because of Stalin but because of Peter the Great who requested a special good treatment for them back in 1725 due to Russian own strategic interests of splitting up the Turkic world. And they wrote. If you read Azerbaijani writers, you won't see any "embarassing assertions" just because their work is based on actual Soviet and Russian archives. I'm not saying Armenian authors are bad and should be completely discredited because of their bias. I am saying they are naturally biased, not necessarily because they have written and continue to write in favor of Armenian version of history but because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic. If you ever read and compare both, you'll understand. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The architect of Azerbaijani school of historical science was the infamous Ziya Buniatov - an internationally-condemned and ridiculed pseudo-scholar and hate writer. All modern Azerbaijani historians are his direct or indirect disciples. Their "writings" are unacceptable because they do not measure up to international academic standards. This deplorable state of affairs is not changing because Azerbaijan is ruled by a nationalist oil dictator whose father nurtured Buniatov and provided political protection for his activities. Honest scholarship in Azerbaijan is impossible because it is simply banned by the country's autocratic and chauvinistic president-for-life. Ordinary citizens of Azerbaijan too have been harassed for speaking their mind on Armenian-related issues. Importantly, this casts doubt whether Misplaced Pages editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules. Xebulon (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Marzpanate
Can user Twilight Chill and Aram-van finally stop with edit warring? Please instead take you arguments here in this talk page. What kind of sources/arguments do you have to assert or rebut that CA became a Persian marzpanate in 387? --vacio 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no mention of marzpanate in the file description of current infobox map. Twilightchill t 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
387 A.D. would be the Parthian dynasty of Albania which was part of the larger Sassanid empire. The dynasties in Georgia and Armenia were also Parthian/Persian. All the period is not clear but 100% there are two cases: either the Marzubans ruled the area (Marzapanate is correct) or Albania was a Parthian vassal kingdom/province of the Sassanid.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Note I quote Chamount: "The Sasanian period. In about A.D. 252-53 Šāpūr I made himself lord of Great Armenia, which was turned into a Sasanian province; Iberia and Albania were also soon conquered and annexed...The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax (Pʿawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative à l’Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des études arméniennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Mušeł (cf. Pʿawstos, ibid.) was unlikely."" So to not list anything about Sassanids/Parthian kingdom in 387 A.D. is not correct. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Confusion between Parthian and Caucasian Albanian
Twilight-chill quotes from this source: The author is Murtazali S. Gadjiev which is fine (I do not know his expterise), but he is not stating that Caucasian Albanian had an Aramic based script. The Aramaic based script is about Albania not Albanians (two extremly different things). He is talking about Parthian which was based on the Aramaic script. As Gadjiev states: “It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” Note the Parthian language is an Iranian language and not at all related to Caucasian Albanian. The Aramaic script described is for the Parthian language.
About the actual Caucasian Albanian script, the book (incidentally same page states): “The first independent or original Caucasian Albanian script dated from the beginning of the fifth century AD, where Mashtots, in conjunction with the priest and translator Albanian Benjamin, worked with the consent of the higher secular and religious authorities of the country, King Ahswahen and Bishop Jeremy, to create the original Albanian alphabet”. I believe if a source is presented, it should be presented in its full here. The alphabet of Albania (not Albanians) described by Gadjiev is the Aramaic script of Parthian and not the Caucasian Albanian alphabet. In conclusion Gadjiev states very clear that Mashtot created the first and independent original Caucasian Albanian script in the same page. So one must not confuse the Parthian language based on Aramaic script with the Caucasian Albanian language (which we hardly know about) and whose script was created by Mashtot. That is script of Caucasian Albania (geography) is a different concept than the Caucasian Albanian script. About the map that users are disagreeing with, the map is during the Parthian rulers of Albania who were part of the larger Sassanid empire. They were either Vassals of the Sassanids or under direct control of the Marzuban, and either way, they had intermarried heavily with the Sassanids. Anyhow, that is another issue, but please do not confuse Parthian language which is an Iranian language written in a modified Aramaic script with Albanian. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Also I noted that the same author Gadjiev stats about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania.". Note I do not know about the scholarly quality of Gadjiev but he is not stating any different with regards to Parthian and Albanian script than other books. The Aramaic script was used for Parthian and than Middle Persian, not Albanian. However, he does affirm that both Parthian and Middle Persian (which are very close and to large extent mutually intelligble languages) were official languages in Albania. Consequently, I have found higher quality sources (Western ones and Toumanoff (who is a well known expert) in order to avoide the disputes above) and have added both languages in the infobox. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Middle Persian and Parthian
Middle Persian as the official language of Sassanids is a well known fact and Albania was part of the Sassanid empire. A source has been added with this regard. Here is a quote from the same source as Twilightchill was using with regards to Middle Persian. Gadjiev states about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania).
The same book again states:"It is worth emphasizing that the official seal of the Christian church of Albania was inscribed with Middle Persian writing, for it clearly demonstrates that the large cultural and political influence of Iran and shows that Middle Persian language and writing permeated not only the Albanian elite but also the ecclestial elite" (pg 105, ibid). Note usually the elites were actually Parthian (like the Arsacid dynasty of Albania) and not Albanian (speakers of Caucasian languages). The same with the elites of Armenia and Georgia at the same time.
As per Parthian, again Albania was ruled by the Parthians. The same source twilightchill highlighted is clear about the Parthian language and its usage in Albania: "“It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” " .
As I personally do not know how reliable the author is, however, I brought the more exact statement of the well known scholar Cyrill Toumanoff: "Whatever the sporadic suzerainty of Rome, the country was now a part—together with Iberia (East Georgia) and (Caucasian) Albania, where other Arsacid branched reigned—of a pan-Arsacid family federation. Culturally, the predominance of Hellenism, as under the Artaxiads, was now followed by a predominance of “Iranianism,” and, symptomatically, instead of Greek, as before, Parthian became the language of the educated"(Toumanoff, Cyril. The Arsacids. Encyclopædia Iranica). See also Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:CHERRY and NPOV claims
TwilightChill has been disruptive deleting parts of the article appealing to WP:CHERRY and NPOV policies. concerns do not apply. The chapter on Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani revisionism are about a well known academic subject that is reported in works of a number of unrelated, unbiased Western and Russian scholars from reputable academic institutions. These are: Robert Hewsen, Thomas de Waal, Victor Schnirelmann, George Bournoutian and Yoav Karny. All of them have the same opinion that Azeri revisionism is a nationalist doctrine that misuses the history of Caucasian Albania. So, NPOV is covered. In fact, I omitted their more expressive language to keep the chapter on the neutral side. WP:CHERRY does not apply because there are no NPOV sources which would refute or question the assessment of the above mentioned academics. TwilightChill shall collaborate with other editors and refrain from disruptive tactics. Gorzaim (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The entire section on the so-called Azerbaijani historical revisionism is a blatant NPOV violation, written without impartial tone. As for Mashtots, his invention is challenged in at least two primary source-citing work, one of which is given above, and as such should be paraphrased accordingly. Twilightchill t 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Kamilla Trever: Mashtots' biographer... Koryun reports that Mesrop Mashtots upon his arrival "to the country of Albanians renewed their alphabet". Twilightchill t 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Trever in the source that you mentioned says that Mashtots invented the three alphabets before saying that he renewed. This source is already internally contradictory, and primary sources are more important that various "opinions" by this or that scholar. Any other non-self-contradictory source confirming that? You also say that the chapter is "blatant NPOV violation." This is a groundless assertion. I see no reasons why it is, see my paragraph above, and it is clear to me so far that you can bring no evidence that it is. Gorzaim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That seems kinda problematic, but the section titled "Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani historical revisionism" departs anyway as a manifest NPOV breach. Twilightchill t 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- My feeling is that this "Azerbaijani revisionism" section is too long and mostly off-topic for this article. The article is about Caucasian Albania, with (we hope) content derived from credible and acceptable sources. Large sections of content should not about what propagandistic or popularist sources have claimed Caucasian Albania is/was, nor should they be about what neutral sources have said about those claims. Wouldn't it be better to put it in a new article, titled "Azerbaijani historical revisionism" or something like that, with just a summary and wikilink in this article? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That seems kinda problematic, but the section titled "Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijani historical revisionism" departs anyway as a manifest NPOV breach. Twilightchill t 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree but agree as well. Caucasian Albania is by far the largest topic about Caucasian Albania by coverage, and the most important context in which Caucasian Albania is mentioned. However, your suggestion about creating a separate article about Azerbaijani historical revisionism is reasonable. Gorzaim (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Trever in the source that you mentioned says that Mashtots invented the three alphabets before saying that he renewed. This source is already internally contradictory, and primary sources are more important that various "opinions" by this or that scholar. Any other non-self-contradictory source confirming that? You also say that the chapter is "blatant NPOV violation." This is a groundless assertion. I see no reasons why it is, see my paragraph above, and it is clear to me so far that you can bring no evidence that it is. Gorzaim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add POV claims, the wiki articles are not a place for propaganda. Also, there's a lot of Armenian revisionism described by the same Shnirelman and de Waal, why the section should be only about Azerbaijani and not Armenian revisionism? How about describing revisionist claims by the likes of Mnatsakanyan and Ulubabyan, etc, I can write a large section about Armenian revisionism. I just see no point in adding to the article info that has no direct relation to this ancient state. Grandmaster 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not vandalize this article, and do not voice unfounded accusations of propaganda, which is violation of WP:Civility. You are free to add to the content of the chapter if you feel it is incomplete. Politicization of history of Caucasian Albania is a key identification of this topic, as per numerous sources. Also, primary sources of C.Albania are constantly manipulated and all those who are interested in the history of this territory should know who manipulates them and why. Please assume cooperative attitude. Vandorenfm (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please reach consensus for your controversial edits first. Even admins at WP:AE agreed that this section is not in line with WP:NPOV. If we are to talk about revisionism, lets talk about Armenian revisionism as well. All the mentioned authors, including Shnirelman, de Waal and Hewsen, talk in length about Armenian revisionists. How come that the section only concerns Azerbaijani authors? Plus, what does it have to do with Albania anyway? If you insist on having it, we will need to dedicate it to both revisionists, and present the Armenian revisionist position as well. Grandmaster 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are alone in your claims that the edits are controversial and this is because you push POV. Your contributions in this article show that. You came late and now put forward an ultimatum about consensus. Admins said it "looked like" this edits are controversial but they remained silent when counterarguments were made, and they admitted they are not subject matter experts. Also, I see that the chapter has already been modified to satisfy such concerns. One editor clearly said that discussion of revisionism is relevant for Caucasian Albania. Shnirelman, de Waal and Hewsen do not talk "in length" about "Armenian revisionists." I do not see evidence of that. But if you feel that they do, you may suggest to modify the text on talk pages. I am telling this to you for the second time but you are not listening. What you do is disruptive editing. You remove portions of the article to hide a particular subject from the public eye? You reach consensus with all other participants who support(ed) these edits, and then we will think how to incorporate your contributions. Now you are repeating Twilight Chill's mistakes who was banned for disruptive behavior. Vandorenfm (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
Because of the continued nationalistic edit-warring about this article and associated disruption, I am imposing the following sanctions:
| Under the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, the following discretionary sanctions apply to this article:
|
These sanctions are also logged on the case page and displayed to editors in the article and talk page's edit notice. Sandstein 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Categories: