Talk:Mihranids

Rewrite
I rewrote most of the article. Vachagan III had nothing to do with Mihranids, it was a previous ruling dynasty of Albania. Grandmaster 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove all the Iranica sourced information?Azerbaijani 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You replaced all of the Iranica information with that Russian source that you guys always use (which isnt even in English)? Give me a break. What you did was pure vandalism. Iranica is one of the most prominent sources on Iran related subject, you cant remove sourced information from it whenever you like. I'm reinserting the Iranica sourced information.Azerbaijani 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add new information, but do not replace and rewrite the entire article when its sourced by Iranica.Azerbaijani 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your information is not sourced. You have no idea what are you talking about. You added completely irrelevant info. The source that you used also talks about this dynasty, but in the next paragraph:

''It is not impossible that, after the disappearance of the monarchy, certain dynasties may have asserted their authority on a regional basis and secured recognition of themselves by the Sasanian government (cf. Markwart, Eranshahr, p. 119). This would have been the position of the Mihrakan family, which claimed to be of Sasanian extraction (for genealogy, see Movses, History 1.17, tr. p. 109; on its doubtful authenticity, cf. N. Akinian, Handes Amsorya, Venice, 1953, p. 68; Dowsett, tr. of Movses, History, p. 107, n. 3)''.

Mihrakan = Mihranid. As I said before, Vachagan was not Mihranid, make your research before editing topics you are not familiar with. Also, there's a reason why this family was called Mihranid, i.e. because it was founded by Mihran. Why did you remove the quote from Kalankatuatsi? Grandmaster 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Iranica also refers to "that Russian source that we always use", i.e. Movses Kalankatuatsi. It is also available in English, but not online. It is number one source on the history of Albania. Grandmaster 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So why did you take out and their kingdom was incorporated into Armenia.  and the parts about Christianity?Azerbaijani 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone familiar with history of the region knows that there was no state called Armenia at that time, it ceased to exist in the late 4th century. So how could Albania be part of Armenia, a non-existing state? Your source does not say that either. And your references to Christianity were not related to Mihranids, you described how the previous dynasty supported Christianity. If you have info related to Mihranid dynasty, feel free to add it. Grandmaster 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mihranids were extinguished through the assassination of Varaz-Trdat II by Nerseh Pilippean in 207/822-23, and the Armenian prince of Sakki to the north of Arran, Sahl i Smbatean (Arabic, Sahl b. Sonba@tá), extended his power over Arran.


 * Thats from Iranica.Azerbaijani 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, does it mean that there was a state called Armenia at the time? And I have an article by Minorsky about Sahl, he calls him an Albanian prince. Grandmaster 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, last I checked, there hasnt been a state called Azerbaijan in the Caucasus until 1918, but that hasnt stopped you guys from placing it in articles has it? Armenia was a province though, no one implies it was a state.Azerbaijani 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a region called Azerbaijan in the Caucasus before 1918, and we proved that. As for Armenia as a region, it did not include Albania/Arran in the 9th century, and the source you refered said nothing like that. Grandmaster 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? Which state in the Caucasus has been called Azerbaijan before 1918?Azerbaijani 13:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not state, there was a region called Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What region? Oh, your talking about those few sources (most of which are contradictory or on included small stretches of land above the Aras, which are really inconsequential). Well, let me ask you the same thing I asked Dacy (a question which he avoided answering, but his refusal to answer pretty much made everything clear), can we say that the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan is historically Armenian because a few sources from the early 20th and 19th century say that Armenia's borders extended all the way to the Caspian sea? Yes or no please.Azerbaijani 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They did extend occasionally, but the geographic notion of Armenia did not include the territory of Azerbaijan republic. This territory was historically part of many states. Grandmaster 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly! So why do you not apply the same logic to the name Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan in a few instances (very rare, and many of these accounts are contradictory or included small stretches of land, usually by the Aras river) extended north of the Aras, but the geographic notion of Azerbaijan did not include the territory of the Azerbaijan Republic. The territory of the Azerbaijan Republic was usually part of other states, or part of Albania, or split up into smaller sections, etc... So I dont understand the double standard here. When we talk of Armenia, the few sources that extend its boundaries dont imply that Azerbaijan Republic should be called Armenia or be a part of Armenia, but when it comes to Azerbaijan they do?Azerbaijani 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, Azerbaijan was a geographic notion, bondaries of which were unstable. It extended to the North from time to time, and Iranica makes it clear that after the 13th century the name of Arran drops out of use and the name of Azerbaijan covers both North and South. We've already been thru this many times. Grandmaster 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting double standard. So Armenians boundaries as a geographic notion never changed, but Azerbaijans did? Iranica also says several times that the territories of the present day Republic of Azerbaijan were either ruled by Armenians or incorporated into Armenia. Good double standard Grandmaster, but it doesnt matter to me, you can cling on to whatever you like, but just remember your logic can always be used with regards to Armenia.Azerbaijani 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Format
I dont think the article should be split up into several short paragraphs at this stage, as the article is too short. Its best for it all to be one paragraph.Azerbaijani 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath
I added information about the aftermath of the fall of the dynasty. If you have a minorsky source that says Sahl was Albanian, please post the text here and then also add that he may have been Albanian to the article.Hajji Piruz 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The origin of Sahl is not known according to Minorsky, and he could be related to the Albanian kings.


 * West of Sharvan was situated Qabala, with a mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian prince. In the west it bordered on Shakki, also with a Christian dynasty. The origins of the princes of Qabala and Shakki are little known, but in view of constant intermarriage we have to assume their manifold links with the princes of the right bank.


 * The exact origin of Sahl is not explicitly stated. Thomas Artsruni, iii, § 11, calls him ruler of Shak'e, and we must remember that the Hudud al-'Alam, after having spoken of Shakki, refers (§ 36, 32) to Sunbatman, a town at the farther end of Shakki, with a strong fortress '. The name Sunbat-man means 'Sunbat's house' and is likely to refer to the home of Sahl's ancestors.


 * V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.


 * --Grandmaster 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, nowhere does it say such a thing. Grandmaster, you cannot make POV interpretations of sources.Hajji Piruz 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Minorsky says Sahl was Armenian: "Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Shak'e, who captured Baban (Babak) was included in the great deportation of Armenian princes carried out by general Bugha..."''


 * Grandmaster, this is unacceptable. Your POV and OR interpretations of sources violates Wikipedia's rules and is hampering what we're supposed to be doing here in Wikipedia.Hajji Piruz 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He also says that the deportation included both Albanians and Armenians. Do not remove sourced info. Minorsky says that the origin of Sahl is not known and that he could be related to the kings of Albania. Grandmaster 05:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From another source: Among the prisoners captured by Boga al-Kabir in 854 John Catholicos and T'ovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Xachen, Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Shak'e, and Esay Abu Musa, lord of K't'is in Arcax.


 * C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468.


 * Grandmaster 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is yet another source: The History of Al-Tabari Vol XXXIII translated by C.E Bosworth, State University of New York Press, published 1991, page 76:


 * "Sahl b. Sunbat (Armenian Smbat), from a local Armenian family of eastern Transcaucasia, lord of Shakki, (Shake) to the north of the upper reachers of the Kur..."


 * Grandmaster, I dont know where you have been taught the opinions that you hold, but here its the facts that matter. You cannot distort sources.Hajji Piruz 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahl was a prince of Albania, which would make him an Albanian prince, but this does not mean his origin was Albanian. Minorsky says he was Armenian. I moved the Minorsky source by where it says Armenian. I also added a hidden text that says the source you cited does not clearly say Sahl was Albanian.Hajji Piruz 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does Minorsky say that Sahl was Armenian? He says: The exact origin of Sahl is not explicitly stated. No personal interpretations, please. The other source says that he was Albanian, so that's what the article should say. Grandmaster 07:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why are you using him as a source to say he was Albanian? Why are you even using him as a source if he says that the origin is unknown, dont use him as a source then in the article to support your POV, because you making an interpretation too.Hajji Piruz 14:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not making interpretation, our article also says that his origin is unknown, he could be either Albanian or Armenian. Grandmaster 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You used Minorsky as a source for the Albanian part, so if Minorsky says its unknown, why would you do that?Hajji Piruz 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed per Minorsky. Grandmaster 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I created an article for Sahl, so that we dont clutter up this article with info about his origin. Also, Minorsky does say that his origin is not clearly stated, but he also says that by the evidence we should assume he was Armenian.Hajji Piruz 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does he say that? --Grandmaster 08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just Wikilinking. I also moved the part of the the Kurdish tribal federation to the top, I dont know if it should be removed or not.Hajji Piruz 16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Erranshahiks
The previous ruling dynasty was not Armenian, it was Parthian. See Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, I think now you tamper with historical facts and sources. Where does Kalankatvatsi say that the previous dynasty was Arsacid? This is wat the text says:

That the Haykazuns were Armenians, I have already prooven on talk:Artsakh. --Vacio (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they were not. I quoted you Hewsen, it is just a reference to the immemorial origin of the dynasty. You are not allowed to make personal interpretations of the primary sources, according to the rules we can use only interpretations of reliable secondary sources. See the rules: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Where is your secondary source to support your claim that Kalanatuatsi was referring to the Armenian origin of the dynasty? And note that I'm talking about neutral sources, not Ulubabyan, etc. Grandmaster (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hewsen is not an expert of Old Armenian language and he could not know that Movses Kalankatvatsi used Haykazuni with both the meanings "Descendant of Hayk" and "Armenian". This is not my OR, I qouted you Dowsett, who translated Haykazuni - "Native Armenian". The Haykazunis were Armenians, as Sahl Smbatean was, since the latter was a descendent of the same Arranshahik/Yerranshahik dynasty.
 * If you don't agree with one word of my edits, do you need to revert all my edits? That is rather vandalism I think.
 * In the sentence where it's sayed Mihranids killed and succeeded the Haykazunian Arranshahiks, you replaced Haykazunian Arranshahiks with Albanian Arsacids . You really read first what the source says before editing or you think that's not neccessary? Ulubabyan didn't such a thing you are doing now. --Vacio (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hewsen is an expert on Armenian language and history. And he says that it is a reference to immemorial origin of the dynasty. And why do you delete a link to Arcasids, and who do you think these "Haykuzuni Arranshahs" were? Even the title of the dynasty is Persian, there were no other dynasty before Mihranids other than Arcasids. Grandmaster (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hewsen is a notable source and was actually quoted many times by many users, including Armenian ones in Wiki--Dacy69 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hewsen is a notable source, yes, but the work you're refering to says nothing about the Erranshahiks, so what you are trying to do is OR. C. Dowsett is a notable translator and historian no less. --Vacio (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules require: Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. . --Vacio (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That rule is not applicable here. I don't join any sources to make a conclusion on the basis of the synthesis. Hewsen says that Haykid is a reference to immemorial origin, which I quote here. Please stop removing sourced info, it is against the rules. Grandmaster (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case, you are refering to a source, which don't says anything about the Erranshahiks in the 7th century, but abbout the House of Syunik in the Ancient times, and that is aggainst Wikipedia rules: Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research;. --Vacio (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hewsen deals with Haykid issue in general, and there's no original research here. OR is to claim that there was a "dynasty of Erranshahiks", you have no reliable sources to support that claim, yet you make your own interpretation of primary sources. This entire "Erranshahik" claim should be removed from this article, first, it is irrelevant to this topic, second, it is OR. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't claim anything, the ancient Armenian line of Erranshahik is litterary what the primary source says. There is no interpretation of primary sources. And there is no need of interpretation of a reliable and authorative translation as well. Youre quote of Hewsen, dont reffers directly and explicitly the 7th century nor the line of Erranshahik.
 * It is not irrevelant, because the source says the the Mihranids slaughtered them before they would reign over the country. --Vacio (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are interpreting the primary source. You still cannot explain who these "Eranshahiks" were, the dynasty or some descendants of Aran, who never existed. And Hewsen refers to Haykid. Grandmaster (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vacio, the source makes no direct connexions between Armenians and Arranshahiks. A perfect indication of the fact that Arranshahik was rather a title held by Albanian monarchs of whatever origin is that Prince Javanshir's surviving brother Varaz-Perozh (who was a Mihranid) and Sahl Smbatean (for whom Toumanoff suggests Bagratid origin) also went by the title of Arranshahik, simply because at the time of documenting, either of them belonged to the ruling house of Albania, albeit to different dynasties: "It was, however, the hostility not of Arsacids, but of the Mihranids of Gardman than exterminated this family, with the exception of Zarmihr, who was married to a Mihranid princess: Moses Kaļ. 3.17. In 1.27, Varaz P'erož of the House of Aŗanšahik is mentioned as settled at Gis; <...> in the ninth century, Sahl i Smbatean, designated as both an Eŗanšahik and a Zaŗmihrakan, played a considerable role in eastern Caucasia". (Toumanoff, 258)
 * Regarding the alleged Armenian ancestry of the original Arranshahiks based merely on the fact that they are named Haykazean/Haykid, Toumanoff gives an extensive explanation: "This geneology represents a blend of theogonies of the pagan past — divinities became heroes in the Christian monuments — with a pell-mell of reminiscences about the Vannic, Scythian, proto-Armenian, and early Armenian rulers. Both versions trace the heroic stemma back to the eponym of the Armenians, Hayk, through another eponym Aramaniak or Armenak, and derive from this mythical, once divine, royal race many of the princely houses of Armenia, as collateral branches. This is an indirect but obvious proof of these houses' immemorial tribal-dynastic origin". (Toumanoff, 108)
 * In other words, it used to be a common strategy for more or less notable princely dynasties to claim noble or divine ancentry, in this case of Hayk, to gain credibility with regard to their royal position, similarly to the Arsacids of Parthia, who claimed descent from Cyrus the Great or Safavids who claimed Imam Ali to be their ancestor. In reality, according to Toumanoff, claiming Haykazean origin was just a way to cover up one's immemorable roots saying nothing about their real origins. Parishan (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Parishan, the stuff you quoted above is very interesting and should react on it in detail, but. What you're trying to do, is to "correct" a primary source, or at least it's translation, which is a pure Original Research. Even the Russian translation you present as "contradict" with the English one, translates "Haykazuns" on an other place (reffering to the same Erranshahiks!) - "армянскими мужами" (see Kaghankatvatsi, book 3, chapter 23. And compare it with my quote here. So you are actually misleading the reader beacause both translation state that the previous Family was Armenian. ...claiming Haykazean origin was just a way to cover up one's immemorable roots saying nothing about their real origins. You see, you are misquoting sources, in this case it is not their 'immemorable origin' the question. --Vacio (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not correcting anything: I am providing Toumanoff's scientific explanation to the phenomenon of a dynasty claiming Haykid origin. Nowhere does the Russian translation substitute Haykazean for Armenian. The chapter where "армянские мужи" are mentioned says nothing about the Arranshahiks. You are pinning your own resort to original research on me.
 * And please stop playing with the article's history: I have kindly asked you not to revert sourced information until the issue is resolved here. Please and thank you. Parishan (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Say! I think you first reverted my edits and what are you now saying, "don't change my edits until I will convince you on talkpage"? No! Just the opposite, you have to stop reverting the article, until the issue is resolved here.


 * What are you actually trying to aver? You say Arranshahik was rather a title, but the source you quoted says the Mihranids of Gardman... exterminated this family, with the exception of Zarmihr. (And Sahl Smbatian was called from the royal family Zarmihrakan by Kaghanktavatsi (3.12), because he was a descendant of this Zarmihr.)


 * Kaghankatvatsi (by the way not a scholar but a primary source) calls the previous dynasty "the ancient Armenian line of Erranshahik". Toumanoff doesn't contradict to this, since he deals with the origin of some princely houses of Armenia, while Kaghanktavatsi referred to the ethnicity of a certain line. Toumanoff nowhere does say the this line was not ethnic Armenian in the 7th century.


 * And how do you know, that the Russian translation nowhere substituted Haykazun for Armenian? Did you read the original Armenian text? No I supose. But I did. Read this literaly translation from Old Armenian:


 * And compare with Russian translation:

From now, quote sources which speak about the etnicity, not the origin, of the Erranashahiks. And don't artifically contrast sources, when they are not so. --Vacio (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hewsen does say that the House of Siwnik, to which according to the legend Aran belonged, was not Armenian. And the first ruling dynasty according to Toumanoff was Arranshah, which was the title and the name of this first Albanians dynasty. The title was used by other dynasties too. This Haykid/Haykazean claim was made on the basis of the mythic Aran/Haykid origin, which is nothing but a fairy tale, and the first Albanian dynasty ruled from their capital Gabala at the left bank of Kura, where Armenians never lived even at the times of Armenian expansion to the East, and we know the names of the kings of the first dynasty (Oroes, Zober), which were not Armenian. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no response was given, I restored the deleted sources. Also, the requested quote for Aranshah being a title for Sahl as well see Minorsky:


 * Grandmaster (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This quote of Minorsky says something quite different. He speaks about the title Erranshahik, which is quite different from Arranshah. I asked for a source which would state that Sahl Smbatian had the latter title. That he was an Erranshahik, we already knew from Kaghankatvatsi.
 * Once more, you are misquoting and misinterpreting R. Hewsen. I have a map of him where he refers to the Arranshahiks as an Armenian princely house. --Vacio (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The English translation text of Khaghnkatvatsi, says the fallowing, after which I have tailored the text:


 * --Vacio (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the quote from Minorsky? He says that Eranshahik "must be understood only as a sublimation of the more modest local title Aran-shahik". And stop deleting Hewsen from the article, this is not the first time you do so.--Grandmaster (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)