Talk:Artsakh (historical province)/Archive 2

Deletion
Please do not delete info without citing your reasons. I suspect the sock puppetry here. Grandmaster 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why Azeri name of the region was removed. Explanation is needed. And I agree that here can be another case of sock puppetry--Dacy69 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not to put the Georgian verions or transliteration of Artsakh then, or Japanese? What does Russia or Azerbaijan have to do with the name of Armenian or Albanian province? Why should we mention about these languages If you consider the terrotory of Artsakh once used to be a part of Russia or Azerbaijan then we have to admit that Persia will also claim its right to place the Persian name. As far as I remember neither Persia nor Russia or Azerbaijan ever used Artsakh or even Arsak to describe the region which has always been known for them as Karabakh. If you want to go through the history, then why don't you mention the name Oristena or Urtichene, Roman Byzentine versions etc etc. I will never believe Azeris ever used Arsak. It is Karabakh for them. --armenianNY 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Karabakh (Artsakh) is integral part of Azerbaijan according to U.N., U.S. State Department, PACE, CIS, and Council of Europe, etc. Every single country of the world recognizes is as a part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. So, the statement of the name in the state language is a must. After all, Wikipedia is encyclopedia of facts, not of illusions.Atabek 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? The word itself is Armenian and is used ONLY by Armenians.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Supposingly Nagorno Karabakh is a recognized part of Azerbaijan, so what, Artsakh is a historical part of Caucasian Albania or Armenia and its territory is not exactly what today's Nagorno karabakh is. Oristena and Utrichene included territories of todays Armenian Syunik, some part of Armenian Taush, Azeri Gyanja etc etc. When Caucasian Albania or Artsakh existed, there were no turkic speaking tribes in Caucasus since they came only in the 11th century. Therefore, it was impossible that any Azerbaijani would use the term Artsakh or Ersak,simply, because there were no Azerbaijanis there. There were Azari (not Azeri) speaking Persians in the nearby provinces, later arabs captured the territory in 7th century, and the muslim element started using the name Karabakh. Turkic tribes came later and took the term Karabakh from Persians and Arabs. We do not see any reason why should we mentioned the name of ancient province in the language that appeared centuries after that province ceased to exist. By the same way some people put the version of Battle of Sardarapat in French. Guys, this is the English Wikipedia blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. If everybody come and put the toponim or any georgraphical or historic event in his mother tongue the whole page would be taken just by names. Will it be appropriate if I edit in Gyanja page the name and put Armenian Gandzak because we call the city that way. Or if I go and edit the page of Stambul and put the Armenian verion K.Polis with armenian letters on the top? Or there are some Armenian sources calling Baku Bagu. Sould I mention it on the top? Or may be you want also to write in Erevan page that the Azeri name is Erivan? Where is this going?--armenianNY 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a historical province, not a political entity. Therefore, references to modern Azer. state and its state language are irrelevant. The term Artsakh has been used only by Armenians and has appeared almost exclusively in historical Armenian texts. Based on that, I agree – the Russian world "Арцах" can be removed. As to the Azerb. word Ercek or whatever, it is historically unprecedented and unreferenced, and is a modern fabrication evidently aimed at attributing Artsakh away from its Armenian origin. If participants want to use this term, they should find an NPOV third party source suggesting that Ercek has been in use as an authentic, historical term. Zurbagan 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

... continued: for instance - Constantinople. Should we include in an article about that city a Turkish version of this name simply because now it is part of Turkey? No - Constantinople is a Byzantine/Greek phenomenon, as Artsakh is an Armenian phenomenon. Zurbagan 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

...yeah, now about Ganca/Gianja (i.e. Armenian Gandzak). In the article about Ganca, the Armenian term Gandzak should be mentioned - in contrast to this specific case. This is because Gandzak is the original or at least the earliest recorded name for that settlement. Ganca is likely to be a phonetic distortion of the word Gandzak. Zurbagan 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Gandzak" is not Armenian -- it is Iranic, Persian. Even the capital of Iran was Gandzak -- and that was way before Ganja was founded in 5th century AD. So sorry, but "Gandzak" is as Armenian as "Artsakh". --AdilBaguirov 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the claim that there’s a consensus among Armenian scholars that the region was populated by Armenians. First, not all Armenian scholars believe so. See the article by Ronald Suny:

''The Caucasus region has long been the scene of very serious social, religious and ethnic conflicts. Back in the Middle Ages, before the Turkish people migrated here from central Asia, eastern Transcaucasia was known as Caucasian Albania. No relation to the Balkan Albanians, these were a Christianized people quite close to the Armenians. Once the Seljuk Turks began arriving in the 11th century, the Albanians in the mountainous area – Karabagh up to historic Armenia – remained largely Christian and eventually merged with the Armenians. The Albanians in the eastern plain leading down to the Caspian Sea mixed with the Turkish population and eventually became Muslims''.

''Ronald G. Suny: What Happened in Soviet Armenia? Middle East Report, No. 153, Islam and the State. (Jul. - Aug., 1988), pp. 37-40''.

You can check it at JSTOR here: 

And second, it is irrelevant whether there’s consensus among Armenian scholars or not, we don’t base the article on the position of the Armenian side only. Grandmaster 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is pretty much accepted that in ancient times Armenians and Caucasian Albanians lived there. I don't see the relevence in adding what Armenian scholars think. Anatolmethanol 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars may have certain positions in this issue, but we need to report what generally accepted view is. Grandmaster 11:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think their view could be presented if we attribute their view to them. We could for exemple in this case write that several Azerbaijani scholars do not agree that Armenians ever lived there. Anatolmethanol 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And that some Armenian scholars created "New Albania" to the South of Kura and added to it some lands from the other bank as well, pushing actual Albania to the Caspian sea shores. But this article is not about the polemics between Azerbaijani and Armenian scholars, it is about an ancient province. We can actually create an article about this dispute, but there's no need in mentioning it here. --Grandmaster 06:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NK War template
Doesn't belong here. This article is about a historic province which has nothing to do with Nagorno Karabakh War. VartanM 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Grandmaster 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica
Britannica says nothing like what Merjanov ascribed to it in his recent edit. The article about Azerbaijan written by Ronald Suny says that Albanians came under the cultural influence of Armenians in the 4th century. However the region was politically dominated by many powers, such as Romans, Persians, Arabs, etc. At the same time Albania was an independent state for long periods of time as well, and there was no such independent state as Armenia after the 4th century. Therefore such interpretations are not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote my statement Merjanov (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still not accurate. Armenian cultural influence existed only in a certain period, not all the way through. There was also strong Parthian and Persian influence. Why do we need to mention influences in the very first line? Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No "Albanian" culture existed or at least no (or very little) such thing survived after the Armenian dynasties from Artsakh and Utik took over Caucasian Albania. Everything known about Caucasian Albania is about the "Armenian" Albania called Aghvank. Caucasian Albania was "Albanian" as much as the German-ruled Holy Roman Empire was "Roman." Merjanov (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true. Albanians spoke their own language as late as the 10th century. See the following primary sources. Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:


 * В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский.


 * In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.


 * Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:


 * Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански .


 * As to the language of the people of Aderbeyjan and most of the people of Armenia, it is Persian and Arabic, but very few speak Arabic, besides, those who speak Persian do not understand Arabic. Fluent Arabic is spoken by merchants and landowners, and there are other languages for many population groups in the outskirts of Armenia and adjacent countries, such as Armenian for the people of Dabil and its area, and people of Berdaa speak Arranian .


 * Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:


 * Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский.


 * In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.


 * You can find the same info in a secondary source, the article about Arran by C. E. Bosworth in encyclopedia Iranica: He writes:


 * Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Raniya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century).


 * So people of Albania/Arran spoke their own language until Turkic Oghuz tribes took over the region. Most of Albanians converted to Islam by that time and became Turkisized, and the Christian minority for the most part mixed with Armenians. But saying that no Albanian culture ever existed is wrong, Albanians had even their own script, which modern scholars unable to decipher. It is a lost civilization. Grandmaster (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And the Oscar goes to.... VartanM (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That "... most of Albanians converted to Islam and became Turkisized, and the Christian minority for the most part mixed with Armenians" - it is just a hypothesis pertaining to the category of original research (OR). We don't have sources from the time confirming the conversions and assimilations. But it was Mesrob Mashtots, and not Meshadi Mamedov or Ziya Buniatov, who invented the "Albanian" alphabet, and it was Mesrob Mashtots who established the first Armenian school in Artsakh in the 5th century (source: National Geographic magazine, March 2004). Later, Stephanos Siunetsi, in the 7th century re-confirms that there was "Artsakhian" dialect of the Armenian language. Arstakh has always been a cradle of Armenian culture, and "Caucasian Albania" was, effectively, an Armenian state. All "Caucasian Albanians" have Armenian names (e.g. Vachagan, Tagui, which are in use by modern Armenians). The historian of "Caucasian Albania" was - coincidentally? - an Armenian, who wrote his text in Armenian. The ruling family of Arranshahiks was said to originate from Hayk, legendary ancestor of Armenians. "Caucasian Albania" was set up by the Armenian king Vagharshak. "Albanian" church was part of the Armenians church. There are 1000s of Armenians inscriptions in Artsakh (dating from the times when St. Mesrob taught at Amaras), and none in "Caucasian Albanian." Christianity was brought to "Albania" by an Armenian, St. Gregory. There was, perhaps, a non-Armenian minority, but we don't know. And, by the way, if you admit that "Albanians" became Armenians, you directly attests to Armenian influence in "Caucasian Albania." There are dozens of books and articles discussing these facts. Your conduct resembles trolling. I saw this in the article "House of Hasan-Jalalyan." Merjanov (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not an original research. Even Armenian scholars admit that:


 * The Caucasus region has long been the scene of very serious social, religious and ethnic conflicts. Back in the Middle Ages, before the Turkish people migrated here from central Asia, eastern Transcaucasia was known as Caucasian Albania. No relation to the Balkan Albanians, these were a Christianized people quite close to the Armenians. Once the Seljuk Turks began arriving in the 11th century, the Albanians in the mountainous area – Karabagh up to historic Armenia – remained largely Christian and eventually merged with the Armenians. The Albanians in the eastern plain leading down to the Caspian Sea mixed with the Turkish population and eventually became Muslims.


 * Ronald G. Suny: What Happened in Soviet Armenia? Middle East Report, No. 153, Islam and the State. (Jul. - Aug., 1988), pp. 37-40.


 * You can check it at JSTOR here:


 * And Albanian rulers were Parthian and Persian, and not Armenian. So were their names. Arsacids were Parthian, Mihranids were Persian. What was Armenian about them? Javanshir is certainly not an Armenian name, and it is popular with modern Azerbaijanis. The remnants of Christian Albanians in NK region became assimilated with Armenians somewhere after the 10th century (Suny believes that this happened after the 11 century, when Seljuks moved into the region), but there are still direct descendants of Albanians, i.e. Udis, who live in the village of Nij in Shirvan. This shows that Albanians were not Armenians. And keep it to the topic and refrain from making personal attacks. I'm citing sources for everything I say. It is good that you have such a good knowledge of wiki policies for a brand new user, but comments about Oscar better fit the description in wiki guidelines. Grandmaster (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oscar was not my comment. Suny is not an expert in ancient history, and he later admitted he was wrong. He wrote a new account of Caucasian Albania in the Stone Garden Guide on Armenia and Karabagh. Don't avoid the question of why Mashtots established the Armenian school in Amaras. Vachagan abd Tagui are Armenian names, not Parthian. Yes, Albanians assimilated but not in the 10th century but in the 3rd century AD. "Albanian" is a political term, like "Bohemian," not an ethnic one. There has never been an "Albanian" ethnicity. Merjanov (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Important point here. Suny is not an anthropologist, and an ass like him does not understand that people cannot simply "merge" with other people in the absence of direct cultural influence and direct physical contact. That is why Azerbaijanis remained Turkic, despite their Muslim identity. They have not assimilated and became Arabs, have they? although Islam is much a culture-specific Arabic religion than Christianity. Armenians always lived in Artsakh, and they assimilated "Albanians" because they were a majority and your "Albanian" tribesmen were a minority. "Albanian" could not assimilate by simply becoming Armenian Christian. And why are we talking? you have already admitted that Armenians had a huge impact on "Albanians." Merjanov (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If Albanians assimilated in the 3rd century, why Arabic sources reported in the 10th century that the language of Arran (i.e. Albania) was Arranian (Albanian), and not Armenian? Any answer to that? As for Mashtots, there are English schools in Baku, does it mean that there are no Azerbaijani people in Baku? It was a foreign language school, because the same Armenian sources that provide information about the school say that Albanians spoke their own language, which according to them was "cacophonous and barbarous". So clearly Albanians were different people which survived to our days (udis). As for impact, Romans, Persians and Arabs also had a huge impact on Albanians, which you did not mention in the intro. Grandmaster (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Foreign language school"? Are you saying there were as many "Albanian" schools as there are Azerbaijani schools in Baku? any texts? or extensive inscriptions? "cacophonous and barbarous" was the language of the "Albanians" who lived outside of traditional Armenian lands of Artsakh and Utik (like the tribe of Gargareans, mentions of which disappear after the reign of king Vachagan). About the "Arranian" language: well, in Azerbaijan people speak Azerbaijani (not Turkish), and if you invited the same Arabic travelers to Azerbaijan today they would tell you that people in Azerbaijan speak Azerbaijani and people in Turkey speak Turkish. But Turkish and Azerbaijani are the same language, isn't it? So (most likely) was your "Arranian" - just another Armenian dialect (the one mentioned by Stepanos S. in the 7th century?) that was as different from the mainstream Armenian as Azerbaijani is different from Turkish. Or maybe, just to salvage your argument, we may assume that there were remnants of non-Armenian "Albanians" somehow surviving around the city of Barda. Have they left any trace of their civilization? No. Any books they wrote? No. Any churches with "Albanian" letter they built? No. The same Arabic dudes, traveling in South-Eastern Asia, were reporting that there saw people there with serpentine tails and wings. Shall we believe them too? You are sticking to your sole mention of obscure Arabic dudes, disregarding the overwhelming evidence which cries out from the every page of Movses' work. This is highly a selective, revisionist minority position which has been irreversibly discredited. Is this called a POV or what? A huge body of literature is against this stance. The idea that Udis have anything to do with "Albania" is a just a hypothesis, a wrong one I think. Merjanov (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we continue, I want to ask you a question. Do you have anything to do with banned users User:Verjakette and User:Robert599? According to this cu you are possibly the same person as Verjakette: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Verjakette. It is also of interest that you repeated word by word the same claims as were made by User:Jalaleddin, an established sock of Robert599, which I believe is the same as Verjakette. See here, about Armeno-Albanians, no one other than that user was making the same claims: Please explain these coincidences. If you are a banned user, you need to contest your block and get a permission to edit Wikipedia. So please explain what's going on. Grandmaster (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked your edits with those of Jalaleddin, you are the same person making exactly the same claims. You say:


 * All "Caucasian Albanians" have Armenian names (e.g. Vachagan, Tagui, which are in use by modern Armenians).


 * Jalaleddin says:


 * Plus, the first names of “Caucasian Albanians” were Armenian too: Tagui, Vachagan, Marut, etc. All these and other names are in use by modern Armenians; to say more, modern Armenian widely use the name “Aghvan” as a male first name.


 * You say:


 * Arstakh has always been a cradle of Armenian culture, and "Caucasian Albania" was, effectively, an Armenian state.


 * Jalaleddin says:


 * After 387 AD “Caucasian Albania” was an Armenian land and an Armenian state for all means and purposes. That Armenian country stretched from Lake Sevan to the Caspian Sea.


 * You say:


 * The ruling family of Arranshahiks was said to originate from Hayk, legendary ancestor of Armenians. "Caucasian Albania" was set up by the Armenian king Vagharshak.


 * Jalaleddin:


 * The kingdom was established by the Armenian king Vagharshak.


 * You say:


 * Later, Stephanos Siunetsi, in the 7th century re-confirms that there was "Artsakhian" dialect of the Armenian language.


 * Same source can be found in Jalaleddin's edit:


 * I heard all of your arguments before, and it is getting more and more interesting, because I have a reason to believe that you were in wiki for a long time. It is not just a coincidence, you are repeating word by word everything that Jalaleddin was claiming. Grandmaster (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster, All the mentioned references are well-known facts, they are all over the Internet (especially in Armenian-written texts). I reviewed the Archives of the "Caucasian Albania," "Artsakh," "House of Hasan-Jalalyan" and many other articles and perhaps was influenced by some of the arguments made there, which you continues rejecting in a way that is against the Wiki rules. These arguments are valid irrespective of who is making them. However, everyone who reads today's Internet and the original text of Movses Kaghankatvatsi, and the works of R.Hewsen, Dowsett, Ulubabian, Buniatov and others would inevitably come to same conclusions. You should not assume bad faith, or suspect others to be socks, as you recently did in a checkuser case. Merjanov (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CU seems to suggest that you are related to the banned user, and I have not seen anyone other than banned user Robert599 making the claims that Albania was an Armenian state. Hewsen certainly does not say so, nor do other third party sources. And the claim about the names of Tagui, Vachagan etc is exclusively yours and the banned user. The Armenian editors in Wikipedia also think that you are Verjakette, so it is not just me suspecting you. I think what you need to do is to provide your perspective here: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AdilBaguirov. The administrators and editors providing evidence will be interested in your take of the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is wrong to repeat ideas that other people have expressed? Everyone who is serious about editing Caucasian Albania, or Artsakh, sooner or later will go to discussion pages and archives, and will bump to the same set of claims that you are apparently trying to suppress. Merjanov (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never seen that edits of different users matched word by word. And this is what happens here. And also, you should be aware that Armenian users User:VartanM and User:Fadix also think that you are a sock, but they believe that you are sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov. I saw your comment at cu, but your persona raised a lot of suspicions, and cu results allow to connect you with other people. So don't blame everything on my malicious intents, Armenian users also have their reasons to suspect you. Grandmaster (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Armenian influenced Caucasian Albania"? What an original research is that, with irrelevant reference provided. Over half of Armenian cuisine is Turkish, does it mean we should call Turkish-influenced Armenia? Atabek (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your views are identical to those of Grandmaster, word by word. According to Grandmaster's logic, you are his sock. Merjanov (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They are not, there are some minor variations :) Grandmaster (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed a reference to the website of some T. Saaryan. It is a self-published source and is not reliable in topics like this. Grandmaster (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulubabyan
The map by Ulubabyan should be removed. He is known to be a revisionist author. His map clearly contradicts the third party sources such as Iranica. He shows the Mihranids domains to be a separate state from Albania, while it is very well known that this dynasty of Iranian origin actually ruled Albania. Ulubabyan was criticized by the Russian scholar Shnirelman for promoting the revisionist views and creating historical myths. Let's stick to third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ulubabyan is not a revisionist historian and the map shows not the domains of the Mihranids, but the region before the Mihranids should be in power there (thus before the periode of 630-705 ). Ulubabyan doesn't deny that since early 5th Artsakh, Utik and Caucasian Albania formed a marzpanate of Persia. However this map is not showing the incorporation of the region in the Persian Empire, but the landownership of the Arranshahiks, who prevailed in the counties of Artsakh and Utik previos to the Mihranids. The Arranshahiks or Yerranshahiks were also surnamed the Haykazuns (literally: "sons of Hayk"). Movses Kalankatvatsi calls them "the original Haykazunian house of Yerranahiks" (�&#1382;&#1398;&#1377;&#1389;&#1398;&#1377;&#1391;&#1377;&#1398; &#1377;&#1382;&#1379;&#1398; &#1344;&#1377;&#1397;&#1391;&#1377;&#1382;&#1398;&#1381;&#1377;&#1398;&#1409;&#1373; &#1333;&#1404;&#1377;&#1398;&#1399;&#1377;&#1392;&#1387;&#1391;&#1405;�, b. 2, ch. 17). The Mihranids settled around 600 in Gardman (one of the provinces of Utik). There is also sayed, that the Arranshahiks decided to divide the reign with the newcomers, but the Mihranids killed many of them: Vardan "the Valiant" for example poisoned and beheaded 60 Arranshahiks. Only after these events Varaz Grigor became the first Mihranid who was called "prince of Aghuank" (b. 2, ch. 22). --Vacio (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vacio is right here. First, the criticism leveled at a historian is not grounds for his removal. Second, you have still failed to recognize that the Arranshahiks (or Yerranshahiks) were a dyanstic ethnic group in Artsakh and Utik who were supposedly descendants of Hayk, and that that this was far different than the title of Arranshah. The Mihranids slaughtered many of the Yerranshahiks and it was only many years later that their descendants came back and let loosed their revenge against the Mihranids. Do we really have to go down this path again?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * &#1040;rranshah (i.e. shah of Arran) was the Persian title of the kings of Albania. It is a well known fact. Mihranids assumed that title from previous Arcasid dynasty when they became the rulers of Albania. And Hayk was not a real person, he was a myth, he could not have any descendants. Hewsen wrote that Haykazian is not a reference to the ethnicity, it just means that the dynasty was so old that people traced it to the legendary people. Please use third party authors, not known for their systematic bias in this issue. All the maps should come from reliable third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that the sources must come from third-party sources?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have discussed that before. See Reliable_sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This one is also of interest: Independent sources. In any case, Ulubabyan is known to be a nationalist author, engaged in the fight over Nagorno-Karabakh, and he was criticized by the neutral authors for his bias and attempts to create an Armenian myth of the history of NK. I have maps of the region made by Azerbaijani historians, do you mind if I include them into this article? It works both ways, but if you really want to create an objective article, it is better to refrain from using nationalist historians and stick to neutral sources, since the rules specifically require using third party ones. Grandmaster (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have indeed. Again, I ask you, where does it say we must rely solely on third-party sources?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just quoted you the rules. Do you mind if we include Farida Mamedova's maps as well? Grandmaster (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed you did, GM. But nowhere in your rules does it say that we cannot use Ulubabyan. If you get a chance to speak with Madam Mamedova, ask her please as to why she thinks Hasan-Jalal is an Albanian, why she thinks all the Christian monuments all the way to Nakhchivan were built by Albanians and not Armenians, why she mislead others in her translations of the Gandzasar inscriptions, etc. Let me know what she tells you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And why did Ulubabyan claim that Albanians never lived on the right bank of Kura, or that udis were ethnic Armenians? Once you get an answer, please let me know. Mamedova is as good as Ulubabyan. Grandmaster (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many Armenian historians (Muradyan, Mnatsakanyan, Akopyan, Yuzbashyan, etc.) agree that the Udis lived on the right bank of the Kura (and they were probably of Albanian extraction). They were quickly assimilated, of course, with the Armenians and hence, "Armenianized", so Ulubabyan isn't necessarily wrong here. Mdm. Mamedova's arguments, on the other hand, are lightyears away from being taken seriously by the rest of the scholarly world.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Udis on the right bank were not assimilated until the Russian takeover of the region, and on the left bank they live even now. But Ulubabyan claimed that utis were originally Armenian people, not Armenized. That's total falsification and contradicts the facts known to everyone. How such a historian can be trusted? Grandmaster (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And once again, read the WP:RS rule: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. It clearly says that we shoud use third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of Russian takeover of the region, only a few thousands Udis lived there. Ulubabyan thinks they must have been much more Udis in Ancient times there, especially in Utik, but a large part of them has been Armenized through Middle Ages. I think there is noting wrong here. And Grandmaster tries unjust to reproach Ulubabyan. --Vacio (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hewsen criticizes Armenian historian Mnatsakanian for his manipulation with historical facts. Mnatsakanian claimed for example, that the ancient rulers of Siwnik were Armenian, referring to the same Haykid claims in the primary sources.

As for the Armenian origin of the House of Siwnik' asserted by Movses, this is highly dubious, and we have evidence of Siwnian separateness and ethnic particularlism as late as the sixth century A.D.

Actually, all Movses Xorenac'i asserts is that the House of Siwnik' was of Haykid origin which, as Toumanoff has shown (Studies, 108, 216, 218, 222, 469), should be taken as meaning only that it was of immemorial origin; i.e. that it had been sovereign in Siwnik for so long that no one remembered its origin.

Robert H. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in Thomas J. Samuelian, ed., Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity. Pennsylvania: Scholars Press, 1982.

From now on, please quote third party sources to support your claims. You won't be happy if I start quoting Igrar Aliyev or other Azerbaijani scholars or use their maps in this article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that according to Wikipedia rules the primary sources should be interpreted by the reliable secondary sources, so personal interpretations of Movses Kalankatvatsi or other ancient scholars are not acceptable. They must be interpreted by neutral and authoritative third party scholars. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your statement: "Hayk, was not a real person" -- There will always be people who disagree with your POV that "Hayk wasn't real", and who hold the exact opposite POV, i.e. that he was real. Since it is unlikely ever to be satisfactorily proven either way whether Hayk was a real person, these are two contradictory POVs, and per neutrality rules, we cannot and do not assume either POV to be correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not "my POV", that's what the scholars say. This is from Robert Hewsen's work:


 * Grandmaster (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This above passage does not negate the historical nature of Hayk and, as Hewsen notes above, and his people's history seems to coincide with that of Urartu's.

Grandmaster, would you finally stop scorning Armenian historians? This talk page is about Artsakh, not Ulubabian, Mnatsakanian or somebody else. If you have any objection agains a map or something discuss the map self not it's author. It's also not the matter wheither Hayk was a real person or not. If I am a Christian, I believe Christ is the son of God, if you saye He isn't that, you don't change the matter that I'm a Christian.

The epithet "Haykazun" was indeed given to dynasties, which lived since "immemorial" times in Armenia, but it concerned also their ethnicity. I can quote many Armenian chronicles to testify that, but here a fragment of Kalankatvatsi's "History" with the original text in Old Armenian (OTOA). Please note the two words, which are declensions of the same "Haykazun":


 * Kalankatvatsi, 3.23: With truly and trusty words we have learned, that the Haykazuns related themselves by marriage with the Mihrakan House and by this relationship they decided to reign together the state of the eastern edges � Aghuank. (...) Mihrian, a descendant of the Sasanian dynasty, came from Persia and established a feudality. Their names, from father to son, are: Mihr, Armael, Vard, Vardan the Valiant, who believed in Christ, but not the one who built the Castle of Gardman. His son � Vard. Vard became the father of Varaz Grigor � the first prince of Aghuank, who had four sons: Varaz Perozh, Jvanshir, Hezut Khosrov and Varazman. As from here, we will quote only the names of the first-bornes, which are known to the Armenians, leaving out the others. They are: Varaz Perozh, Varaz Trdat, Vardan, Nerseh Dzhndak [the Cruel], who could pluke the hairs of one�s head and make him bald, and the feats of sufferers were bound with iron chains. {Movses Kalankatvatsi, History of Aghvank, translation, foreword and notes by Varag Arrakelian. "Hayastan" publishing, Yerevan 1969, p. 265.}


 * OTAL: ''�&#1357;&#1407;&#1400;&#1410;&#1379;&#1377;&#1378;&#1377;&#1400;&#1410;&#1385;&#1381;&#1377;&#1396;&#1378; &#1377;&#1397;&#1405;&#1402;&#1381;&#1405; &#1390;&#1377;&#1398;&#1381;&#1377;&#1412; &#1384;&#1398;&#1380; &#1344;&#1377;&#1397;&#1391;&#1377;&#1382;&#1377;&#1398;&#1409; &#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1398;&#1409; &#1389;&#1398;&#1377;&#1396;&#1377;&#1410;&#1400;&#1408;&#1387;&#1388; &#1348;&#1387;&#1392;&#1408;&#1377;&#1391;&#1377;&#1398; &#1407;&#1400;&#1392;&#1396;&#1387;&#1398;, &#1415; &#1402;&#1377;&#1407;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1405;&#1407;&#1400;&#1410;&#1385;&#1381;&#1377;&#1396;&#1378;&#1405; &#1377;&#1397;&#1405;&#1400;&#1410;&#1387;&#1391; &#1377;&#1404; &#1387; &#1382;&#1400;&#1397;&#1379; &#1400;&#1410;&#1398;&#1381;&#1388; &#1382;&#1402;&#1381;&#1407;&#1400;&#1410;&#1385;&#1387;&#1400;&#1410;&#1398; &#1377;&#1408;&#1415;&#1381;&#1388;&#1381;&#1377;&#1397;&#1409; &#1391;&#1400;&#1394;&#1396;&#1377;&#1398;&#1409;&#1405; &#1329;&#1394;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1387;&#1409;&#1417; (...) &#1333;&#1410; &#1348;&#1387;&#1392;&#1408;&#1381;&#1377;&#1398;&#1398;, &#1400;&#1408; &#1387; &#1357;&#1377;&#1405;&#1377;&#1398;&#1381;&#1377;&#1398; &#1407;&#1400;&#1392;&#1396;&#1383;&#1398; &#1383;&#1408; &#1381;&#1391;&#1381;&#1377;&#1388; &#1387; &#1354;&#1377;&#1408;&#1405;&#1387;&#1409;, &#1392;&#1377;&#1405;&#1407;&#1377;&#1407;&#1381;&#1409;&#1377;&#1410; &#1387; &#1398;&#1377;&#1389;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1408;&#1400;&#1410;&#1385;&#1387;&#1410;&#1398;. &#1415; &#1377;&#1398;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1412; &#1398;&#1400;&#1409;&#1377; &#1400;&#1408;&#1380;&#1387; &#1387; &#1392;&#1413;&#1408;&#1383; &#1377;&#1404;&#1398;&#1388;&#1400;&#1406;&#1373; &#1381;&#1398; &#1377;&#1397;&#1405;&#1413;&#1412;&#1387;&#1391;. &#1348;&#1387;&#1408;&#1392;, &#1329;&#1408;&#1396;&#1377;&#1397;&#1383;&#1388;, &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380;, &#1412;&#1377;&#1403; &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380;&#1377;&#1398;, &#1400;&#1408; &#1392;&#1377;&#1410;&#1377;&#1407;&#1377;&#1409;&#1381;&#1377;&#1388; &#1387; &#1364;&#1408;&#1387;&#1405;&#1407;&#1400;&#1405;, (...)&#1417; &#1357;&#1400;&#1408;&#1377; &#1400;&#1408;&#1380;&#1387; &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380;. &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380; &#1390;&#1398;&#1377;&#1398;&#1387; &#1382;&#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382; &#1331;&#1408;&#1387;&#1379;&#1400;&#1408;&#1373; &#1382;&#1377;&#1404;&#1377;&#1403;&#1387;&#1398; &#1387;&#1399;&#1389;&#1377;&#1398;&#1398; &#1329;&#1394;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1387;&#1409;, &#1400;&#1408; &#1390;&#1398;&#1377;&#1406; &#1332; &#1400;&#1408;&#1380;&#1387;&#1405;&#1373; &#1382;&#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382; &#1363;&#1381;&#1408;&#1400;&#1386;, &#1382;&#1355;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1399;&#1387;&#1408;, &#1382;&#1349;&#1381;&#1382;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407; &#1341;&#1400;&#1405;&#1408;&#1400;&#1406; &#1415; &#1382;&#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382;&#1396;&#1377;&#1398;&#1417; &#1339; &#1405;&#1400;&#1409;&#1377;&#1398;&#1383; &#1382;&#1381;&#1408;&#1383;&#1409; &#1400;&#1408;&#1380;&#1410;&#1400;&#1397;&#1398; &#1399;&#1377;&#1408;&#1381;&#1377;&#1388; &#1384;&#1405;&#1407; &#1391;&#1377;&#1408;&#1379;&#1387; &#1382;&#1377;&#1398;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1405; &#1378;&#1381;&#1408;&#1409;&#1400;&#1410;&#1412;&#1373; &#1397;&#1377;&#1397;&#1407; &#1377;&#1404; &#1344;&#1377;&#1397;&#1391;&#1377;&#1382;&#1387;&#1398;&#1405;&#1398;. &#1415; &#1377;&#1397;&#1388;&#1412;&#1398; &#1391;&#1377;&#1409;&#1409;&#1381;&#1398;, &#1400;&#1408;&#1412; &#1381;&#1398; &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382; &#1363;&#1381;&#1408;&#1400;&#1386;, &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382; &#1359;&#1408;&#1380;&#1377;&#1407;, &#1358;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380;&#1377;&#1398;, &#1350;&#1381;&#1408;&#1405;&#1381;&#1392; &#1332;&#1386;&#1398;&#1380;&#1377;&#1391;, &#1400;&#1408; &#1381;&#1392;&#1377;&#1398; &#1395;&#1377;&#1394;&#1412; &#1379;&#1388;&#1389;&#1400;&#1397;&#1398; &#1396;&#1377;&#1408;&#1380;&#1391;&#1377;&#1398; &#1415; &#1392;&#1413;&#1407;&#1387;&#1412;&#1405; &#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1408;. &#1415; &#1400;&#1407;&#1412; &#1407;&#1377;&#1404;&#1377;&#1402;&#1381;&#1388;&#1400;&#1409; &#1402;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1380;&#1381;&#1377;&#1388; &#1391;&#1377;&#1402;&#1381;&#1409;&#1377;&#1398; &#1387; &#1399;&#1394;&#1385;&#1377;&#1397;&#1405; &#1381;&#1408;&#1391;&#1377;&#1385;&#1381;&#1394;&#1383;&#1398;&#1405;&#1417;�'' {Movses Kalanatuatsi, History of Aghuank, critical text and introduction by Varag Arrakelian. "Matenadaran" Institute of old manuscripts. Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences Publishing, Yerevan 1983, p 338-339.}

Furthermore, Artsakh was part of Armenia from 189 BC, when the Kingdom of Armenia was proclaimed, till 387 (more than 500 years). And it was this period when the Haykazunian Arranshahik dynasty was established as a bransh if Sisakan House. According to Movses Khorenatsi, the borders of Armenia were formed along the Armenian speech:


 * Khorenatsi, 2.3: Bagrat (..) was appointed regent of the western edges, until those limits, where the Armenian speech ends, being in command of ten thousand troops.


 * Khorenatsi, 2.8: And in the eastern edges, along the boundaries of Armenian speech, he [the king of Armenia] established two regents with thousend troops from the Royal houses of Sisakean and Kadmean, whose names we gave in one of the previous chapters. Subsequently, he founded the regentship of the great, glorious and populous northeastern edge, along the big river called Kur, which cuts through the extensive plain, [appointing as regent] Arran, a distinguished man, the first one in all matters of wisdom and intelligence. But you must learn about this offshoot of Sisak, since we forgot to mention this great and distinguished lineage in the first book, who inherited the plain of Aghuank, including its inverted mountainous side, from the river Yeraskh to the fortress called Hnarakert. And because of his amiable disposition the land was named �Aghuank� for they called him �Aghu�.

Thus Armenian sources corroborate the mentioning of Strabo, that everyone in Armenia spoke on language. Furthermore Strabo says about Albanians: They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, not "they live between the Iberians and the river Araxes".

Now this is wat we call "generally accepted view" since authors as Svante Cornell confirm the same: According to the Greek Historian Strabo and Armenian chronicles, the population of present-day Azerbaijan was until the fifth century divided between a western third populated by Armenians who to their East had the Caucasian Albanians.

Other views have to been compared with historical sources and verified even if there are from a third-party author. The thesis of P. Hewsen as if the ancient habitant of Artsakh were not of Armenian orign is in contradiction with historical sources and the traditional view on the topic. Also it is not verified that Utians, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians have lived in Artsakh. For example, acccording to Kalankatvatsi Gargars lived in the greater Caucasian mountains (1.27), the others are largely equal geographical names on the left bank of Kura. --Vacio (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have two opinion, then we should reflect both, but not promote only one. And for that matter we should try to use third party sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obivous that Armenian sources are not neutral or reliable and thus not acceptable. Baku87 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Baku. Did you have any luck finding those MiGs coming from Gyumri buzzing around Georgia's airspace?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Baku87, Artsakh is a historic Armenian county and Armenians live here since "immemorial" times (to use a word of R. Hewsen). It's history is written by Armenian chronicles and historiographers. Do you mean that we shouldn't use them to?


 * As regards of the map: please bring up you objections about the map it self, not (only) the author. What do you exactly think is wrong in this map? When I mentioned in the aticle Karabakh that this region also includes Syunik, some Azeri Users argued that the Armenian sources (Ulubabian, Leo) I reffered to were not reliable, but after all I was right! --Vacio (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And again about the Haykazuni's. Dowsett also identified Haykazuni's with ethnic Armenians: He translated that word "native Armenian":
 * After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat (...) king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni (The History of the Caucasian Albanians. Translated by C. F. J. Dowsett. London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220.)


 * OTOA:&#1339;&#1405;&#1391; &#1397;&#1381;&#1407; &#1332; &#1377;&#1396;&#1377;&#1409;, &#1397;&#1400;&#1408;&#1400;&#1410;&#1396; &#1407;&#1377;&#1408;&#1381;&#1396;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1398; &#1387; &#1405;&#1408;&#1378;&#1400;&#1410;&#1396;&#1398; &#1392;&#1377;&#1398;&#1380;&#1387;&#1402;&#1387;&#1410;&#1408; &#1354;&#1377;&#1405;&#1381;&#1412;&#1387;&#1398; &#1413;&#1408;, &#1405;&#1402;&#1377;&#1398;&#1377;&#1410; &#1329;&#1402;&#1400;&#1410; &#1329;&#1388;&#1387; &#1329;&#1394;&#1400;&#1410;&#1377;&#1398;&#1387;&#1409; &#1387;&#1399;&#1389;&#1377;&#1398;&#1398; &#1344;&#1377;&#1397;&#1391;&#1377;&#1382;&#1400;&#1410;&#1398;&#1387; &#1397;&#1387;&#1410;&#1408;&#1396;&#1383; &#1392;&#1377;&#1408;&#1377;&#1382;&#1377;&#1407;&#1383;&#1398; &#1357;&#1396;&#1378;&#1377;&#1407;&#1377;&#1397; (...) &#1385;&#1377;&#1379;&#1377;&#1410;&#1408;&#1400;&#1398; &#1344;&#1377;&#1397;&#1400;&#1409; &#1357;&#1396;&#1378;&#1377;&#1407;&#1373; &#1400;&#1408;&#1380;&#1387; &#1329;&#1399;&#1400;&#1407; &#1330;&#1377;&#1379;&#1408;&#1377;&#1407;&#1400;&#1410;&#1398;&#1410;&#1400;&#1397;&#1417; {Movses Kalanatuatsi, History of Aghuank, critical text and introduction by Varag Arrakelian. "Matenadaran" Institute of old manuscripts. Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences Publishing, Yerevan 1983, p 336.} --Vacio (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Armenians were not natives to Artsakh, they are migrants, according to most sources. For example, such notable scholars as Hewsen, Minorsky, Shnirelman and others say that the native population of Artsakh were Albanians, Armenians appeared there only in the 2nd century B.C.


 * The Armenians considerably curtailed the Albanian territories to the south of the Kur and Armenized them. Only after the division of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia in 387 did the provinces of Uti and Artsakh (lying south of the Kur) fall again to the lot of the Albanian ruler. The earlier capital of Albania seems to have lain north of this river, whereas the later capital Perozapat (Partav, Barda'a) was built by the Albanian Vach'e only under the Sasanian king P�roz (457-84).


 * V. Minorsky, A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th centuries, Cambridge (Heffer and Sons), 1958


 * The previous ruling dynasty of Albania was not Armenian, they were Parthian, it is a well known fact, and they ruled the region for centuries, that's why some traced their origin to non-existing legendary figures. And Ulubabyan is not acceptable, as the rules require third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Russian scholar Shnirelman writes the same:


 * &#1048;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084;&#1080; &#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080;, &#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1072;&#1088;&#1084;&#1103;&#1085; &#1087;&#1086; &#1094;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1040;&#1088;&#1084;&#1103;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086; &#1089;&#1083;&#1077;&#1076;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1089;&#1074;&#1103;&#1079;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1089; &#1087;&#1072;&#1076;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1040;&#1093;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1076;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1093;&#1080;&#1080;. &#1063;&#1090;&#1086; &#1078;&#1077; &#1082;&#1072;&#1089;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1057;&#1102;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072; &#1080; &#1050;&#1072;&#1089;&#1087;&#1080;&#1072;&#1085;&#1099;, &#1090;&#1086; &#1086;&#1085;&#1080;, &#1087;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091; &#1057;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072;, &#1087;&#1086;&#1087;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076; &#1074;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1072;&#1088;&#1084;&#1103;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1094;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103; &#1040;&#1088;&#1090;&#1072;&#1096;&#1077;&#1089;&#1072; &#1090;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1082;&#1086; &#1074; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1074;&#1086;&#1081; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1085;&#1077; II &#1074;. &#1076;&#1086; &#1085;.&#1101;. &#1040; &#1076;&#1086; &#1101;&#1090;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1079;&#1077;&#1084;&#1083;&#1080; &#1050;&#1091;&#1088;&#1086;-&#1040;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1076;&#1091;&#1088;&#1077;&#1095;&#1100;&#1103; &#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;&#1076;&#1083;&#1077;&#1078;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080; &#1052;&#1080;&#1076;&#1080;&#1080;, &#1080; &#1090;&#1072;&#1084; &#1078;&#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1099;&#1077; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1075;&#1088;&#1091;&#1087;&#1087;&#1099; &#1085;&#1072;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103;, &#1085;&#1086; &#1072;&#1088;&#1084;&#1103;&#1085; &#1089;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1080; &#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1085;&#1077; &#1073;&#1099;&#1083;&#1086; (Hewsen, 1982. &#1056;. 31-33; Redgate, 1998. &#1056;. 51, 63, 67).


 * Shnirelman, Viktor A. Memory Wars: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. Moscow: Academkniga, 2003 ISBN 5-9462-8118-6


 * What's up with the tags? Hewsen says that there's a general consensus among the scholars that Armenians are not the native population of the region. I quoted other scholars who support what Hewsen says. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute about here? Is it about whether Ulubabyan is a neutral/third party source? I'm not saying he isn't a valid source, but if we're going to add something that is potentially controverisal, why add a map that is most likely disputed by Azerbaijani historians? I'd say there are two options: we either add a map that represents the Azeri POV to go alongside it, or we replace it with a more neutral one. Khoikhoi 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Khoikhoi, this will only happen when the West compares Halacoglu or Ataov to historians such as Vahagn Dadrian or Hovanissian. The dispute is not about this, as the map that Grandmaster wants to add below is not supported even by the scholars he himself enjoys to cite (e.g. Hewsen). Check the dates and locations on it. The locations of the cities of Artashat, Vagharshapat, and Yervandashat shown on that map are implausibly placed far to the west of where they really are.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the Ulubabyan map supported by any non-Armenian or third-party sources? Khoikhoi 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a map by F.Mamedova which I suggest we should use in this article along with Ulubabyan's map: Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is yours. Artsakh was described in Urartian sources without any Albanians. You claim Armenians came there only ca. 200 BC (which is very unlikelly as the Urartian army penetrated there much earlier). But there is no any record of any Albanian people there in 200 BC. The first time such people were described was by Strabo in the first century BC, while he included Artsakh as part of Armenia. And he used Albania as a geographical region and claimed there was twenty-six languages spoken there. This therefore negates your claim. Until you provide any record before 200 BC that supports your claim that Armenians replaced the native Albanians, this shall remain as OR. And I am sure that such a politically motivated work as Memory Wars is in fact very useful here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read what the leading experts on the topic say. It is not my OR, this is what the experts say. They say that the original population of the region were various Albanian tribes, and Armenians came there when the land was conquered by them in 2nd century B.C. I quoted Vladimir Minorsky above, and this is what Hewsen says (and he is not Azeri either), sorry for the long quote, but it is necessary:


 * As for Ulubabyan's map, it is not supported by any third party source. He is known to be a politically motivated historian and one of the leaders of the separatist movement in NK. If we use him, we should use Mamedova as well. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok.....you do know that is what I am doing, right? You are changing the subject and quoting what I essentially wrote above (see last paragraph). We know nothing about the population there prior to 200 BC, while you claimed they were Albanian (see the last paragraph of the text you have quoted). There was no such people in Xerxes I's army, although they did recruit Armenians. You have no evidence that Artsakh was founded by Albanians when the first recorded existance of Artsakh as an entity never even mentioned any distinct people comming close to those Albanians. Strabo claims it was in Armenia and claims that only one language was spoken there, not twenty-six.

As for Mamedova, she is, quite frankly, a fraud. She claims a certain Jalalid dynasty existed even prior to Jalal's birth and claims it as ethnically Albanian when every scholar you quote has the date right as well as his ethnicity (Armenian). The accusations against Ulubabyan are on a different order. He is accused of making unsubstantiated claims which is much different than fraudulantly changing known individuals' ethnicities as well as changing known dates.

As a matter of fact, Ulubabyan's map is supported even by Hewsen, which is something I am sure you are certain of. The maps of the Artsakh Kingdom are available in Hewsen's work treating just that. This has been already discussed. Before continuing this argument check the date the map covers and you will see that you are writing about a different period.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How come that we know nothing of the population of the region before 200 B.C., when Hewsen writes that the original population was non-Armenian? Did you actually read the above quote? Before Armenians migrated to the region, it had certain population, and it was mostly non-Indo-European, as Hewsen says. Also note that Minorsky says almost the same, that Armenians conquered the land from Albanians. Check the last paragraph of the Hewsen's quote again. As for the map, if you have Hewsen's map, use it, Ulubabyan is not acceptable. He is known to be a nationalist author, distorting the history of the region. If you find him to be acceptable as a source, then I will feel free to use Mamedova's maps. Grandmaster (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, but it seem you have not read what I wrote. Hewsen claims they were not Armenian; he say nothing about Albanians (you are assuming). As for Minorsky, it is the opinion of one author, as there is no source of any Albanians nor Albania prior to Strabo. Hewsen says nothing about it. As for the map, you have provided no relevent material to reject Ulubabyan map beside that he is an Armenian. You changed the subject and wrote about a different period, when Hewsen's maps in his Kingdom of Artsakh (the texts were provided by Vartan, and he was discussing with you, so you can not claim you ignore that) are very much similar Ulubabyan's.


 * You already quoted from that work of Hewsen in the past, which means you did read it. Check the map on p. 62 with the title Siwnik' and Arc'ax until the ninth century. How is that much different than Ulubabyan's? You also have provided no reply in the past to the very relevant comment of this neutral user. Does Hewsen's map truly differ that much from Ulubabyan's? Mamedova's fraudulent maps are not supported outside of Azerbaijan. And Hewsen, in fact, calls Ulubabyan's Principality of Khachen (Yerevan, 1975) an "important work" and suggests that readers refer to it for "additional information" ("Kingdom of Ar'cax", p. 55). That's a pretty strong endorsement coming from a third-party source. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Marshall: Is the Ulubabyan map supported by any non-Armenian or third-party sources? Khoikhoi 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Marshall, Hewsen believes that Albanians were a federation of tribes, rather than a people. Therefore he does not mention Albanians in general as original inhabitants, but mentions separate Albanians tribes, such as utis, gargareans, and others. These were the original population of Artsakh and Utik, and therefore Hewsen says the same as another renowned scholar, V.Minorsky. And if Hewsen's map is no different from Ulubabyan, why you are not using it? Hewsen's map is actually completely different from Ulubabyan's map. Hewsen's map shows the boundaries of states before 387 A.D., Ulubabyan's map is very strange. The caption reads: The domains of the Haykazunian Arranshahik dynasty during 5-7 cc.: Artsakh (green), Utik (purple) and Kambisena (orange). Who were these "Haykazunian Arranshahik dynasty"? If these were the Parthian Arcasids, then they ruled the whole of Albania, and not just those 3 regions, and they ceased to exist in the 6th century A.D. (not the 7th) If these were Mihranids, then their state had different borders, read Minorsky's Caucasica IV, he is a top expert on that period of history. Once again, please use third party sources, as the rules require. Grandmaster (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, Armenians conquered Artsakh from Albanians or from the Medes? If you answer this, I will answer who the Arranshahiks were. --Vacio (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are different opinions on this. Hewsen believes that Armenians conquered Artsakh from Medes, Minorsky thinks that they took it from Albania. Both are top experts. Grandmaster (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you have no answer? --Vacio (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I told you the answer. If the scholars have different opinions, how can I have a definite one? But they agree in one thing - these lands originally were not Armenian by population. Grandmaster (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus it is unknow where Artsakh belonged to before 189 BC, but it is unquestionable that is was originally not Armenian by population? --Vacio (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides Hewsen don't speaks about Armenian immigrants, that is your wording, Grandmaster. He says, the Armenian nation was formed as a fusion of some incoming tribes and the ones, who lived earlier in the Armenian Highland. Thus the latter would be called pre-Armenians. --Vacio (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is unquestionable that the lands were not Armenian by population. The scholars agree on that. The speakers of the Armenian language (which is one of Indo-European languages) came to the region and mixed with the original population, such as Urartians, who were speakers of Caucasian languages (same as most of Albanian tribes). After that they started expanding their domains, conquering the lands of their neighbors. That's how Armenians came to Artsakh. Of course, before they came there, someone had already inhabited those lands. These were various tribes, which formed the Albanian federation. Grandmaster (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That defies logic, so the Albanians were not an ethnicity. The Urartians were multicultural also, and Armenians were one of the groups as stated in several references. Your assumptions are actually quite bizarre as all this runs against your own argument. Just throw whatever people you can find in the bunch as long as they are not Armenians. As a matter of fact, the only people who live in the area (Artsakh) now and who were living there prior are the Armenians. I have not the slightest idea of what you're trying to convey in the second part of your reply. Can you please demonstrate how both maps are that much different?

That map was used to show Artsakh the subject of this entry, the maps are very similar, and compare this to the later one represented by Hewsen on page 62. How are the names given for dynasties by the author anyway relevent when the date and the delimitations of Artsakh are similar to the one of the other authors and that is all that matters here? I'd advise that you not deviate the topic. There is no reason to draw a new map because it will be a near-replica of Ulubabyan's! This debate is so circular and a total waste of time. If you really want to waste your time, then go for it: change it with the near identical map of Artsakh drawn by Hewsen. It's mind-boggling as to how fanatically you are pursuing this one little change.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Marshall, for the millionth time, see the rules: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Is Ulubabyan third party? No, therefore he is not Ok for use. End of story. As for the Armenians, see the quotes above. They moved to the lands, inhabited by autochthonous people, such as Urartians, Albanians, etc. That's not my POV, that's what the sources say. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GM, please learn to differentiate the meanings of should and must. If you still cannot jump over so simple a hurdle, then you really have no clue over what you're quoting. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Marshal, that's not a good argument. If we should do something, then we definitely must do it in a hotly disputed topic like this. We can pretend that we never heard of this rule in a non-controversial article, but an article like this one should be free of any ethnic POV, and we must apply higher standards to the quality of the sources used. Grandmaster (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A map is not a source but rather an image or illustration. Furthermore the author of this map is not Ulubabyan, it is only made using a map of Ulubabyan, which included the Albanian marzpanate (i.e. Artsakh, Utuk and Albania). But I said this map is not showing the integration of the marzpanate in the Persian Empire, but the main cities and gavars (kantons) of Artsakh and Utik.
 * But now I see, Grandmaster is accusing Ulubabyan of historical bias, but he self tampers with a historical source (see here). Movses Kalankatvatsi clearly says, the Mihranids succeeded the Haykazunian Yerranshahiks, after killing almost everyone of them. Grandmaster replaced Haykazunian Arranshahiks with Arsacid dynasty, indicating that as a "mirror edit" (see here). He tries to disguise the fact that till the Mihranids, a Haykazunian dynasty existed in Artsakh and Utik. Probably this is the reason why he is dead set against a map which shows the area under the rule of these Arranshahiks. --Vacio (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can make a map using third party sources only, as the rules require. You keep on ignoring my reference to the rule that says the articles should use third party sources only. And second, the source clearly refers to Arranshahs as the rulers of Albania, and the dynasty preceding Mihranids were Arcasids. There was no other dynasty. So stop making original research and start using third party sources. Grandmaster (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Arranshahiks are suggested to be the rulers prior to the Mihranids according to Ulubabyan and Movses Kaghakatvatsi's work seems to confirm it. Some scholars such as C. Toumanoff think that the Arranshahiks were your Albanian Arsacids, although it's quite obvious that any Arsacid after the third century A.D. was definitely Armenian.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone other than Arcasids. After all, Mihranids had to kill them to take over the country, and no other dynasty is registered between Arcasids and Mihranids. Both those dynasties were Iranian, it is a well documented fact. Therefore Vacio's edits that he tries to force into the article on Mihranids are clearly OR and POV. And I have no idea what Ulubabyan's map shows. By the time Mihranids came to power the territory of Albania/Arran reduced to the lands between Kura and Araks, as Shirvan was settled by Iranian colonists. However Ulubabyan's map for the 5th - 7th century A.D. shows Albania on the left bank, and then some Arranshah state on right. I have Minorsky's map for the 9th century, it shows something quite different to this map. Once again, let's use neutral sources, as the rules require. Grandmaster (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you keep blindly dismissing Ulubabyan as an "unreliable" source, of course there won't be any reason to believe so! (even Hewsen praises the Principality of Khachen as an "important work"). Keep in mind, the Arranshahiks did not officially adopt their title as a dynastic name until the 7th century but their family did predate the establishment of the Arsacids. Since the Arranshahiks were named after their eponymous founder, Arran, who according to Movses Khorenatsi was a descendant of Hayk, then it's only logical that they claimed Armenian lineage. Movses Kaghankatvatsi even refers to them as the "ancient Armenian line of Erranshahik" (2.17 in the Dowsett translation, p. 108). The dynasties may have had Iranian origins, just like the Artashesyan and Arshakuni kings of Armenia, but they eventually assimilated with the Armenian population, that includes the Mihranids. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, per rules, the map should be removed and replaced with the one from a reliable source. New caption is even worse, another OR by Vacio. Second, Hayk was not a real person, so Arran could not be his descendant and he was a legendary person too. Same Hewsen says that Haykid is only a reference to immemorial origin of the dynasty, i.e. that sine the dynasty ruled the country for centuries, no one remembered its origin and it was traced to legendary figures. So using a legend as an argument is "hazardous in extreme", as Hewsen says. Also, do you have any reliable source to support your claims that Arranshahs were not Arcasids? --Grandmaster (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shapur I's two raids makes that Arsacid dynasty nothing more than a symbolic name. It was attached to Armenia under Rome (are you going to deny this too?) Paul Erdkamp writes that there is a paucity of sources and a new chaos. You claim that there is no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone else other than Arsasids, I hope you will remember this sort of argument and leave us to use it as much as we want. If the Sassanids were considering the Arshakuni (which were Arsacid by Grandmaster's logic) as Armenian nobles (when the Arshakuni dynasty was abolished in 428), didn't they abolish that one at about the same time in so-called Albania (it happened much earlier, when under Rome, Albania was a part of Armenia) to again replace it with other Armenian nobles? Please post Minorsky's map for the 9th century that you keep mentioning (which is of a completely different peroid.

I have two maps of Hewsen, one from the seventh century which places both as losses from Armenia, and another map from the Arab domination, which also extends to the eighth century where the losses were replaced as Armenia II and III. References to maps from the fourth century to late eighth, etc. (also those included in the Kingdom of Artsakh). These all corroborate Ulubabyan's map, by different chronology of the maps, we have a good picture of what happened in that region. On the other hand, your only argument now is a map by Minorsky which we haven't seen and which covers an entirely different period anyways.

GM, please don't fabricate more rules: First, per rules, the map should be removed and replaced with the one from a reliable source. According to which rules? A map is a visual representation, there is the copyright issue here, as long as we have a map which accurately represents the period and the delineations,it's OK to use it. If you really care about accuracy, then maybe you should start focusing on this obviously wrong, prepared during the Soviet times and which is highly politically motivated, placing Albania in the wrong area. You know the delimitations are obviously wrong. I haven't seen you do anything about this one.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what was attached to Armenia under Rome? Arcasid dynasty of Albania? How a dynasty could be attached? Yes, Armenia conquered from Albanians (or Media, according to various sources) the regions of Artsakh and Utik. These regions had indigenous Albanian population. The map that you mentioned is for the 2nd century B.C., i.e. the period before Armenia conquered the region, and it comes from a neutral source, unlike the map based on Ulubabyan. I quoted many times the rule requiring the use of third party sources, you keep on ignoring it. Once again, Ulubabyan is not third party. If you have Hewsen's maps, use them. I cannot upload Minorsky's map due to copyright, it will be instantly deleted. As for Arcasid dynasty, if you belive that between them and Mihranids there was some Armenian dynasty, which used the Persian title of "kings of Albania" as a surname, maybe you can mention the names of the kings from that dynasty? We know the names of the kings of the first indigenous dynasty (Oroes, Zober), we know the names of 10 Arcasid kings, and we know all Mihranids. Can you name any "Arranshahik" kings? Grandmaster (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly shifting our focus from Artsakh, the province, to Armenians were not the original inhabitants? This is tantamount to soapboxing. The map is obviously wrong, and if you are going to sustain such an obviously wrong map, you are dismissing yourself in this discussion. There were no Albanians or Albania before 200 BC, since this is a well-known fabrication dating back to the Soviet era. Neither Hewsen nor anyone worthy of being quoted will ever provide a map preceding 200 BC which would ever include an Albania. Artsakh was not taken from the Albanians, because there was no such people when Artsakh became part of Armenia. It is either Albanians or Media - you can't have it both ways and say, "anyone but not Armenians." Just above, with your discussions with Vacio, you even linked the Urartians with the Albanians. Even Cyril Toumanoff writes that "Albania appears to have been the youngest Caucasian polity, so that the process of its growth from tribe to nation remained within human memory." E. Bretschneider writes in a footnote for clarification in his Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources that "It does not seem, however, that ancient (Caucasian) Albania included also the land between the Kur and the Araxes."

And your battle about Ulubabyan's map still fails to make sense; it's everyone understanding that your problem is with Arranshah as you don't want to associate anything or anyone with the Armenians, but this is what Hewsen is actually saying: you can not only quote or use sources when they please you: "That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital 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..." From what I see on the date of the map, it say 5-7 century cc. Am I reading it wrong? So, again, what is your problem with this map representing Artsakh for a territory which from Hewsen's own words was culturally essentially Armenian? For how long are you going to keep this going? That aside, Artsakh is the name of the Armenian province, with a definite boundaries, you are essentially doing what you tried with Paytakaran and failed and recently to create a FORK with the same controversial wordings. Can we say we're done yet?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, mind WP:AGF and stop attacking me on every occasion. It is not up to you to judge my motives, I have every right to contest any info, if it contradicts the opinion of reliable sources. Now, the Armenians not being the original inhabitants of the region is not my personal opinion, that's what the most scholars say, including Hewsen, who I extensively quoted. Hewsen believes that the Armenians conquered the right bank of Araks from Medes, Minorsky thinks that they conquered it from Albanians:


 * So we are just reporting what the sources say. With regard to the map, its says on top: “Eastern Armenian lands”, while we know that at the time the region was part of Albania, then it shows Artsakh and Utik as political entities, separate from Albania. It clearly represents an extreme pro-Armenian POV, and it comes from an Armenian nationalist author, but you keep on insisting on its inclusion. You keep on saying that Hewsen agrees with this map, if so, why don't you create a map based on Hewsen’s map? It will be a lot more credible source, and I highly doubt it says the same as Ulubabyan. Even admins asked you to provide a neutral source, yet you keep on bashing me for saying the same. Once again, replace this map with something from a more reliable source, and that's it. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax there GM, there no reason to be so uncouth. We were discussing something about a map before you decided to divert from the subject to demographics. As much as I dislike to dwell on this topic, it would be helpful if you could quote Minorsky in full, instead of cherry-picking what you like:

Nowhere does Minorsky mention that it was previously part of Albania. Albania at that time you refer to was becoming just a geographical term - calling them "Eastern Armenian lands" does in no way negate that. There was no Caucasian Albania prior to 200 BC as all the maps prior to that date label that area as North Eastern, placing it much further away from Artsakh. None of the following maps support your conclusions:, , ; the map you continue to defend is ahistorical and inaccurate as the following maps prove: , , , , , , , , , , etc. Nowhere in these maps does Albania correspond to Artsakh's location.

If Ulubabyan's map is nearly the same as Hewsen's, then it's pointless to make another one. I have already cited Hewsen's statements twice, endorsing Ulubabyan's 1975 work on the Principality of Khachen but you ignored it regardless. Just because you say he made a mistake somewhere, doesn't then somehow disqualify him as a source. The admins asked for neutral sources and they were duly provided; by repeating the same thing over again you're not changing anything. Artsakh was an Armenian province, the map shows those lands as obviously being an Armenian province and it will be in a map which includes it as being part of Armenia. Hewsen tells us to check Ulubabyan and Ulubabyan's map doesn't contradict others maps. It takes time to rewrite a map and you have to justify this, and claiming the author is Armenian is not a justification.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ulubabyan is a revisionist author. And his map is not the same as Hewsen's. As for Minorsky, he clearly says that the territories south of Kura were Albanian, the quote is available above. As for Albania, it was not a just geographic name after 387 A.D., it was a kingdom with its own ruling dynasties. Why is it labeled as East Armenian lands, and why Albania, Artsakh and Utik are shown as 3 different entities, when all the sources say that Artsakh and Utik were parts of Albania at that time? When you say "Artsakh was an Armenian province, the map shows those lands as obviously being an Armenian province", you prove that the map is biased. Why does the map show those lands as Armenian province in the 5th - 7th centuries, after they passed to Albania? Isn't it just a falsification of history by Ulubabyan? --Grandmaster (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He is not a revisionist author. A revisionist author means someone who is engaged is revisionism, it is not necessarly a wrong thing. Minorsky is a revisionist author, if you check pre-Ulubabyan maps, you will see that prior to Minorsky and other authors alike, there was no mention of the Albanians near Artsakh; it was after the translation of the history of Aluank that historians basing themselves on it changed the world map. So Ulubabyan cannot possibly be labeled as such. As for Minorsky, you are again not reading carefully; when you quoted Minorsky, you left out the first phrase of the paragraph: "One must bear in mind the distinction between the areas occupied by the tribes of Albanian origin and the territories actually controlled by the Albanian kings." So there was no Albania there, please don't change the words when you know we are talking about Albania and not Albanians.

Coming to Albania, there was no Albania (as a Kingdom or anything independent) from the fifth to seventh centuries; Albania became autonomous under the Arabs as Armenia I; from the fifth to seventh centuries the country of Albania was placed in the country of Armenia. "Further the country of Arran in the country of Armenia, with a language of its own, ..." (from The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, Zacharias, Frederick John Hamilton, Ernest Walter Brooks, British Library, 1979, p. 328). Albania as Kingdom didn't survive into the fifth century and wasn't reinstated (only technically, since it became culturally Armenian by then) before the second part of the seventh century, at the very least.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that Albania did not exist as a state in the 5th – 7th centuries is not correct. Iranica writes about this period:


 * --Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Arranshahik is not a title as Arranshah. Arranshahik means prince from Arran's line. Khorenatsi and Kaghankavatsi state that traditionally from Arran decend the princely houses of Utik, Gardman and Tsawdek (i.e. Artsakh). And from Agathangelos one can prove that these houses were not the Albanian Arsacids:


 * The king of Albania then was Urnayr. --Vacio (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying now that "Arranshahiks" were not the reigning dynasty of Albania, but rather a collection of miscellaneous minor rulers of various provinces? Btw, your primary source does not say anywhere that any of these people were �Arranshahiks�. Grandmaster (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be put back on its original track. The facts are not the main issue here. The issue is that this map has been published by a non-third party scholar (moreover, a philologist rather than a historian; that is, not even a specialist in the given field), whose works on this particular historical topic, on top of everything, have been assessed as controversial, unscientific and driven by political agenda. The request to remove the map is more than fair. Parishan (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulubabyan doubled as both a historian and philologist. In either case, charges were raised on his talk page but are hardly insufficient for disqualifying him as a source. The reason we disqualify people like Bunyadov and Mamedova is not because they make a few simple mistakes – it's because they plagiarize works and erase the identities of people and append assertions that aren't otherwise supported by any scholar, third party included.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Same goes for Ulubabyan who was named among historians specialising in creating "myths" with regard to the history of Caucasian Albania. His bias aimed at favouring the nationalist Armenian version of history (see the link above). Such a source is highly unacceptable for a touchy and controversial issue where neutrality is essential. Parishan (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Ulubabyan's assertion that utis were ethnic Armenians is supported by any third party source. --Grandmaster (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

lol, by who?

By an author who has written no paper on the subject? Ulubabyan's work was praised by Hewsen (this is what, the hundreth time I'm repeating myself?), who GM likes to quote so much. And I don't think you are following the discussion, since Hewsen's map use a similar word as those for which GM want to remove the map. The question here is not who made the map, but rather if the map is in accordance with others. It it, so what is the problem? Also GM, the author who you quote is strong in sensensionalism to the extreme; it was under another context the Udis were linked with Armenian. There are several works on the influence of Armenian on the Udis, not only reported by Armenian scholars; for example, Udi also shows reflexes of Armenian influence in its morphology and syntax... (Word Order Correlations and Word Order Change, Jasmine Tragut, Lincom Europa, 2002, p. 38). Throwing durt on a scholar for a map supported by those you quote is becoming a waste of time.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The map by Ulubabyan is a total fabrication of history, and you know that. It shows Artsakh and Utik as separate states, which never ever happened in the history of the region, and specifically in the 5 - 7 th centuries. It claims that it shows the domains of some "Haykazuni Arranshahik" dynasty, of which neither of you are able to name a single ruler. Btw, if Arranshahik indeed was a surname, and not a title, then why did Sahl assume it, when he became the ruler? As for Ulubabyan himself, he says that utis were not Caucasian people, but were ethnic Armenians, and this contradicts the traditional point of view, which says that udis belong to a completely different language group. It is a deliberate distortion of facts. It is not about Armenian influence on utis, he simply equates Armenians and utis, saying that the latter were not a distinct ethnic group, but an ethnically Armenian people. Why should we trust this author? --Grandmaster (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, I think "fabrication of history" is just a slander of you. First, I want to repeat, this map is not Ulubabyan's map, but is just made using a map of him, which included the Albanian marzpanate. It is also does not show Artsakh and Utik as "separate states" (although Artsakh has been several times sovereign and even a kingdom under Jalal I's reign). And I have already sayed, that this map is not showing the incorporation of the region into the Persian Empire. It's main goal to show the cantons (gavars), cities, castles, rivers etc of the two provinces. I have used his map, because he gives the most exactly location of this places. For axamble, when he palaced Tigrankert on his map, few people could belive that such a city existed in Artsakh untill it was excavated in 2005.
 * And about the Erranshahiks/Haykazunis. I can't understand why do you try to make a title of a what Movses Kaghankatvatsi calls the "ancient Armenian line of Erranshahik" (after you tried to replace them with the Arsacids of Albania). And don't try to place the facts upside down; Sahl Smbatian was a Haykazuni Erranshahik, that is how Kaghankatvatsi referes to him, he assumed the title of Arranshah (not Arranshahik). How he could do that, ask the one who wrote that on Mihranids, because Kaghakatvatsi calls him the prince of Syunik (3.23). But yet you know he was Armenian. And also Marshall quoted Minorsky, who call the princes of Artsakh Armenian. And that they were traditionally descendants of Arran, according to the Karabakh-Armenian historian Arakel Babakhanian:


 * I don't think a discussion about Utis has connection with the topic. Besides, if we still want to discuss it, we need a reference to the relevant work of Ulubabian, before we surely know what exactly he said. --Vacio (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. You claim it never happened in the history of the region and yet Khachen was one and so was (as the title of Hewsen's work) the "The Kingdom of Arc'ax." You are very well aware of this as it has been discussed for a long time and you were part of the discussion. As for the Udis, please do quote Ulubabyan; I could care less of what an author who compares the Soviet nationalist Azeri scholars with Armenian ones has to say, when such a comparison is absurd beyond words. This scholar has published no paper on the subject and the title of the work reveals its actual purposes. Fabrication is placing the Azeri script on the Caucasian Albanian article, which, of course, not a single serious work will do; fabrication is placing a wildly anachronistic map on the same article.

The fact is that the only way Artsakh ended up in Aluank, is because of Arran which was considered being Persoarmenia, in a time even incorporating modern Yerevan. I don't need to point to you any material to prove this because it’s common knowledge, but since you seem to require more than is usually requested lately, here’s some sources, , , , , , , , , ,. As you can see, Arran was considered as being part of Persian Armenia, and Barda, as an Armenian city; under the Arabs it was even fixed as the capital of Armenia (i.e., Albania). Arran and Albania were different entities. Albania first referred to the land farther to the east; then, the Persian Arran which included a region more to the South. They not only changed the capital but much of the original Albania wasn't even included in Arran (it far too much to the north).

The day you come up with an alternative to the map representing the Armenian province, don't ask me to waste my time because you don't agree with one or two words which otherwise don't change the overall visual representation of Artsakh.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In regard of GM's criticism, that Albania is shown on the left bank of Kura: the same does this map (shown above), which includes the region from 150BC to 600AD, i.e. till the 7th century -Vacio (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, the sources must be third party, Ulubabyan is not, so the issue is closed. Find a map from a source with no conflict of interest in this issue. I'm not interested in Arakel Babakhanian's ideas either. Let's stick to internationally recognized experts. Arran and Albania, these are two different names for the same country. Albania is a Greek/Roman, and Arran is Persian/Parthian. Yes, Arran of later times was reduced to the area between Kura and Araks, as population of Shirvan consisted mostly of Iranian settlers by that time. So far you were unable to name a single king from the "Armenian dynasty of Arranshahik". I mean, how come that we know the names of kings of other 3 dynasties, but no name of this mysterious dynasty? I don't see any mention of any dynasties between Arcasids and Mihranids in authoritative sources. Iranica:


 * Minorsky:


 * As you can see, after Arcasid dynasty became extinct, the country was ruled for a while by direct Persian administration, until Mihranid dynasty was established. So where does this "Arranshahik" dynasty fit in between the 2 and why no one other than Armenian historians knows anything about them? --Grandmaster (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is still tantamount to OR. You claim it was reduced to the area between Kura and Arax (assuming there was an Albania there in the first place), but all the ancient maps clearly omit any mention of an Albania. Furthermore, your claim that it was reduced to that area is not substantiated as evidenced by the maps provided above. As for Arran, I have provided 11 sources which place Aran as a region of Persian Armenia. Your two quotes are useless and irrelevant.

On to Minorsky: before he was an apolitical scholar, he was a proponent of the Soviet school on Albania and the several disputed regions in the Soviet Union; it was under the same regime that the obviously bogus map of Caucasian Albania which is presented in the Caucasian Albania article was created. Any notable modern scholar specializing on the history of the Caucasus knows the spuriousness of that map. Arran and Albania were not in the same geographic region; I have provided several maps to support that, please stop engaging in any more original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your 11 sources are all from the 19th century and are absolutely irrelevant. The science made a lot of progress since then. Minorsky's reputation is impeccable, he is a top international authority on Caucasus history. And Arran and Albania are the same, it surprises me that you even debate that. Arran is Persian for Albania. At later times, especially the Islamic times, Arran was reduced to the area between Araks and Kura, but original borders of the region were much larger. Trever even had a theory that Arran was the name of the country in the Albanian language. And this is what Iranica writes:


 * So by Islamic times the area of Arran reduced, and your claim that Arran and Albania were not in the same geographic region are baseless. --Grandmaster (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The topnym Arran is not used on the map in queastion, so why we have to discuss it here. However, Albania and Arran are not the same in etnohistorical aspects: Albania was a kingdom on the left bank of Kura until 387 BC, thereafter it included also Artsakh and Utik. According to R. Hewsen:


 * There are few names known of the rulers of Artsakh and Utik, prior to the Mihranids. Kaghankatvatsi notes the names of two princes of Gradman in the 5th century: Churs and Chosrov (2.3). In the 8-9th centuries, when the Erranshahiks regained their possesions in Artsakh and Utik, more names are known: Jessai Abu Muse and Sahl Smbatean. Kaghankatvatsi gives even the pedigree of the latter (3.23):


 * --Vacio (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What tosh! Pre-Islamic means prior to the seventh century, there is nothing here that speaks about BC. As for the relevence of the 11 sources, even the maps uploaded here on Wikipedia, including the expedition of Alexander the Great (which was prior to 190 BC) includes in it Armenia. From those 11 sources, there are encyclopedias which you have used; I sincerely hope you won't have any problems if I remove them in the articles you have used as sources. Persian Arran, from those sources, was in Armenia, Arabic Arran was also in Armenia. Sources were already provided, and this one only helps strenghten my case:. And here are other recent ones: "Further the country 2 of Arran in the country of Armenia, with a language of its own, a believing and baptized people.." (The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah, Zacharias, Frederick John Hamilton, Ernest Walter Brooks, British Library, 1979, p. 328), the same quote is found in Red Sea-Black Russia by Jacques Bačić (1995, p. 291). Persian Arran also once included the present city of Yerevan. It's funny you claim those sources as irrelevent to answer my claim of irrelevency. I didn't say the quotes were irrelevent because I was questioning the material, but because they were not addressing my answer. On the other hand, you have claimed those sources which had everything to do with the subject as irrelevent, engaging in OR.

As for Minorsky's reputation, when I have questioned his reputation, I just addressed the issue of his Soviet conception of ancient history which is now believed to be not entirely accurate and is mysteriously in accord with the way they have sliced several pieces to incorporate them in the Union. No Russian scholars at that time were really immune to that, and this is not necessarly a wanted bias but everything to do with the era's bias. Britannica 1911 has several such bias, this does not mean that the reputation of those who wrote the articles has been or is questioned.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, you are very confused. Arran is Persian for Albania, so originally it was what Parthians/Persians called Albania. And Aran of later times had smaller territory, and was located in the triangle between Kura and Araks. Read Iranica carefully, it is a modern source, not archaic 17-19th century stuff. And the map of Alexander's expedition including the territory of Albania in Armenia is of course another proof of how unreliable those old maps are. At those times there was no Armenia, and its borders could not have extended to Caucasus. With regard to Minorsky, he was a renowned British scholar, not Soviet. He never lived in the USSR. The only solution to this dispute about the maps is to find a third party one, which I suggest we do. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please mind civility, my state of mind is quite fine. Everything you refer to us to read ends up not supporting what you say. You are engaging in OR by questioning their validity without providing the scholars who do so. There was no Albania between Arax and Kura during Alexander the Great's era, so tell me how those maps can therefore be ruled unreliable. For that matter, there was no Albania between Arax and Kura prior to when that territory became part of Armenia. The quotes you keep cutting and pasting don't even support what you say. As for your claim that there was no Armenia back then: you are again discrediting yourself, you have apparently access to JSTOR, and can type Alexander and Armenia which should be sufficient enough to debunk this sort of propaganda which originates from Baku, which essentially rejects Armenia never existed in that territory.

Regarding Minorsky, he certainly had some bias regarding boundaries. He was dispatched to Iran to survey Azerbaijan and Kurdistan during a commission to settle the borders between Iran and the Ottoman Empire. They sent him to the Mount Ararat region for the same purposes. He was involved in practically all such commissions, and while it is true that he never lived in the Soviet Union, his direct connection to England didn't start prior to the 1930's, and even then later with the events which happened during the WWII, he reestablished contact with the scientific circles in the Soviet Union and became even a guest of honor at the Soviet Academy of Sciences to visit Baku, Yerevan and Tbilisi. He was a great scholar, and his research about the history of Iran is impressive to say the least, but in regards to the boundaries in the Caucasus, I have my doubt about the Soviet School, since the obviously erroneous map which was in the article Caucasian Albania was drawn by the same school.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have quite deviated from the main point of our discussion. We need a good map from a reliable third party source. Other than that, there was no Albania between Kura and Arax at the times of Alexander, but there was no Armenia either. Expansion of Armenians into the region started only in the 2nd century B.C., and the right bank was populated by various Albanian tribes. As for Minorsky, I don't see any criticism of this scholar's approach to the history of the region by any third party scholar. If you read articles about him in such sources as Iranica, you'll see that he is a top authority in Caucasian studies. So we cannot discard his opinion just like that. Grandmaster (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, I'm quite willing to accept any of Hewsen's maps. Even though it essentially is in conformity with Ulubabyan's maps, this ridiculously tiring, asinine and circular complaint by GM has gone on long enough. Armenia (i.e., the Yervanduni kingdom) was very real at the time of Alexander's campaigns in the east (Xenophon writes about it in great detail) and Azerbaijani attempts to erase any existence of an Armenia is only too obvious and pathetic. Strabo is clear that when Artashes I began his expansion, he did so at the expense of the Medes or Iberians (nothing about the Albanians) – Artsakh and Utik were already part of Armenia. Anything else is just the same garbage that flows out from the Baku School of Revisionism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of ancient Artsakh
Strabo says nothing about population of Artsakh. And Iranica article is self-contradictory, it also says further on:

Armina under Darius and Xerxes had much narrower boundaries than the future Armenia of the Artaxiads and the Arsacids. The "Armenians" with the inhabitants of Paktyike (?) and other peoples of the northwest formed the 13th satrapy, whose tribute was fixed at 400 talents (Herodotus 3.93). The Armenians in the strict sense must then have lived in areas between Cappadocia, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the lake of Van. They are clearly distinguished from the Alarodians (= Urartians) who occupied the future province of Ayrarat (= Urartu) on the Araxes and with the Saspires (further northeast) and the Matienians (further southeast) formed the 18th satrapy (ibid., 3.94, cf. 7.79). 

So it cannot be used to oppose the views of Hewsen, as it actually agrees with them. --Grandmaster (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs
There are two different paragraphs dealing with the same issue. They ought to be combined and the repetitive statements removed. Perhaps someone could do that when there is time. Khoikhoi 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Vacio's edits added duplicate statements. Strabo and his mention of one language supposedly spoken in Armenia is discussed elsewhere. Then Vacio created another paragraph about Persian - Armenian wars, which is discussed in the paragraph below. It would be good if Vacio read the article before editing. Also I restored the statement by Hewsen that Hayk and Sisak were not real persons, which was deleted by Vacio. And Moses of Kalankatuyk never says anything about the link between Aran and "Arranshahiks". He simply writes:


 * I don't see any mention of "Arranshahiks" here. And the quote from Heredot is out of place. We should not interpret the primary sources ourselves, we can only quote the experts doing so. Grandmaster (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hewsen is not directly calling them "not real persons" and your edit about that was an OR and I think even ahistorical . The mention that they were "mythical" figures, you removed, seems to me more appropriate. Please also don't remove the mention about his being a scion of old Armenian kings, since that is stated by Kaghankatvatsi. For the link between the Arranshahiks and Arran, see the right source, that quote of Kaghanktavatsi is used for an other statement. Pavstos says nothing about "rebelled people of Artsakh" and Wikipedia rules refuse any citation out of context.--Vacio (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hewsen does say that they were not real persons, but eponyms. And Buzand does not call people of Artsakh Armenians, he says that people of Artsakh revolted against the Armenian rule. No need to change the words of original sources. I like how you make you personal interpretations of Movses, but object to quoting Buzand. --Grandmaster (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think that Arakel Babakhanian is a good source, I will start using Igrar Aliyev, he was an excellent Azeri scholar and an expert of Karabakh. I will add some information to the article using that source, he is as good as Babakhanian or any other Armenian source. Grandmaster (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Igrar Aliev, an excellent scholar? I now directly quote Mr. Aliev:




 * Sorry but which scholar supports the above? Robert Hewsen certainly doesn't because no such evidence exists. Aliev also says that the Republic of Azerbaijan is the direct successor of Caucasian Albania (Mountainous Karabagh: Historical Handbook. Baku: Azerbaijani Institute of Sciences, 1989, pp. 3, 103), which we very well know is absolute nonsense. Mr. Aliev is miles behind Arakel Babakhanian who is considered an authoritative source of the period. We cannot add sources to these articles with this rule that "well, if X is good, then so is Y...", it doesn't work that way because Azerbaijani scholars knowingly falsify material and remove any and all presence of Armenia and Armenians. We've been through this before GM, please let's not embarrass Mr. Aliev any further. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the above embarrasses Mr.Aliyev. He is a scholar with international reputation, to whom the authors of Iranica refer to. And please show me who exactly considers Babakhanian an authoritative source. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're free to entertain whatever beliefs you wish, but it in fact does. To hold up my end, here is another embarrassing statement by Mr. Aliev and his cohort Mr. Kamil Mamedzade, quoted by none other than Thomas de Waal from an Azeri pamphlet published in 1997:




 * So-called Armenians? They have no rights? This is a scholar has a poor international reputation, however much Iranica has consulted him. Hewsen certainly disagrees with his silly ideas and in the above-mentioned pamphlet, these two "scholars" deceive the reader by presenting Gandzasar as a Caucasian Albanian church. In answer to your second question, that is the opinion of the editors of the following work, who remark "However, his works are still considered authoritative" (The Heritage of Armenian Literature, Vol. 3: From The Eighteenth Century To Modern Times, vol. 3, 2005, p. 508). Please stop with this nonsense GM.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Show me please the place where Buzand speaks of rebelled people of Artsakh? Can't you see that is was rather the nakharars, who rebelled against Arshak I and that because of thier war-weariness? And can't you see that Pavsos is speeking of rebelled Armenian provinces? In the same way it is unacceptable your remove of the mention that Artsakh was borderd by other provinces of Armenia making them simply "regions". Also your quote of Hewsen is absolute inappropriate here, did you actually read the text above? there is nothing said about Sisak at all! Hewsen hasn't the directly wording "Hayk was not a real person", we have stated that he was a mythical figure and that is completely enough here.

What about Aliev: I it well known how much the Albanians owe to the Armenians, for example: the fortresses and cities of Albania occupied by the Persians, including the strategical "Caucasian Port" - Derbend, and entrusted them to the Albanians (who according Yeghishe were fleed to the Caucasus mountains), thus assuring for them full sovereignity, So you think it's a little thing, that after all Armenians have done fore Albanians, Aliev blames them for "de-ethnicization of the Albanian nation"??? Bah! the lowest slander I ever heard! We can't accept such an Anti-Armenian author here. You can't put Igrar Aliyev on a par with Arrakel Babakhanian. You can compare him rather to the Azerbeidzjani hisoriographer Mirza Jamal Jevanshir, widely used in Wikipedia. Babakhanian was a native of Artsakh and most of his historical works concern Artsakh's history. In any case there is no such a source wich can be trustd for 100%, in this case its important that Babakhanian is consistend with sholars as R. Hewsen and Thoumanoff, i.e. they speak of an Haykid-Armenian princely family which existed in Artsakh and Utik. Hewsen even says that the Melikdoms of Karabakh were descendet of this Haykid family. --Vacio (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the first governor of Albania was from Armenia, appointed by the Armenian king Vagharshak;
 * Albanians were convented to Christinaity by Armenian missionaries (including Grigoris, who payed his life for this), who founded the Albanian Patriarchate as part of the Armenian Church;
 * Mesrop Mashtots founded for them an alphabet and helped them to create an Albanian literature,
 * In 450's Vardan Mamikonian seizes one after the other
 * The history of Caucasian Albania was written by an Armenian an in Armenian,
 * Finaly, if we believe Armenian traditions, even the name Alban-ian/Aghvan-k derives from the Armenian word "Aghu" (this word has even in modern Armenian preserved his "amiable" meening)....
 * I have removed the text about the 'dissolution of Albanians' because its irrevelant to this article, is unsourced and matchs exactly with what Aliev says. I think the section about Kur as Armeno-Albanian border is also inappropriate here, since Artsakh lays much to the south of it. --Vacio (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Buzand:

As for Igrar Aliyev, like I said, he is an internationally respected scholar. By "so-called" he means that many Armenians of Karabakh are descendants of the original inhabitants of the region, i.e. Albanians. This fact is not disputed even by Armenian scholars. I suggested to use only neutral third party sources, you keep on referring on Armenian sources with obvious bias. In that case, I will have every right to refer to Azerbaijani scholars, which is what I'm going to do. Alternatively, we can stick to third part authors, as was discussed many times already. And sneaky removal of the quote from Hewsen by Vacio has no justification, this is not the first time that he is are deleting this line: "Hayk and Sisak are thought to have been just eponyms and not real persons." I'm expecting a reasonable explanation for deletion, before discussing it elsewhere. Grandmaster (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Vacio, the excerpt on Hayk and Sisak being eponyms come from a well-respected scholar. If you mention Hayk and his origins the sentence before, you might as well clarify them a little. It is cited nicely and accurately, please do not delete it. Parishan (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary; per the rules at WP:SYNT, ALL sources used must refer to the article subject. The article subject here is "Artsakh".  The reference material that does not mention "Artsakh" at all, but is rather being used to make an "original synthesis" argument about "Hayk", does not belong in this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case Aran should not be mentioned here as well. What does he have to do with Artsakh? And if Aran and his imaginary ancestors are mentioned, then it is quite appropriate to clarify that they were not real persons. Grandmaster (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have sources mentioning Aran's connection to "Artsakh", and we do, it is perfectly appropriate and legitimate to mention them here. However, your source apparently makes no connection to "Artsakh" at all, and is therefore an Original Synthesis. btw You are clearly of the POV that they were "not real persons", but you cannot impose your POV on others who disagree; you can only attribute the POV to a published ource that shares it (in the appropriate article, of course). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me a source that connects Aran with Artsakh. No such source is used in this article. Moses of Kalankatuyk never mentions Aran in connection with Artsakh. And if Hayk and Sisak are mentioned in this article, a clarification is needed whether those persons were real or imaginary. That's not a synthesis or anything, it is a very important info, and synthesis in fact is mentioning those legendary persons in this particular article. I do not insert any POV here, information that Hayk and Sisak were legendary persons comes from reliable third party sources (Hewsen, Kramer, Toumanoff), plus Toumanoff also says that Aran himself was a "divine figure". So all 3 of those figures were not real, and any attempts to suppress that info are POV. --Grandmaster (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Albanians were assimilated by the Armenians and had lost all ethnic and cultural significance by the fifth century AD, even Hewsen attests to that much. The Armenians certinaly did not descend from the Albanians and you know such wording is highly misleading and bogus. Just because an author does not conform to your views doesn't mean that they are "biased." We reject loonies like Mamedova, Aliev, and Bunyatov not because of bias, but because they BS their way through the facts, because they call Gandzasar Ganjasar, because they erase the name "Armenia" and word "Armenians" from maps predating the nineteenth century. Those are egregious mistakes for "historians" to make because they see that the facts are not in conformity of the agenda they are trying to push. That is the fundamental difference, and things would move forward if you cold only recognize these very simple facts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, according to Hewsen, the Albanians survived until the 10th century and may have existed further on. Eventually some of them were assimilated by Armenians, and the others by Azeris. It is a fact that many of the Armenians of NK are descendants of those Albanians. Even Armenian sources agree with that. Gandzasar derives from corrupted Persian Ganj (treasure), another well known fact. And I'm not aware of any facts of I.Aliyev erasing anything from the maps. Folks, why is it a problem for you to stick to third party sources, as the rules require? If we are not sticking to third party sources, then any discrimination of Azerbaijani sources is not acceptable. --Grandmaster (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Armenian scholar Suny saying that Albanians of Karabakh were assimilated by Armenians:

And your idea that Albanians disappeared in the 5th century is wrong, Hewsen says that their state broke up in the 10th century, while Albanians as ethnicity may have existed after that time, this is from T.de Waal, p.156:

Grandmaster (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster and Parishan, you surprise me! There is not a single word said about Sisak in this article but you swiftly mention that he isn't a real person. And Hayk, he was already mentioned there as a mythical figure. I think I have grounds to accuse you two for vandalizing this article. Also where does R. Hewsen say Hayk and Sisak were not real persons?! Show me please this phrase "not real person" in his work. In the Mihranids article you just only were using R. Hewsen to remonstrate that the Arranshahiks were not of Armenian origin, while this author himself referred to them as an Armenian princely family . Now you're playing the same game here. As a matter of fact, what you call "the rebelled people of Artsakh" R. Hewsen refers to as "rebellions of Armenian nobles against the king of Armenia, c. 360"


 * To know what Aran has to do with Artsakh, maybe you should see the sources, e.g. what Khorenatsi says: "the principalities of Gardman, Tsavdek, and Gargark originate from his offshoot " (княжества гардманцев, цавдейцев и гаргарцев происходят от его отпрысков).


 * Further, your and I. Aliev's idea that "many Armenians of Karabakh are descendants of the original inhabitants of the region, i.e. Albanians", has just as much value as your previous assertion as if Arran was the ancestor of Albanians. We know that Armenians live in Artsakh for now 2700 years, on the other hand we dont know since when and how many Albanians have lived here, I wander how you can be so sure to call the latter its original inhabitants and designate many Armenians their descendants? Everything but a historical approach. If you want to know, according Kaghankatvatsi, the Albanians themselves were not natives in the Transcaucasus, they came here much later than the Armenians:


 * or:


 * R. Hewsen confirms that the Armenian were natives of Artsakh and says that the principalities of Karabakh were succesors of the ancient principality of Artsakh:


 * So once again, Grandmaster's comparison of A. Babakhanian with I. Aliev is completely out of place. Babakhanian is an acceptable source, as are Raffi, Nicholas Adontz, Mirza Adigezal bey, Mirza Jamal Javanshir etc. --Vacio (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the quote about Sisak from Hewsen:

As you can see, the term Sisakan was unknown to Armenian historiography before the seventh century A.D., so it was invented much later after the time Aran was supposed to live. So Sisak was an eponym, and Hubsmann also said that Sisak was an imaginary person.

Movses never mentions Artsakh in connection with Aran, he only mentions Tsavdek, and you showed no reliable sources to support the idea that Tsavdek is the same as Artsakh. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we have your source, Movses of Khoren, who writes:

So Valarhsak was Parthian, and not Armenian. And descendants of Aran include the udi people, who are not even Indo-European and have no relation to Armenians, they are Caucasian people from Nakho-Dagestani group. How this people could have descended from Aran, if he was an Armenian? It is clearly a legend, invented after the 7th century, and has nothing to do with reality. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And Moses of Kalankatuyk also writes:  От его [Арана] сына, произошли племена Утийского, Гардманского, Цавдейского, Гаргарского княжеств.

I.e. The tribes of the principalities of Uti, Gardman, Tsavdek and Gargar descended from Aran. I provided the full quote above. How all this people could have descended from Armenians, if they spoke languages from a completely different linguistic group? --Grandmaster (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, even the Armenian author Gagik Sarkisian, who translated the work of Moses of Khoren, says:

See this footnote. So even Armenian scholars say that Aran was not a real person. So Vacio, please stop POV editing, there’s no way you can prove that Aran was a real person, when even Armenian sources disagree with you. Grandmaster (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quoting Ronald Grigor Suny, GM? If that's not a sign of desparation, I don't know what is. Suny has been roundly criticized by scholars for his extreme lack of knowledge of all things Armenian. The fact that he thinks a viable Caucasian Albanian kingdom existed up until the 10th century is just proof of that. Albania became a geographical and ecclisiastical fixation to the region, it had no ethnic connontation. Hewsen confirms this:




 * You know quite well that "Ganjasar" is in fact the Azeri corruption of a monastery that was established by an Armenian prince (Hasan Jalal) in an Armenian region (Khachen). Aliev refers to it as such, not to demonstrate a Persian connection, but to make it some sort of relic of a non-existant Albanian state. I'm getting dizzy from these silly games GM. I'm going to trust that the admins keep a good eye on this page, lest we start hearing more Azeri fairy tales about how the Albanians were the first to invent the wheel or sliced bread.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying Suny is a genius, but I wonder how come that the scholar without any knowledge of Armenian history writes the articles about the history of Armenia for Britannica? As for the fact that the Albanian kingdom survived until the 10th century, read carefully, that's what Hewsen says. So how Hewsen can confirm something contrary to what he is saying? Your quote says nothing about Albanian state, and Albanian ethnicity. But it is a fact that the Albanian language was spoken on the right bank of Kura at least until the 11th century A.D. Here are Arabic chronicles of the late 10th century:


 * Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:


 * В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский.


 * In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.


 * Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:


 * Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански .


 * As to the language of the people of Aderbeyjan and most of the people of Armenia, it is Persian and Arabic, but very few speak Arabic, besides, those who speak Persian do not understand Arabic. Fluent Arabic is spoken by merchants and landowners, and there are other languages for many population groups in the outskirts of Armenia and adjacent countries, such as Armenian for the people of Dabil and its area, and people of Berdaa speak Arranian .


 * Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:


 * Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский.


 * In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.


 * You can find the same info in a secondary source, the article about Arran by C. E. Bosworth in encyclopedia Iranica: He writes:


 * Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Raniya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century).


 * The Arab geographers refer to the Arranian language as still spoken in the neighbourhood of Barda'a (Persian: Peroz-abadh, Armenian Partav), but now only the two villages inhabited by the Udi are considered as the direct continuators of the Albanian linguistic tradition.


 * 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 Albanians did not vanish in the 5th century, and they existed in the 10th century. Gandzasar is a word of Persian origin, derives from Ganj - treasure. There's nothing wrong in reading the name close to the original root of the word. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Albanian kingdom survived until the 10th century? Hewsen says that? I know you can conclude things from the writings of Hewsen he never said, but you amaze me every time. Also, lets keep on the topic: if in Arran they spoke Arranian, in Artsakh the spoke Artsakhian. Your etymology of Gandzasar is just brilliant. Gandzasar was built in 13th century, or maybe some centuries before, so you think the Armenians, who already had the word "gandz" (գանձ), would however neglect it, take the Persian "ganj" and the Armenian "sar" (սար =hill), bound the two with the Armenian infix "a" (ա =of), this would be Hill of Treasure. One day they would transform the Persian "ganj" into Armenian "gandz" and voilà now we have an Armenian word of Persian origin... --Vacio (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding Original Synthesis tag
Grandmaster, You seem to be using some original research deductions, like "what language they must have spoke PROVES their ethnicity", to claim that certain ancestral people referenced in Armenian history books never even existed. Even if perhaps they never existed, the wording needs to attribute this POV to the sources explicitly arguing this in clear language, otherwise it is known as "POV pushing", ie, siding with sources of one particular POV, rather than treating them all "neutrally". Also if there are really no sources whatsoever that mention "Aran" in connection with Artsakh, then the whole debate over Aran's existence does not need to fill up this page, and is a complete synthesis here, and probably belongs on some other page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Attribution is needed when it is disputed whether Aran was real or imaginary person, but so far I haven't seen a single reliable source that claimed he was real, and even Armenian sources Vacio refers to say that Aran was a personification of a geographic name by ancient chroniclers. I think the entire section about Aran is irrelevant to the topic. There's no source that mentions Aran in connection with Artsakh, Vacio makes an original research by connecting this legendary person with real peoples. So I suggest deletion of that section. Grandmaster (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, before I started to edit this page, there were even two paragraphs about Aran, and nobody displeased with. Now that we know he was the legendary ancestor of the Aranshahiks and that the latter were an ancient, native Armenian family, small wonder GM suggests to delete it, since some lines above he even denied such a family ever existed:

''There's no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone other than Arsacids. After all, Mihranids had to kill them to take over the country, and no other dynasty is registered between Arcasids and Mihranids. Both those dynasties were Iranian, it is a well documented fact. Therefore Vacio's edits that he tries to force into the article on Mihranids are clearly OR and POV.''


 * But what is really surprising me, Grandmaster (and Parishan) are very seriously fighting myths, and they do that very violently. I can't believe a soberminded person could see a logic connection between this two sentences: ...Hayk, the mythical ancestor of the Armenians,... (this is what I wrote) However Hayk and Sisak are thought to have been just eponyms and not real persons.[31]'(Grandmaster and Parishan wrote).


 * I think it is hopeless anymore to say that there is nothing, not a single word said about Sisak (not to be confused with Sisakan = Syunid, the royal house of Syunik) in this article. Then, everyone can read what R. Hewsen says about Hayk, and see that yes, he treated him as a mythical figure and maybe a pre-Christian god, but does not explicitly say "he was not a real person", since no one can exclude that a mythical person could have been existed for real. If Grandmaster and Parishan insist that a clarification is needed whether those persons were real or imaginary, than I demand that it should be mentioned that Hayk was a real person, since Hewsen is not explicitly repudiating that, while I can find numerious Armenian sources which state he was, e.g.:


 * About the connection between Aran (or at least the legend about him) and Artsakh. Koherantsi, Kaghankatvatsi both say thet the principality of Tsavdek originated from this Aran. Tsavdek (Arm. Ծաւդեք), also spelled Covdk (Dowsett), Cawdk (Hewsen) etc., is equivalent to Artsakh, whith this distinction that it rather refered to the principality when it was part of Arsacid Armenia. This is the name under which Artsakh is mentioned in the List of Armenian Princes by Agathangelos (quoted above), the Miltary List, the Throne List and others.


 * Grandmaster confuses the Udi people (a distinctive ethnic group which lived in different districts of Transcaucasia) with Utians (= the inhabitants of the Uti province) and the Gargars (the same as Udi's) with inhabitants of Gargark (a district of Utik) with an makes therefore contradictory conclusions. So we have Khorenatsi who says this principalities originated from Aran, and Khagankatvatsi, who says: (I don't see any "tribe" here)


 * Then we have Arakel Babakhanian (Leo), who says that Aran was the ancestor of a royal house, called Aranshahik or Eranshahik, and Gardman and Artsakh were the strongholds of this house (quoted above). They were suppresed by Mihranids in the 7th century but regained power in the 9th century, when two Aransahiks - Sahl Smbatian and Essai Abu Muse - founded two principalities in Artsakh: Khachen & Dizak. So it is a matter of course, we should mention about this family and the legend about its origin in this article. It is also abvious we should do that in the Caucasian Albania article, since the Aranshahiks played also a considerable part in the history of that land.


 * We have a study of Cyril Toumanoff about the dynasies which in verious times have ruled in Caucasian Albania. Toumanoff confirms Leo concerning Aranshahik's origins and says they were even older than the Arsacids of Albania and rejects to represent Aranshahik as a "title":

The royal house of Aranshahik, traditionally descended form the divine eponym of the Albanians, Aran, a descendant, in turn, of Hayk, is the first known royal dynasty of Albania and possibly the one which, through the subordination to itself of the other fellow-dynasts, achieved the unification of the country and gave birth to the Albanian Monarchy. Superseded in the mid-first century by the Arsacids, this dynasty was nearly exterminated in the sixth century by the Mihranids of Gardman, who, in 628, were to acquire the Principate of Albania replacing the Arsacid Monarchy. The Aranshahiks, however, survived in one branch, settled at Gis, in Otene, down to the ninth century and may possibly have continued, down to the tenth, as the Kings of trans-Cyran Albania, in Shak’e or Shakki and Heret’i. (...)

The House of Aranšahik must, thus, have been the pre-Arsacid royal house and its descendants. It was, however, the hostility not of the Arsacids, but of the Mihranids of Gardman that exterminated this family, with the exception of Zarmihr, who was married to a Mihranid princess: Moses Kał. 3.17. In 1.27, Varaz P’erož of the House of Aranšahik is mentioned as settled at Gis; it is there that the House of Varaz P’erož is mentioned (in the seventh century) in 2.32, where it is said to bear the title of lak’nar (...). Vač’agan Eranšahik defended Albania against the Khazars in 714, 3.16; and in the ninth century, Sahl i Smbatian, designated as both an Eranšahik and a Zarmihrakan, played a considerable role in eastern Caucasia (...). In his A history of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries (Cambridge 1958), Minorsky was inclined to think that it was the Mihranids who entitled themselves Eranšahik and that Sahl merely took over that title from them: 11 n. 2, 13; but cf. 21. This was written before the text of Moses of Kał. became available through Dowsett’s translation.

Cyrille Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Georgetown University Press, 1963, p. 257-258


 * Note the part according Toumanoff the Aranshahiks played in the early history of Caucasian Albania corresponds exactly whith the tradition about Aran who becamme the first governor of Albania. Then we have prof Johann Heinrich Hübschmann, who provides us the etymology of this Armenian family name:

Aber Eŕanšahik–k’: das alte Geschlecht der Haikanier (Armenier), die Eŕanšahik Mos.Kal. I,287; Varaz-Perož aus der Aŕanšahik-Familie Mos.Kal. I.192; der Eŕanšahik Vačagan Mos.Kal. II.46 ist nicht mp. = Erānašahrikān 'Iranier' (Salemann, mp. Stud. 222), sondern = mp. *Arrān-šāh-īk von pers, Arrān Provinz zwishen Araxes und Kur Barb. 17, arm. Aŕan Gesch. Georg. 29, 73, 75 (vgl. MX. 77, 78) + pers. šāh 'König' + suff. īk.

Heinrich Hübschmann, Àrmenische Grammatik, Breitkopf & Härtel, 1895, p.38


 * --Vacio (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, no reliable sources, showing any connection of Artsakh with Aran. The footnotes to Agatangelos were written by Ter-Davtyan and Arevshatyan, and they are not reliable, same as Babakhanyan. Show me a third party source that supports your claims. And there's no justification for the removal of the quote from Hewsen, this is not the first time you do that. It is a reliable third party source. I like how you refer to the comments of Armenian scholars in the footnotes to support your POV, while ignoring the statements of the same Armenian scholars, who say that Aran was not a real person, but a personification of a geographical name. This POV editing has to stop. --Grandmaster (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection
This article is now under full protection for a month while disputes are worked out. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
Grandmaster is trying to push up in the intro an absolute improper excerpt by means of edit-warring. Artsakh has been under Albanian control only after 387, already was mentioned in the intro. Grandmaster was just edit warring in the articles Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan Khanate and he is also known for representing false information as "well known facts" (see Talk:Aghstafa River) I think this is harming WP policy for good faith. --Vacio (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would not you mind WP:AGF? I think the intro should be rewritten to reflect the facts more accurately. You confirm that the region was part of Albania, why this should not be stated in the intro, along with the Armenian control, which btw started in the 2nd century B.C., and before that time the region was a part of either Medes or Albania? If you want to state which countries controlled the region, why not to provide a full list? In the very least, we need to state 2 major owners, which is what I did. Also, using suspicious accounts like to edit war is no good. As anyone can see, Namsos turns up only to revert war, and it is very strange that he turned after the long absence just to rv this article with no edit summary.  Grand  master  11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the intro should be like this:


 * Artsakh (Արցախ, scientific transliteration: Arc'ax) was an ancient region, which mostly covered the modern region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Artsakh was a part of Kingdom of Armenia from 189 BC till 387 AD, when it passed to Caucasian Albania.


 * Grand master  11:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fact tagged the claim that Artsakh was part of Caucasian Albania. No source is provided for this claim, and it is a dubious claim given that it seems to be contradicted by other sources. And please, don't give that pile of garbage known as Columbia Encyclopedia as a source - it will not be accepted. General encyclopedias are not valid sources. Meowy 03:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, the point is exactly that this article is not about a region, it is about a certain political entity called nahang established in the Armenian state in the 2nd c. BC (or later). I have quoted you earlier R. Hewsen, who says that Artsakh does not appear to have been a recognised political entity within Albania. The mention that Artsakh has passed under Albanian rule after 387 is already enough. Your excerpt that Artsakh was a "region" of Albania is an unnecessary POV. Also Namsos left an "?" as edit summary and I support his revert. In place of edit-warring you better should come with your proposed changes here in the talkpage. I dont support your version of the intro above because this article is not about a "region" as such. Are there any other proposals? --Vacio (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article is not about the region, then what is it about? Come on, Vacio. I never said that it was some sort of an entity, it was a part of Albania, as a region, if you need sources, see Hewsen, or Minorsky:


 * I hope this resolves the question. As for Namsos, I will ask for investigation of his activity here. He only turns up to revert, and appears to be a sock account. Grand  master  05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote of Minorsky above is too hazy: I still cant understand what he meant: Armenians curtaild albnian territery in ethnical sense or political? How you can use an excerpt as a source when it is not clear enough? Anyway, this allegation as if Armenians took it from Albania is discounted by modern western scholarship, in the 2nd c BC the Albanian state nor the Albanian nation existed, and Armenins could not curtail their territory. See for example Hewsen:

Also it is quite possible that the Armenian did not took this area form Medes:

--06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacio (talk • contribs)


 * Minorsky is not discounted. The opinion of Hewsen is different, he believes that the region, populated by the Albanian tribes, was conquered by Armenians from Medes, and not from Albania. Minorsky agrees that the region was conquered by Armenians, but he thinks that originally belonged to Albania. In any case, the reference to Minorsky was there to demonstrate that Artsakh was the region in Albania after 387 A.D., this is what Hewsen and Minorsky, and other prominent scholars all agree on. Grand  master  07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Hewsen:

Grand master  07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In sum, according to Hewsen, the region orignally had non-Armenian population, and was conquered by Armenians in the 2nd century A.D. In 387 A.D. it passed to Albania. So it was a part of Albania. I added a reference to Hewsen, I hope this resolves the dispute. Grand master  07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In his "Ethno-history" (published in 1982) he says that it was conquered by Armenians in the 2nd c. from Medes (as we are told), however in his last work "Atlas" (published in 2001) he says the it has possibly been part of Orontid Armenia. Thus we have to take into account the statments of his last study, please therefore don't qoute excerpts which are not certain (btw. about the Median rule) otherwise you have to stress that it is not sure, as you can see I have done (even in the caption of the Orontid map).--Vacio (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "In 387 A.D. it passed to Albania" is weasel-worded. It did NOT "pass to Albania" - there was no independant Albania, it passed to Sassanid Persia, which then joined its territory to that of Albania. The Hewson source cited to support the claim that Artsakh was "a region of Caucasian Albania" does not make such a claim. I am again fact tagging the claim. Meowy 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says that the regions of Artsakh and Utik passed to Albania in 387 A.D. That's all that is needed to support the statement. And yes, there was independent Albania, otherwise Hewsen would not be saying so. Please add the reference back. I'm really tired of all the pointless edit warring some users resort to here. Grand  master  17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another source from the same author:


 * I hope this puts an end to this dispute. Grand  master  17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again added the "Disputed" tag in the article in reaction to the last changes in the intro thanks to which we have two more controversial statements there. First, there seem to be no sources that indicate that Artsakh has been "a region" (or something else) before the 2nd C. BC, we have only sources that it was thereafter organized as a province within the Armenian state. Second, in his last work Hewsen makes clear that it is not certain that the region was conquered from Medes (or another state), he says that it is possible that it had been part of Orontid Armenia in the 4th century BC. --Vacio (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hewsen is not the only scholar on this planet. We also have Minorsky, Trever and others, in addition to the statement of Hewsen that I quoted. You can add as many tags as you wish, I also think that this article contains way too many POV claims, starting with the map on top. Grand  master  16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hewsen is one of the few western scholars who have investigated the history of Artsakh for many decades. Minorsky is a very prominent Orentalist and historian (I agree with you that he is a top expert), his brief deliverance that the Armenians took Artsakh and Utik from Albania in the 2nd century BC however comes from a study which deals with the medieval history of the Caucasus and is discountend by modern scholars given that Caucasian Albania emerged only in the 1st century BC as a vassal state of Armenia. As for Trever (I believe a Soviet-Russian scholar from the 1940s), I not very sure I will trust her especially when it comes to the political status and ethnic condition of several regions of the Caucasia. Also do not forget, that it was at the insistence of you (cf. ) that we now use a map from Hewsen rather than Ulubabyan.
 * I support the rolling back of the article by anon user. If anyone of us doesn't agree with one or another statement, it is better to bring your arguments here, instead of adding other controversial statements. --Vacio (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hewsen says that Albania emerged either in the 1st or 2nd century B.C., so no one discounted the opinion of Minorsky. No one ever said that Minorsky was not right in saying what he says. As for Trever, she is still considered one of the top experts on the subject. Iranica refers to her in the article about Albania, and so does D. Lang and other western scholars. She died in 1970s. Grand  master  07:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Iranica refers to many authors including Igrar Aliev, so that is not a criterion. You no very well that Hewsen rejected the idea that these lands were Albanian then, so let's not open again that discussion here. --Vacio (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Igrar Aliyev is a well respected scholar. And Hewsen is not the only scholar on the planet. In any case, according to Hewsen, Armenians were not original inhabitants of Artsakh. If this is about whether or not Artsakh was a part of Albania, I demonstrated that it was, at least after 387 AD. So the references are there, and there's no point for Meowy to remove them.-- Grand master  10:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't call in question its pass over to Albania in 387 AD (though its condition as part of Albania needs perhaps more clearance). But what is real controversial is its political condition before 189 BC. I have here another quote from Hewsen which makes it clear that 1) it is uncertain that Artsakh was "conquered" in the 2nd century BC, 2) there are no evidences to believe that there was a land or region called "Artsakh" before 2nd century BC.

--Vacio (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. This is the prevailing opinion among scholars that Artsakh was conquered in the 2nd century B.C. Other scholars also say so. The primary sources make no direct mention of Artsakh, but since Siwnik and Kaspiane were conquered at that time, it is obvious that Artsakh was conquered at the same time. -- Grand master  12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not "obvious" it is "possible", there for we can not be sure that it was conquered in the 2nd centruy BC. --Vacio (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Population
Not all of these people were aboriginal, for example Gargaracik were apparently migrants:

User Grandmaster I strongly recommend you to examine first the relevant sources properly, then edit. --Vacio (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just quote the sources. Hewsen says that the original population of the region was non-Armenian. Also, please do not take the content disputes to the personal level. Grand  master  07:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok no personal attack, I apologize. But please don't move information without any reason like you do here . Then, Hewsen does not call them "aborigens" as you do, he says that the Gargarians were probably migrants. You replaced the term "pre-Armenian" with "aboriginal" and "intermarried" with "mixed" when both terms -interamrried and pre-Armenian- are used by Hewsen, please do not do such things without giving an explanation. Hewsen also says "The most recent theories suggest that the Armenians (...)were native to the Armenian Plateau", thus not some.
 * Also take in account that this section is about the population of Artsakh in general, it is not about when Armenians did not live there, otherwise I will find necessary to mention that no Azer-Truks have lived in the region prior the 18th century (I have the necessary sources for). --Vacio (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Vacio, this is an umpteenth time you reverted this article within the last couple of days. I really hate complaining to admins about edit warring, but what else do I have to do? Why did you remove the statement of Hewsen that the original population of Artsakh was non-Armenian and non-Indo-European? Whether you agree with it or not, is irrelevant. I referred to a reliable source, and you simply removed the statement supported by a source. Will you be so kind as to restore it back to the article, or do we have to discuss this elsewhere? Grand  master  17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you only schould read my questions above then it would be maybe a lttle more clear to you what I have done. You can't just everytime neglect what is discussed here and accuse me of reverting the article. I have numerious times argued against adding this excerpt:


 * I have the following arguments for that
 * First, because it is out of its context. You even "forget" to mention that he speaks there about the population of Artsakh & Utik before the 2nd c. BC. You forget to mention that the population of Artsakh & Utik was the result of a fusion between these people and the Armens. You forget to mention that this theory refers to the population of the whole Armenian Plateau.
 * In his last study ("Atlas") Hewsen makes clear that it is not certain that Atsakh has been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC, it had just as well been part of Orontid Armenia he says.
 * Then, it is proper to mention in an article what something was rather what it was not. Thus it is preferable to use the term "pre-Armenian" (numerious times used by Hewsen himself on an other places) then to say that "they were not Armenian".


 * When we use the sources in context, they say that all of the Armenian Plateau (not only Artsakh and Utik) was inhabitet by non-Indo-European ethnic entities (its pre-Armenian people) until they marged with the incoming tribe of "Armens" to form the Armenian poeple as we know them today.


 * Once more time I ask you, why did you remove from the text the terms "pre-Armenian" and "intermarried"? Also I ask you, do not neglect the arguments cited above and afterwards accuse me of reverting the article as you are not aware of anything discussed in this talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your above arguments are nothing but original research. You cannot remove the quote from a source on the basis of your personal assumptions. Please provide a quote where Hewsen uses the word pre-Armenian. Grand  master  07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You still did not answer on my questions. And what kind of OR is it when the author says in his recent study that it is not sure that Artsakh has been under Median rule prior to 2nd c. BC. Also, I will quote some passages from Atlas which give explains the western theory about the ethnic condition of the Armenian Plateu and how its pre-Armenian or non-Armenian people mixed the proto-Armenians to form the modern Armenian people.

--Vacio (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. First, I don't see any mention of Artsakh in this passage. Second, Hewsen talks about pre-Armenian or non-Armenian origin of population, i.e. that they were not Armenians initially, but some of them later became assimilated with Armenians, and others, like Udins, were not. Grand  master  07:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes he speaks of the Armenian Plateu in general and you are right "pre-Armenian"

means that they were not Armenian but later mixed with the proto-Armenians. It is this context that I mean must not left out. --Vacio (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can keep pre-Armenian, but the quote from Hewsen about non-Armenian origin of people of Artsakh must remain. There's no contradiction with the source that you cited, Hewsen says that this population was non-Armenian, and some of it was later assimilated by Armenians. It was originally non-Indo-European for the most part, except for Scythian tribes in Shakahsen. So I see no reason why the quote from Hewsen about the original population of Artsakh should be deleted. Grand  master  07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already cited sufficient reasons for not quoting that excerpt in the article (in particular the Median rule). The fact that it had mostly an non-Indo-European population before the proto-Armenians came is already reflected in the article. However I oppose the way of picking out an just excerpt from a hot scholarly dispute. Imagine yourself if I should do the same, I can find numerous "good" excerpts form Hewsen works and quote them all in this article. I also demand that the earlier statements of Hewsen would be compared with his latest ones.--Vacio (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot make any comparisons, it is OR. We should only refer to sources as saying certain things. Therefore the quote from Hewsen should be restored, in its original form. We must only quote what he says, without any interpretations. -- Grand master  10:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above cited arguments (which you keep disregarding) leave no justification for adding the excerpt in question. Still, can you make clear what is really concerning you? Maybe we can find an other solution. I think mentioning the origin of each of these people, must be a solution, if you was afraid that one could think that they were original Armenian tribes. --Vacio (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments do not disprove the statement of Hewsen that the original population of Artsakh was non-Armenian. Even if we assume that Arsakh was conquered during Orontid times, still that does not make Armenians the original inhabitants of this land. Someone must have lived there before the Armenians came. Therefore the information of Hewsen that the original population of Artsakh was non-Armenian must be restored. The deletion of this info is unjustified suppression of the sourced info. -- Grand master  13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no suppression of information when the author himself makes some changes in his recent work about the populaion of Artsakh, e.g. he says it is doubtful that Artsakh has been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC. You again omit to answer the question addressed to you, what is really concerning you. I have quoted one by one who these pre-Armenian tribes were, and that is sufficient enough. Moreover, from "Atlas" we get known that Artsakh in ancient times was inhabited by the tribe of "Ainaini" and that it is not sure of all of the aforecited people dwelled in Artsakh, it is not even sure that the population of the latter was ethnic varied, so I think even moving the mention about the people in question to the article Arran, that would save us also from repeating the same stuff in Utik. --Vacio (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You were placed on parole 2 times before. It was for a reason. Edit warring to suppress sourced info is no good. You know very well that the general consensus is that Armenians were not the original population of Artsakh, yet you keep on deleting sourced info. I hope that you are aware that edit warring is not in line with Wiki policies. -- Grand master  07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, mind WP:AGF, stop attacking me on every occasion and see this massage of Rlevse I you need to know whether I am on parole or not. And know that according to WP rules you must first reach consensus then add a disputed information in the article, and not the opposite. You have not the right to neglect each time my argumants and accuse me afterwards for "suppressing sourced info". You still fail to react on my question what is really concering you. While I (in vain so far) have numerious times highlighted what is concerning me. You are certainly wrong in claiming that the Armenians are not the original population of Artsakh, if you doubt that, see this qoute from Hewsen:


 * I dont claim that the region has "always" been originally Armenian. Our article makes it very clear that before the proto-Armenians came in the region, it was inhabitted by other peoples, the pre-Armenians. --Vacio (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored some of the deleted bits namely: 1. A quote from Hewsen mentioning the definite non-Armenian origin of the region's earliest population. Even if his later work contradicts his original statement with regard to the time the region was absorbed into the Armenian state, that still does not contradict him saying that the earliest population of Artsakh was not Armenian. 2. A quote from Shnirelman clarifying that in Strabo's time, speaking Armenian did not necessarily mean being Armenian. I find it odd that the quote was deleted by someone but the actual reference remained. Parishan (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Parishan, I am very annoyed at your last edit of the article. I get the impression that you ommited to read what is discussed here. You are certainly wrong in adding a disputed information in the article without reaching a consensus. --Vacio (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You deliverance that the earlies population of Artsakh was not Armenian fails to make sense. Why you dont go to articles as Germany, Russia, Georgia, Armenian etc and write that the earliest population of these lands was not German, Russian, Georgian or Armenian? The quote from Hewsen you added has indeed not "they were certainly not of Armenian origin", but "they were certainly not Armenian", so you even permit yourself to add some words in the quote itself!? In fact Hewsen is not speaking about the earliest population of Artsakh, but some pre-Armenian peoples, who lived in the regions of Artsakh and Utuk:


 * This passage Hewsen wrote in 1982, and this is what he wrote in 2001:

{{Quotation| Strabo’s description of the expansion of Zariadris and Artaxias makes it clear just what lands the Orontids had originally controlled: apparently much of Greater Armenia from the Euphrates to the basin of Lake Sevan and possibly beyond to the juncture of the Kur and Arax Rivers (…)

The Eastern Frontiers of Armenia

All this part of Armenia was acquired by the Armenians during the early second century B.C, when Strabo (Xl.14.5) tells us that they conquered Phauene (sic, read Sauene - Siwnik?), Otene (Utik'), and Kaspiane under Artaxias {Artases) I (c. 190-c 161 B.C.), and possibly the unnamed land of Arc'ax which lay between the other three. (…)

Is seems likely that except of Siwnik, eastern Armenia was not much more than armenized, if that. Sakasen, at least originally, was obviously a Scythian (Saka) enclave in the country, the Utians were almost certainly a Caucasian tribe, the names Gardman and Gargaracik suggest a Georgian connection, but we have no idea to what ethnic group the Kaspians may have belonged. Siwnik, too, had a mixed population that doubtless contained many Armenians but, as Abrahamyan notes, also included such other ethnic groups as Scythians, Balas and Persians and, moreover, evinced a strong tendency to separate from Armenia as late as the seventh century. Arc'ax, a stronghold of Armenian national identity from at least the ninth century, may also have been originally more varied in ethnic character; we cannot be sure, and attempts to build nationalist claims—whether Armenian or Azeri—for this territory on the basis of conditions that may have existed in the ancient period rest upon slim evidence. The population of modern Arc'ax (M. Arm. Arts'akh; Russ. Nagorno Karabakh) is Armenian, as it has been for well over a thousand years, and that is surely sufficient justification for its independence of Azeri rule.

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 32, 58. ISBN: 978-0-226-33228-4 }}


 * As one can see, in his last work Robert Hewsen makes it questionable whether the ethnc caracter of Artsakh was varied, whether it had been under Median rule before 2nd c. BC. --Vacio (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It still does not justify a removal of the quote. Just add your second quote next to the first. Very simple. I restored the quotes that you removed, please do not remove them again. -- Grand master  07:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, why you keep on deleting the statement, supported by the reference to Shnerelman? You did that at least 3 times already. Stop doing it. Here's the quote from Shnirelman:

You know that personal interpretation of a primary source is not acceptable, yet you keep on deleting the interpretation by a secondary source. It is not acceptable. Grand master  08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote from Shnirelman can stay, I am not against it, but I think it is unnecessary since Strabo says nothing about the ethnic caracter of Armenia, he only says what language they spoke, we know for example that 10.000s of Jews lived in Armenia and many other ethnic groups. As for the "quote" from Hewsen, I once again oppose quoting an author out of context, my argumentations remain the fallowing:


 * Hewsen is not speaking about the "original population of Artsakh", but the tribes of "Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Capians, Gargarians, etc... prior to the Armenian conquest". Even if all of these peoples lived in Artsakh, the could not be its "original population" since many of them we have seen were migrants.
 * After the Armenian conquest these tribes were "Armenized". So the context of what Hewsen says is that the Armenian population of Artsakh and Utik represented a fusion of these peoples and the incoming proto-Armenians. It is concerning me that the way that currently Hewsen is "quoted" in the article makes the impression that originally the region was inhabitted by non-Armenians, who later were replaced with Armenians.
 * In his last work Hewsen makes it questionable whether Artsakh has been under Median rule prior to the 2nd c. BC, and whether it was conquered by Armenia in this time. He aslo says that it is not certain whether the population of Artsakh was varied at the time. So quoting a passage of Hewsen from his earlier study where he still believed that Artsakh was conquered in 2nd cm BC, that it has been under Median rule before, is absolutely not acceptable. --Vacio (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. We can change "original" to population prior to the Armenian conquest". That's fine for me.

2. Armenized does not mean that those people became ethnically Armenian, it just mean that they were under the Armenian cultural influence. Hewsen also says that most of those people "were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387", which mean that most of the Albanian population of the region was still non-Armenian by 387 A.D. And yes, Hewsen clearly says that the original population was non-Armenian. Armenians could not be original population of the region for a simple reason that they are descendants of the migrant tribes of Armens. They moved to the region from the Balkans, according to Dyakonov and other leading experts on the topic.

3. You can quote Hewsen's latest work too, however it also does not make Armenians the original population of the region. Whether they came in the 4th or 2nd century, someone still lived there before Armenians came. So any attempts to deny the migrant origins of the Armenian population of Artsakh are unscholarly, and POV. The general consensus among the scholars is that Armenians came to the region from other locations, and conquered the region either from the local tribes, Persia or Medes. But 2nd century B.C. is a prevailing point of view among the scholars. Minorsky and Trever also say that Armenians conquered the region, and were not its original inhabitants. Grand master  12:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another quote:

Grand master  12:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Grandmaster, you engage some oversimplifications. Not the Armenians were migrants, but the proto-Armenians. The modern Armenian population of Artsakh is not only descended of these proto-Armenians but also (and mainly) from its pre-Armenian natives. So you are not right that the latter did not became ethnically Armenian, even if some of them for long were cited as distinct ethnic entities, see for instance the following excerpt from Hewsen's "Ethno-history":


 * Mnacakanyan believed that the present-day Armenian people of Arran (ancient Artsakh + Utik) are "pure Armenians", i.e. purely the descendants of the proto-Armenians. That's exactly what Hewsen contends is untrue. He doesn't say that the Armenians are not it's original population, he says it's modern Armenian population was not originally Armenian. Do you see the difference between the two? Why otherwise Hewsen should call the Armenians the original population of Artsakh on a other place, did he contradict himself? Not of course! That's exactly why I oppose quoting an author out of its context. Instead our article must reflected the substance of his study. Also one should remember that the "migrant origin" of the proto-Armenians is only a theory which is not proved, and ther are other theories as well. Here an other passage from "Atlas":


 * Grandmaster, you call the pre-Armenian peoples of Artsakh and Utik "the Albanian population of the region". Yet Hewsen nowhere calls them Albanians, and we now that at least until 387 AD, the latter lived only on the left bank of Kur. A quote from "Ethno-history":


 * So in 387 the population of the right bank of Kura was Armenized even if many of its natives were still cited as distinct ethnic entities. We don't have any information that they were Albanized, which is impossible given that the Albanians were not a distinct ethnic group like the Armenians, but rather a collection of 26 different tribes.


 * Coming to the main point, I once again oppose quoting a text, neglecting that in his later study the author came to an other conclusion. Please remark the following differences between the ealier "Ethno-history" of Hewsen and his latest "Armenia: A Historical Atlas".


 * 1a "Ethno-History": Artsakh was inhabitted by various non-Armenian peoples,
 * 1b "Atlas": We can not be sure that its ethnic character was varied.


 * 2a "Ethno-History": Artsakh has been a long time under Median rule,
 * 2b "Atlas": Artsakh has possibly been under Median rule,


 * 3a "Ethno-History": Artsakh was conquered by the Armenians in the 2nd c. BC, it wasn't part of Armenia until then,
 * 3b "Atlas": It is possible that Artsakh was part of Orontid Armania before the 2nd century BC.

Thus, his earlier contention about the ancient population of Artsakh, Hewsen himself has partly refuted. A Quote from his earlier works with such partly refuted statments is objectionable. So is there any other proposal how we can write about the ancient population of Artsakh without that quote? --Vacio (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He never refuted himself that the original population of Artsakh was non-Armenian. If Armenians or proto-Armenians were migrants, then they could not be original population of Artsakh. Very simple. And Utians, Sodians and Gargareans were Albanian tribes that lived on both sides of Araks. It is possible that some of the populatuon of the region did not belong to the tribes that were part of Albanian federation, yet they still were non-Armenian and mosty non-Indo-European, and most of them were distinct ethnic entities in 387. At later time they were absorbed partly by Armenians, and partly by Azerbaijanis, and only Udis remained as separate etnity. As for recent theories mentioned by Hewsen, he means the theory of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, which is very popular in Armenia, but is not taken seriuosly anywhere else. This is what another expert wrote about it:


 * So Gamkrelidze is not even worth mentioning, his theory is controversial and is popular only with nationalistic historians in Armenia. Grand  master  11:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are again simplifying facts, Grandmaster. The proto-Armenians are not the same as Armenians. And the Albanians were not a distinct ethnic entity, but the various ethnic entities who lived on the left bank of Kur (at least until 387 AD), even if some of the aforementioned tribes lived on both sides of the Kur river. The Gargarians were of Georgian connection, the Utians were migrants from southern Iran. And the Albanian nation indeed emerged only in the 1st or 2nd centurt BC. About the quote from P. Kohl I will react later, since you are leading the discussion on an other way. You still omit the fact that the quote from Hewsen you added in the article contradicts with what he says in his last study. I am willing to reach a consensus based on "Atlas" and I agree we can use his earlier study "Ethno-History" as far as it does not contradict with the first. I think that must not be very difficult, given that the nucleus of Hewsen's theory has remained the same, i.e. that "except of Siwnik, eastern Armenia was not much more than armenized, if that." However if you keep on neglecting each time my argumantations and not putting forward any suggestion to solve the problem, I will base myself on Silence implies consent and will rectify the relevant section on my own. --Vacio (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no response was given, I have tried to inprove the section based on the discussion above: I moved the list of pre-Armenian peoples to Arran and moved the quote from "Ethno-history" of Hewsen. I am not sure whether the current passage about the people of Artsakh will satisfy all editors, but I hope that further changes will made only based on discussion and consensus. --Vacio (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored everything that you deleted. Please don't remove sourced info again. If you do, I will have to ask for the admin intervention. Grand  master  11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were based on my argumentations above. All the changes I made were explained and are reasonable, I will not repeat them again and again. You can not make reverts with the only reationale "don't remove sourced info". If you don't agree with my edits, take the time to discuss it, like I did, and try to reach a consensus. I will be always glad to participate in such discussions but because in this case you don't even mention a reason for you reverts I am rolling the article back to the previous version. --Vacio (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aran
What the legend of Aran has to do with Artsakh? Artsakh is not even mentioned there. I think that it is off-topic and should be removed, otherwise we should explain that Aran was a legendary person, that did not exist in real life. I can understand the relevance of that story in the article about Albania, but there's no direct connection of Aran with Artsakh. Grand master  08:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I partly agree. The text "Aran was appointed by the King Valarsace of Armenia as hereditary prince (nahapet or genearch) over the plain of Arran until the fortress of Hnarakert. Aran is also known as the divine eponym and the first governor of the Caucasian Albanians, appointed by Valarsace" is certainly off-topic. Nor is there any need to actually list all those ancient patriarchs and kings of Armenia. "According to a traditional Armenian view" is vague - it should be limited to saying exactly what Khorenatsi and Kaghankatvatsi wrote. Meowy 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any mention of Artsakh in the legend of Aran. What does it have to do with this particular article? Grand  master  17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, I have tried to use primary sources as less as possible, therefore I have drawn this passage generally from the Armenian scholars Ghevond Alishan and Arakel Babakhanian, who based on the narratives of medieval Armenian historiographers, believe that Aran Sisakean was the ancestor of the princes of Artsakh, Gardman and Utik. Thus I have two authors who think that Aran was a real person. But I think whether he was a real or not real person is a POV which we better should avoid. Perhaps we may call him a "mythical figure" (Toumanoff styles him a "divine eponym") and permit our readers to have their own beliefs. I agree that the passage is partially off-topic, a good solution would be to make an article about Aran, that would save us from repeating the same stuff numerous times. --Vacio (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacio (talk • contribs)


 * Alishan and Babakhanian are not neutral and reliable sources. If they are, so is Igrar Aliyev and other Azerbaijani scholars. And the relevance of Aran to this article has not been demonstrated. If he is relevant, then why the info about him not being a real person is removed? Grand  master  13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are they not neutral and reliable sources Grandmaster? Aliyev is a fraud, read the Controversy and criticism section on his wiki article: Igrar Aliyev.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why encyclopedia Iranica refers to such a "fraud" source? And not just them. He is as good as any Armenian source. And the section in the article about Aliyev is just an OR by synthesis. For example, Hewsen never ever mentions Aliyev, yet some criticism is ascribed to that source. In any case, as I said many times before, the rules require that we refer to third party sources, and Babakhanian and others are not such sources. So we should either stick to third party sources, or use both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources. Grand  master  18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends in what capacity it's used. You haven't answered my question. Why are they not neutral and reliable sources?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are not third party. If what they those sources claim is true, there should be no problem to find a third party source saying the same thing. Grand  master  19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, you consider a source to be a third party source if the author is not an ethnic Armenian regardless of nationality or heritage right?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically yes. I use the same criterion with regard to Azerbaijani sources. We should use sources that have no conflict of interest in this issue. Armenian and Azerbaijani sources could be used on the topics that are not related to Azerbaijani - Armenian relations, but for disputed topics it is better to use third party sources that have no direct connections with either side. That's not my personal idea, that's what the rules require. In any case, one can see that Vacio uses even Armenian sources very selectively, trying to suppress information that does not fit his POV. When it comes to Aran, for example, he takes no notice of the fact that even Armenian sources say that Aran was a personification of a geographical name by the local tradition. One example:






 * See this footnote. So even Armenian scholars say that Aran was not a real person, but Vacio keeps on suppressing this point of view. So far I haven't seen any reliable third party source saying that Aran was real, yet the info in the article misrepresented. If what Babakhanian says is a point of view generally accepted in the international scholarly community, then there should be no problem finding a third party source saying the same thing. -- Grand  master  06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First don't make false accusations Grandmaster: I think it is rather you who tries to use sources selectively: you think you can reject an Armenian academician as Arakel Babakhanian, who says that Aran was a real person, but you think that a "footnote" of a translator (who is not at all an "Armenian scholar") can be used as a source that he was not?! In any case our article only speaks of an Armenian tradition, and it does not say that Aran was a real person. --Vacio (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And why Babakhanian, who died in 1932, is a reliable source? It is way too old, and no third party source refers to him. -- Grand master  07:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)