Talk:Moses of Chorene/Archive 1

Perhaps this article is more aptly named Moses of Chorene's History of Armenia? The article has paragraph or two about the author and the rest of it is about the book he wrote and its impact.

Or Perhaps we should create an article about the book, copy the text here about the book into that new article and reference it here?

Dating
I changed this a bit because the new version could not necessarily be inferred from Thomson's statement. I'm no great expert here and I need to get my hands on more books, but as far as I see it we need to determine whether:
 * Moses was an historical person (probably of the 5th century) but the history written in his name was "fathered" on him by later author(s) unknown (I've seen the date for the history given variously as the 8th or 9th centuries but I can't give references)
 * Moses didn't exist at all and his biography was also part of the fabrication of the history's authorship
 * or there was a Moses of Chorene, who was the author of the history, but he lived after the 7th century

I don't have the sources to sort this out at the moment. If anybody can get hold of them, it would be a help. I'd just like to say though that I'm glad to see someone is taking a more scholarly approach to this and other Armenian historical articles. Cheers. --Folantin 09:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I believe this is a bit similar to the Homeric question. Except that he has a whole bunch of works attributed to him, and for each the question will be, is it authentic. I believe that "Moses of Chorene" is the author of the History more or less by definition, and if that work dates to the 7th century, we will be right to say that Moses lived in the 7th century (even if Moses is a pen-name). But I agree we need more sources on this. dab (𒁳) 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've read a bit about the academic controversy over his dating/existence but I can't remember the exact details. When I added the Thomson quotation, the article here was a straight copy-and-paste of the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry (from c.1913). They were beginning to become aware of the doubts over the traditional attribution back then, but obviously a lot has happened since in the debate. I slashed quite a bit of the entry, but I didn't know how far to go. Obviously, better sourcing will fix this. I hope to get my hands on the French translation (1993) some time this year, so that might help resolve matters. Those who don't believe he was from the 5th century give various dates so I'm not sure we can just say 7th century. In fact, I think the 9th century is a pretty popular guess (though I can't provide references). We'll probably have to describe the scholarly debate rather than coming down for one date or another. I think we should just leave its as something like "considerably later than the 5th century" for now. --Folantin 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One more name change
I really don't know what Wikipedia's (English-language) policy is on this but I'm considering to move this article once more to Movses Khorenatsi to reflect the correct transliteration of the historian's name. We have several other articles that are like this (Kirakos Gandzaketsi, Stepanos Taronetsi, Movses Kaghankatvatsi, etc.) so unless anyone has some concerns, we can move it to Movses Khorenatsi.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with both transliterations (ex. Gregory of Narek, Anania Shirakatsi). If we're going to make either universal, wouldn't we also have to move articles on monarchs like Tiridates I of Armenia to Trdat I? Hakob (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The "of Armenia" part is mainly to differentiate them from the Parthian kings of the same names. I don't think we have to really extend this to those other articles either, only those which have suffix "tsi", identifying from where they were from. I guess the closest thing we can compare this to is the Leonardo da Vinci article, since his name just means "Leonardo from/of Vinci."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The "correct" (unambiguous) transliteration would be Movsēs Xorenac‘i. But we have the policy of using the name most common in English language usage, which is clearly Moses of Chorene. Article should be moved back.
 * 774/245
 * 801/58
 * 287/75

try to avoid moving articles around without consensus and without being aware of Wikipedia naming conventions. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian
« so that they themselves learn the Greek and Assyrian languages » : « Assyrian language » redirects to « Akkadian language », dead since 100 AD. Don't you think that this « Assyrian » is in fact « Syriac », useful for understanding the Gospels (Tatian…) ?

--Budelberger (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC). (And please, correct the « of of » !)


 * That's indeed true. Should you ever come upon something that can be quite easily be fixed, as in this case, be bold and by all means, make the necessary changes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I can't :
 * « of of » : I can't modify a 9 046 Bytes page for those small three Bytes ! (My computer is very old and small ; I don't want the Wikimedia computers overflowed too !)
 * « Assyrian » : I can't, because this information is sourced (from Gagik Sarkisyan, n. 6) ; what wrote Sarkisyan and, if « Assyrian », what is « Assyrian » for him, I don't know. Who has this book ? You, who know Armenian ?
 * Budelberger (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ([[Image:Flag of France.svg|15px]]). (P.-S. : Do you know Armenian ? Can you help me in hy.Wikipedia ? I need a « Merge » template (they haven't) ; can you create it ?)


 * Perhaps you should purchase a Dell? :)


 * The reason the source says Assyrian is actually due to the fact that Syriac in Armenian is translated as "Asoreren" (Ասորերեն). I didn't know that it would be go to a different redirect and I'll fix the disambig.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Western scholars
I don't understand why did MarshallBagramyan remove the sources that I quoted? Most notable experts in this field doubt that Movses actually lived in the 5th century. Their opinion must be presented too.-- Grand master  04:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RGS's article is next to useless and tells us nothing we don't already know. Furthermore, scholars outside of Armenia reject the hypercritical approach of Toumanoff and Thomson also (Vrej Nersissian, a very authoritative individual and the Curator of the Christian Middle East Section at the British Library, has published multiple reviews over the past 30 years on this topic). We have an updated source, with five editors, telling us that their approach and opinions are pretty much invalidated. That you think it is appropriate to insert the word "some" is disingenous and is clear weasal wording.

Besides, it's rather strange that scholars who can't even speak (modern) or barely read classical Armenian (such as Hewsen) are really being given this undue weight just because they publish outside of Armenia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert H. Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff and Robert Thompson are among the leading western experts on Armenia. Their opinion is notable, and cannot be suppressed or rejected, like it is done in this article. It is not an undue weight, their opinion must be presented alongside with that of the scholars in Armenia. -- Grand master  05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources. Hewsen:

Thompson:

Britannica:

Grand master  05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at your edit, how is this not weasel wording, and how this wording that you included can be considered neutral:

You say that "Up until the mid-twentieth century, many scholars doubted that Movses wrote the work in the fifth century", however you can see that many modern publications, including even Britannica doubt that Movses actually wrote his work in the 5th century. And the last line which attempts to present the opinion of one person as a fact is not in line with NPOV, and again uses weasel wording (there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work). Grand master  05:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this work by Ronald Grigor Suny that you removed from the article provides interesting information about the dispute over Khorenatsi:

[http://slaviccenter.osu.edu/pdf/Suny%20Constructing%20Primordialism.pdf Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 862—896]

I don't think that you should be simply removing the opinions that you disagree with. All notable opinions must be presented.-- Grand master  05:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that mainstream scholarly opinion believes that the history ascribed to Movses dates from (much) later than the 5th century. Another reference: " There are indications that the book itself was written after the 5th century. Not only does Movses use sources not available in Armenia at that time, he refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries." Robert K. Thomson, "Armenian Literary Culture through the Eleventh Century", in R.G. Hovahanissian (ed.), Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times(Volume 1, 2004). --Folantin (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we have a very reliable source published in 2000 with five editors which says that the mainstream opinion is that we was from the 5th century so...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So is my understanding. I provided the full context of the source that you cite. Please see above. I believe all the existing scholarly opinions should be presented equally, as per WP:NPOV. Grand  master  11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities: There was a Movses Khorenatsi in the 5th century, and the History is pseudepigraphical and attributed to Movses a century or two after his death, or Movses is in fact the author of the History, but he did live one or two centuries later than the traditional date. As far as I can see, the two possibilities are effectively equivalent for all practical purposes. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And both possibilities are present in the article. Nevertheless, unless you guys actually know what the critcism that Thomson et al. are presenting, don't just simply regurgitate sources. The exact opposite can be done and we can go on forever. Unless you are aware of the nitty-gritty of the actual debate and have read the reviews and the books, slavishly quoting them is not going to cut it. And Dbachmann, if it's not too much to ask, go read Malkhasyants' biography before you question his reliability. I know you like to scan and root out nationalism but please, there are limits to everything.

I added Cyril Toumanoff as a source because he presents his arguments against the 5th century dating far more better than Hewsen does.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The credibility tag was added blindly and without any reason. "...criticize it heavily as a historical source" was also added from who knows where when all the relevant material is regarding inaccuracies in the timeframe but not the source material itself. The ten or so Artaxias' frontier stones with Aramaic based inscriptions found around Lake Sevan were only mentioned by Khorenatsi and no other source, this alone attests to the remarkable value of this source. It's obvious that new material was added in later centuries because various personas and events from those centuries are mentioned but it doesn't reflect on the accuracy of the content nor deny the possibility of multiple authorship in the course of several centuries. Dbachmann, you really oughta recuse yourself from all Armenian related articles, even if it's just reverting ararat_arev socks. This is not the first time when you have made all-encompassing changes seemingly resulting from bad faith.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another source:


 * Grand master  20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, enough with this nonsense. The entire "biography" is unverifiable to anyone without access to Soviet-era Armenian literature. When I see a reference to details of Movses' biography, I do not want to see an obscure reference like "Sargsyan, Gagik. «Մովսես Խորենացի» (Movses Khorenatsi). Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, 1982, pp. 40-41". I want to be informed which medieval source this information is due to, or at the very least I want some academic English language reference. Movses is easily important enough to find coverage outside 1980s Soviet encyclopedias. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the hyping of stale Soviet Armenian criticism into a living "controversy". If there is any Armenian author criticizing the mainstream date today, let's see a post-1991 reference. Anything dating to between 1960 and 1991 should be subsumed in a brief "and there was much grumbling in Soviet Armenia". Thanks to to MarshallBagramyan for giving us a brief taste of what was the talk of Erevan historians back in the 1980s, but this is 2009. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a damn if it's unaccessible to you? It's accessible to plenty of people and it's a verifiable published source. That's all that is needed. If you can provide published criticism of any of the references than we can talk otherwise cease disrupting this article with your saber-rattling and unencylopedic edits.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please heed Eupator's advice and recuse yourself from this and other Armenian related articles Dbachmann. I, as well as Eupator, are as much as opponents against the distortion of facts, even if its done by Armenian historians, as you but the overzealous and extremist nature of your edits to disregard the opinions of then Soviet scholars has surpassed bad faith. I don't believe you have a full grasp of what the debate is on and insulting reputable scholars who have published in international journals by throwing around the word "Soviet" as if it's a curse word is unacceptable. It was originally scholars like Sargsyan, Malkhasyants, and Abeghyan who blazed the trail in the study of Armenian literature, with objectivity in mind and access to the manuscripts of the Matenadaran, and western scholars have undoubtedly benefited from their work as a mere glance at the bibliographies will prove.


 * The opinions of western scholars should be present but quoting them like parrots without offering any explanations and then going on to conduct unilateral, shamelessly POV mass scale edits and slanting the article clearly in the bias of the western scholars' opinions violates the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy. As much as I like DML, he is not an authority on the subject, did not know classical Armenian nor did he conduct any studies in the matter. Intentionally ignoring authoritative sources like Sargsyan and Malkhasyants just because they worked in the Soviet Union and lived in Armenia is not reason enough to reserve preferential treatment for others.


 * It's unfortunate that you are unable to speak Armenian nor Russian but this article was not created for you; for those people who want to learn more about Movses, they're going to have to consult sources in foreign languages. I will try to find updated references to Movses in additional journals but you have clearly erred in your reckless witch hunt to snuff out nationalism --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:VUE on "Non-English sources":"Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."--Folantin (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that's just a recommended guideline. Far from an enforced piece of rule. I'm more than open to reducing the number of non-English citations and replacing them with something from Google books or elsewhere in English. You can highlight sentences and passages that are referenced by non-English sources and that you would like to see replaced here and we can work from there. In any event, Dbachmann's boldness is unacceptable.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia is a very mysterious source that is used in many articles here, but which no one outside of Armenia can verify, as it is written in Armenian. Considering that Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not considered a reliable source on most topics, I don't think any other Soviet encyclopedia should be considered a reliable source. Grand master  20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That logic makes absolutely no sense. The SAE is not some inaccessible source with obscure publishing origins. Even Robert Hewsen boasts about his collection in his Armenia: A Historical Atlas. I wish I could access some of the sources regarding the Serbian related articles but I don't read Serbian nor have access to their scholarly literature. But that's not enough for me to call for their removal (something about good faith?). We're not trying to seriously prove that Stalin did not enact the Great Terror here. But as of yet, Dbachmann's insulting language (bordering on racism) against Soviet Armenian historians, to say nothing of his unilateral, ill-faith, shamelessly POV edits, have not gotten us anywhere. Additional reverts should be discouraged.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire "biography" is unverifiable to anyone without access to Soviet-era Armenian literature. That's of course not true. When I wrote the article in French, I used for the biographic part: Sardur (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Claude Mutafian (dir.), Arménie, la magie de l'écrit, Somogy, Paris, 2007, ISBN 978-2-7572-0057-5
 * Moïse de Khorène (trad. Annie et Jean-Pierre Mahé), Histoire de l'Arménie, coll. « L'aube des peuples », Gallimard, Paris, 1993, ISBN 2-07-072904-4
 * Agop Jack Hacikyan (dir.), The Heritage of Armenian Literature, vol. II : From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century, Wayne State University, Détroit, 2002, ISBN 0-8143-3023-1


 * I don't think that Soviet sources should be rejected altogether, but they should be used with care, especially sources like Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. We all know that such publications were written as part of the Soviet propaganda campaign. I think that Western sources generally are more preferable. As for rvs, I would like to remind Marshal that he is under 1 rv per week restriction, which he violated more than once within the last couple of days. Next time I will have to report the violation to WP:AE, so please do not rv this article during the next 7 days.  Grand  master  04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see below some excerpts from a source from around the same time as Malkhasyants, i.e. 1940. It explains in more detail the criticism of early dating of Movses, including some of the sources mentioned in the article.

This paper also provides some counter arguments in support of 5th century dating, but overall conclusion is that it was not possible to make a definite conclusion about the dating of this scholar. Since then not much changed, most leading western scholars date this author much later than the 5th century, while the scholars in Armenia insist that he was a 5th century scholar. Grand master  05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read Sarkissian's article before and the last paragraphs show how outdated the article really is; if we're not even talk about Movses' dating, Khalatyants' and Carriere's arguments that the History of Armenia has no historical value is rejected by every scholar, Armenian and Western (i.e., see Robert Hewsen's article in the Armenian Review, 1985). And no, actual leading scholars on Movses, such as Malkhasyants, Gagik Sargsyan, Babken Harutyunyan, to name a few, (Toumanoff is not an expert in classical Armenian, neither is DML) agree that Movses was a scholar of the fifth century. Them having to write their opinions in Armenia is a moot and absolutely irrelevant point. We should all stop bringing up the location of these scholars as if they really played role in formulating their opinions.


 * And my second revert was in response to Dbachmann's ill-faith edits. We're not restricted from reverting an article that is mutilated to such a degree that he subjected it to. I have just taken a look at Aram Topchyan's book (Peeters, 2006) and it provides some especially interesting information on sources published after 1991 and a general evaluation on on the validity of the criticism directed at Movses. Assuming the tidal wave recedes, and there are no more Dbachmann-like edits which only deliberately serve to provoke other users, I will add the relevant information within the coming days. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, how do we know that Malkhasyants, Gagik Sargsyan, Babken Harutyunyan are leading scholars on Movses? Who says that those people are leading, and all the western armenologists are not? In the light of nationalistic attacks on the western scholars in Armenia, such as those described here: I would prefer the opinion of impartial experts on the topic. This is from the document called "Declaration of the Chair of Armenian History at the State University of Yerevan about the basic tendencies of American Armenology".


 * When the Chair of Armenian History makes such bad faith attacks on respected international scholars, it is hard to except objectivity from them. And here some Armenian historians accuse the prominent western armenologists of deliberately falsifying the history of Armenia by the order of the US State Department! It looks like many historians in Armenia are motivated by patriotism, rather than objectivity, support conspiracy theories and not capable of dealing with criticism.


 * As for your editing restrictions, you can make only 1 rv per week, except obvious vandalism. The edits that you reverted were not vandalism. So please be careful. -- Grand master  06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

lol

GM, had you read the response of the Chair of Armenian History, Babken Harutyunyan, to the declaration, you would know that it was done without his foreknowledge and when he was out of the country see here. Furthermore, it was pushed by a minority group and we all know the actions of a few do not represent the beliefs of their colleagues. Yes, unfortunately Ayvazyan's study goes too far in its looney conclusions but the mistakes it points out are perfectly factual and its unfortunate that a proper general survey of the works of American scholars has yet to be conducted.

I give far greater credence to the scholars like Sargsyan and Harutyunyan because they had nothing better to do but to literally spent all their days at the Matenadran, reading one manuscript after another, analyzing one line of text after another. Sargsyan has published at least two books just dedicated to MK and his work has been commended by non-Armenian scholars. Malkhasyants himself spent over 65 years dedicated to the study of classical Armenian literature. Thomson aside, Toumanoff never carried out such studies (nor even bothered to learn classical Armenian), Hewsen's knowledge of it is rather negligible, and DML certainly did not. I'm simply advising others to simply take a breath and cease pushing their agendas so blindly.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's just your personal opinion, isn't it? Which reliable source considers those people, unknown outside of Armenia, to be better experts on the topic, than professors in Western universities? As for Aivazian, that guy is just a historical revisionist, and his criticism cannot be taken seriously. This is from his interview:


 * Typical revisionist concept of Armenian history, described by Shnirelman, Kohl and others. It is a general knowledge that Urartu and Khayasa were not Armenian states, and his attacks on the Western scholars are motivated by the fact that they do not support these revisionist concepts. And I find it strange that a small group of people can publish such declarations without the knowledge of the chair. Typical Soviet policy, when the leader does not express his opinion until the last moment, when he sees who's winning. In sum, we need to establish the notability of the scholars you consider to be the most authoritative on the topic. Who considers those people to be the top authority on this subject? -- Grand master  06:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read a part of Aivazian's work in English here: It is quite interesting that in the opening credits he thanks Babken Harutyunyan.  Grand  master  07:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is from Ronald Grigor Suny:

Grand master  13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * we need to establish the notability of the scholars : very easy, with Mutafian and Mahé. Sardur (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathematician turned historian Claude Mutafian is not more authoritative than the chair of Armenian studies in Harvard Robert Thompson, or professors Robert Hewsen, Cyrill Toumanoff, encyclopedia Britannica, etc. I read Mutafian's book "The Caucasian Knot" and was not really impressed, it is a typical propaganda type publication. I'm not saying that his opinion should be excluded, but I think that the mainstream view should be presented as well. At present the article claims the fifth century dating as a fact, and ignores the fact that most of Western experts reject this dating. Grand master  13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Grand master  14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case Mutafian is the editor. The relevant chapter is written by Aram Toptchyan. Sardur (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

enough
has heaped up enough references now. If Marshal Bagramyan or Eupator want to defend their opinion that the question isn't settled, let them cite an academic, peer-reviewed reference post-dating 1991 (i.e. post-dating the Soviet Union). This isn't too much to ask. WP:CITE isn't optional. Is this understood, Marshal? No more polemics about "ill-faith, shamelessly POV edits". Own up with decent references, or shut up. If you present a decent reference, I will defend its inclusion. As long as you don't, I will oppose your attempts at insinuating a "controversy" based on stale, 30-years-old patriotism. The entire comedy of Soviet Armenian Armenologists referenced above should be covered at Armenian studies. It is interesting that The nationalist thrust of Soviet Armenian historiography extended into a fierce critique of foreign historians who attempted to question sacred assumptions in the canonical version of Armenian history, but this is 20th century history, while this article is supposed to deal with an 8th century work of historiography. This isn't armeniapedia, so please spare us the naive patriotism. If you want to write an in-universe article, may I suggest editing here. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you calm down and use the discussion page to gain consensus. As for Grandmaster and his generous contributions of completely irrelevant references that appear to assist you in attaining a hard on, lets just say that he's wielding an axe greater than Mjöllnir to grind. Now drop the condescending bullshit and wikilawyering and get this through your head. I'm not disputing any content whatsoever, neither is Marshal as far as I can tell. My objection concerns your butchering of the article by way of removing sourced material (and images and templates as well now) and the insane amount of undue weight applied to certain sections. Since when are we giving so much credence to tertiary sources? That last part is not only condescending, it's quite xenophobic. Tread lightly!--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you railing on about? Dismissing all your critics as lackeys of nationalism reeks of the blind fanaticism that you claim to be opposing. I am not opposed to inserting the opinions of Toumanoff and Thomson in this article but you have shown a remarkable lapse in reasoning in criticizing historians from Armenia simply because they have a different opinion and clear ignorance on what the actual debate between the historians actually is about. I asked everyone to refrain from making controversial edits and to discuss everything but apparently this concept is far too difficult for some to comprehend. No one agreed on a page move and yet you did that without achieving consensus either.


 * If you have such a hard on for stamping out nationalism, go police the articles on the Armenian Genocide, which run smack against all the standards of scholarship. If you continue on this path without achieving consensus, I'll be more than happy to lodge a complaint about your petty insults and your impulsive behavior to violently lash out against anyone who is not accepting your POV by creating this inhospitable atmosphere for editors. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He merged the two articles unilaterally (sans consensus again) which is why I didn't revert. It might fall under improrer use of admin tools, he's been already admonished by arbcom for that once before.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think stating that this chronicler lived in the 5th century as a fact and stubbornly reverting to that version is productive. I provided tons of reliable sources, top international experts on Armenian history, which date Movses to a much later historical period. Ignoring them and pretending that they don't even exist will not help resolve the dispute. You must admit that there's no consensus in the scholarly community to date this person to the 5th century, and that such early dating is not largely supported outside of Armenia. -- Grand master  19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but stubbornly edit-warring and insulting others by resorting to ethnic slurs and racism is not acceptable either. The attempts to paint all Armenian scholars with the same brush have been quite unprofessional on your part GM. As Eupator wrote above and which everyone else has ignored or is even unaware, the primary reason some scholars date to Movses to the 8th century hinges solely on his alleged references to events which took place after the fifth century. But this is not a open and shut case; because Movses' original manuscript has not reached us, it was not uncommon to have scribes writing in later centuries to add material which the original author did not include. Thomson nor Toumanoff are not immune to criticism and if Dbachmann did not resort to blind reverts without achieving consensus, we wouldn't be in this mess. I've asked nicely numerous times before from everyone to discuss their edits and all I have received is POV-driven, childish, emotion-laden insults from Dbachmann. Please maintain good faith and the section on dating and criticism will be duly improved. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never painted all Armenian scholars with the same brush, if you noticed, I even referred to some of them. I only ask to present all existing views on the subject fairly, and not suppress the alternative opinions on the dating of this person. Rejecting well-known Western scholars, alleging that they are incompetent, while presenting some obscure historians from Armenia as the only trustworthy experts on the subject is really no good, and violates WP:NPOV. The late dating of Movses is the mainstream view outside of Armenia, trying to deny it after so many sources have been presented is absolutely unacceptable. We must present all the existing opinions, and not just one, according to their weight. I think the intro should be worded similar to that in the article in Britannica, i.e. the person is traditionally believed to have lived in the 5th century, but modern scholars provide various dates for his life time, some as late as the 9th century. Grand  master  21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster is being disingenuous mildly put because I have stated numerous times that I personally do not hold any position regarding the dating controversy and I do no dispute either point of view. Neither one of us have denied that the traditional dating is upheld primarily in Armenia. My intention is to display all points of view accordingly and not to resort to all encompassing changes unilaterally.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But why then did you revert any attempts to include alternative dating in the intro, and the main text? I did not edit this article much, just trying to reach a consensus, but all I see is that the info on the late dating is being suppressed. If you want to display all points of view, you should have no problems with doing so. Grand  master  21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that was hardly what was done, entire chunks of info were removed, undue weight was applied etc. Following which I offered to make any additional changes after discussing them here first, but that was promptly ignored. Your flooding of the discussion page with all sorts of irrelevant quotes certainly didn't help firestart any sort of a meaningful discussion sans demagoguery.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything I quoted here was irrelevant to the discussion. I quoted the best international experts on this topic, and you quoted no reliable sources in support of your position. Grand  master  05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is my position exactly? --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by your previous posts and reverts, you are supporting the 5th century dating. I may be wrong by assuming that, but so far your actions only allow to make this conclusion. There's nothing wrong with supporting a certain position, but the article should reflect all existing scholarly points of view. I think it is possible to make this article neutral, and the original version of the article was terrible. In its original form it attacked Thompson for supporting a certain position, claimed that his arguments were proved wrong, etc. It was really not in line with WP:NPOV. Grand  master  05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very poor judgement to say the least. I provided my motives several times for supporting the original version before Dab engaged in his usual disruptive behaviour and they had nothing to do with supporting either position. The original article did present all existing views in a balanced manner unlike the current one. Put the two next to eachother and you can clearly see how much information was removed, not to mention how the formatting was screwed up. And all of this done unilaterally followed by stubborn edit warring. In addition, the criticism directed against Thomson was attributed and not presented as divine truth like you make it seem so there is no justification for suppressing it.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

as was to be expected, our Armenian patriots resorted to dodging the issues and personal attacks instead of the requested sources. As long as they refuse to submit to the project goals and rules, there is nothing to discuss here. "Tread lightly" indeed, Eupator. If I was into screaming WP:CIVIL upon being attacked, you could be in trouble even now for your sexual innuendo and general misbehaviour. Now would be a good time to cite a recent (post-1991!) academic source establishing that there is an ongoing "controversy", as I requested. If you cannot do that, you would do well to step down and stop shooting the messenger. It is ridiculous to accuse Grandmaster of " flooding of the discussion page with all sorts of irrelevant quotes" when his sources were perfectly academic and perfectly to the point. So if you don't have any sources to support your position, any sources you don't happen to like are "flooding the discussion", eh? Grandmaster has established that this entire dating "controversy" belongs under historiography and nationalism. It is not a serious academic discussion. There can be a section on "In Armenian nationalism" in this artilce. We can address that as soon as you stop disrupting article improvement based on nothing but WP:IDHT. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't you read ? Mahé (1993) and Mutafian (2007). Sardur (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delirium and sever crud. Dbachmann, that would only highlight your racist commentary, persistent edit warring (at least three reverts) and disruptive behaviour such as the deletion of templates (infobox with the image, the historians template) as a result of a missguided belief that the project is better off without them among other things. Even Grandmaster (who incidentally set you upon this page) was only interested in applying changes to the intro regarding the alternative dating while your modifications over which you're edit warring totally mutilated a fully sourced, comprehensible article and turned it into a garbled, poorly formatted mess. It's high time to involve other parties here in order to further expose your shenanigans because celarly you're not interested in article improvement and judging by your blind reverts you're not interested in compromise either. Once again, I take no position regarding the dating issue. Your attempt to paint me as someone who is attempting to push a particular pov is utterly ridiculous and baseless.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

merge
in light of the statement in Britannica that "Nothing is known of his life apart from alleged autobiographical details contained in this work", this article should just become an "author" section in the History of Armenia (Movses Khorenatsi) article. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this author deserves a dedicated article, as he is considered an author of more than one work (as far as I know some other works are also attributed to him, though I might be wrong), and is considered the father of the Armenian historiography. Plus, the controversy surrounding his persona also deserves a presentation in a separate article, which should be the one about himself. Grand  master  15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

the absense of interwiki links at the History article is conspicuous. I think the article on "Moses of Chorene" is usually in fact the article on his History. We can merge the two articles under this title, no problem. The claim that other works are attributed to him is shaky: such claims as we had here were completely unreferenced and Britannica states plainly that nothing is known about him other than what he states in his History. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarkissian says the same:


 * Very little is known about this unique character, and that little has come down to us through his History.


 * The full quote is available above. I think it is possible to merge the article on History into this one, since the History is the only source of info about this person. Grand  master  21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Moses is the persona of the author of the History. Historical scholarship solidly considers this pseudepigraphy. In Armenian patriotism, Moses is regarded as a historical character. Either way, he is a character described in the History and should be discussed as such. All serious encyclopedias discuss the Moses of Chorene biography together with the History, and state openly that the Moses biography is incompatible with the origin of the work itself. For crying out loud, even the 1915(!) Catholic Encyclopedia has
 * The author of the "History of Armenia Major" calls himself Moses of Chorene and pretends to belong to the fifth century, to be a disciple of Saint Mesrop, and to have composed his work at the request of Isaac (Sahak), the Bagratunid prince who fell in battle in 482. These personal statements are shown to be untrustworthy for internal and external reasons. In his account of his own life the author contradicts such fifth-century writers as Koriun and Lazarus of Pharp.

And the 1911(!) Britannica has
 * the author of the History of Armenia is not the venerable translator of the 5th century, but some Armenian writing under his name during the years between 634 and 642. The proof is furnished on the one hand by the geographical and ethnographical nomenclature of a later period and similar anachronisms,   which run through the whole book and are often closely incorporated with the narrative itself, and on the other hand by the identity of the author of the History  with that of Geography, a point on which all doubt is excluded by a number of individual affinities,   not to speak of the similarity in geographical terminology. The critical decision as to the authorship of the Geography must settle the question for the History also. 

by presenting this as "controversial" is going back before the standard of scholarship as of the 1910s. Way to go for an encyclopedia project of the 2000s, but after all "anyone can edit" includes those of us with our heads stuck firmly in 19th century nationalist fantasy. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the fifth century dating has been questioned for more than 100 years now. Trying to ignore the mainstream view on the subject and even to suppress it is against the rules. The Geography is now ascribed to Anania Shirakatsi, however back in the 19th - early 20th century it was thought to be written by Moses of Chorene. This translation by Kerope Patkanov from 1877 says that the Geography is believed to be the work of Moses of Chorene: However, Patkanov himself questioned the authorship of the Geography by Moses of Chorene. Haroutunian, who is quoted here as a source in support of 5th century dating of Moses, still insists that Moses is the author of Geography:   Grand  master  05:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Geography from Hewsen:

Grand master  17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Moral revert of Dab and a long reply
Once more mates, I find myself drawn in by these fascinating, though I have to admit seemingly frequent, debates that are taking place on Wikipedia. As I introduced myself on Ibrahim Khalil page, I hope no one will mind an opinion of an uninvolved third party contributor. As a student of the new school of Armenian studies, I think it’s relevant to explain the real issues. What I have learned from my research is that Western Armenology has rendered the need to grasp Armenian language to study Armenian history as optional. That's what the whole debate is centered round. And the motivations of those criticising the conventional school of Armenian studies are really about this. This is why scholars like Thomson (a fellow Brit) are criticised. In his case, he essentially deemed the need to read classical Armenian manuscripts nearly unnecessary. Even if unintentional, the result of his work was to relay those classical authors to secondary positions. There are very few if any schools of other languages which treat, as optional, the grasp and reading of the manuscripts of the language of the authors, of which culture is the one which is being studied.

We must make something patently clear: we are not dealing with Soviet Historiography. During the Soviet times Armenian scholars’s treatment of the subject had more to do with internal matters than Soviet material. In fact, materials published in those years in Armenia are, very admirably, only mildly influenced by the Soviet school in comparison to other fields. The problem is rather the isolation of years of communism of the Eastern and Western schools of Armenian study. This has harmed the field very much, as both sides have made valuable contributions. I had the opportunity last summer to visit Turkey (the Istanbul patriarchate archives), Georgia (Tbilisi) and Armenia and, to my very surprise, relevant research materiel from private and public collections from Armenia are not well known. We should not surprise ourselves of the conflict produced by decades of separation.

I'm presently in California conducting research and those manuscripts kept in Armenia are being missed and it is uncontestable that Armenian (from Armenia, that is) have a level of expertise which is unparalleled in the 'school of Armenian studies' over here. I've been learning classical Armenian for several years, which, as any expert will know, is nothing; and have been learning modern (eastern) Armenian for the last two years. I guess this is more than average when compared to most from the so-called school. In Armenia, modern Armenian is what they are born with and historian of Armenian studies learns classical Armenian even prior to his receiving of his undergraduate degree.

Coming to what is being discussed here: I think the most relevant criticism is probably those directed against Thomson who often has been carelessly easy to jump to conclusions. To explain the problem surrounding his works, his translation and notes regarding the Armenian historian Agathangelos, I think, can sum up pretty much the problem I and others had with several of his works. Thomson both in some of his inaccurate translations and non-inclusion of elements against his position has probably done some damage to the credibility of those scholars by insinuating that anything relevant and accurate described were copies of Greek works.

In the case of Agathangelos, as was at least a century since his work has been attested to have been written in Armenian first, Thomson did everything but to deny that, by making implicit remarks and his insinuations which imply Greek influence to impossible extremes. This renders his claim as if the original was indeed Greek. His exclusion of all the relevant other versions is a testimony of that. Winkler (1979) for example mentions the two Georgian versions, the Arabic (which is a more accurate version than the Greek one he uses) and another more accurate Greek version predating the one he uses. Thomson even claims that the Greek manuscript 'Orchid no. 4' follows 'Vita Gregorii', which of course is inaccurate. He also totally ignores Esteves Pereira’s edited Ethiopian version 'Bulletim da Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa', 19 (1901). Van Esbroeck even discovered a Syriac version of the manuscript, which there is no mention of in his bibliography.

Where Thomson fails even more, is his exclusion of what he should have known, of manuscripts predating the edition of 1909 he has used. Lang (1978) for instance reports his failure to use such materials. More worth mentioning is the Agathangelos palimpsest belonging to the Mekhitarist Fathers in Vienna predating the version he used for three centuries. There was indeed no reason for Thomson to not have used them as on the bases of lack of access, the palimpsest was published in 1911 and even an edition published in 1976 existed. Nothing is said also about Paris codex No. 112 of the Bibliothèque National, dating to the thirteenth century. Thomson also provides notes of historical nature even for elementary facts for those his work is destined to; for instance that Iberians were the ancient Georgians. I don't know of any well versed historian writing such a specialised work, who would provide such notes for such elementary information the reader should know obviously about.

Comming to his translation, Lang (1978) touches on this by providing some mistranslations (Thomson even realises it does not make sense, but blames the Armenian text, claiming it to be corrupted), when the real reason behind his mistranslations lies in his ignorance of historical context, other relevant texts, expressions and of his erroneous belief that everything is fundamentally Greek influenced, as so his mistaken belief of some words being etymologically Greek. Winkler (1979) in his review does make few corrections, by relating the ignored Syriac influence, which of course changes the meaning of quite a few words and also to the often ignored Iranian influence, which Thomson even finds problematic by his own admission but does not give due weight regardless. Garsoian (1979) does see the problem, when she writes: 'Such an undertaking might have better illuminated the complex fifth-century Irano-Greek world in which the surviving Armenian Agat'angelos cycle was compiled.' But, unfortunately, she's too light and naive in not really seeing the problem behind such a careless study.

Thus, Thomson has maintained this line, of ignoring context in his translations, and this, decades later, is unjustifiable. Hewitt (1998) provides some mistranslations of Georgian Chronicles with Armenian Adaptations and I was not surprised to find that here too, Thomson has the habit to change versions without informing readers. In that particular case it was Q'aukhchishvili's main text, which Thomson has used variants without indicating this. It's unprofessional to change versions so that it fits what the translator believes to be accurately translatable. This was done often in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, but it is not really considered to be proper conduct anymore, at least without providing a note to that effect and why it was done so.

Thomson’s carelessness is not limited to just a few, but several important works, his translation of 'Elishe: History of Vardan and the Armenian War' is one more such case. In his over fifty pages long introduction he needlessly wastes his time having to remind us over and over again that Elishe was not an eyewitness of the events described. As Lang (1983) puts it, on top of that he exaggerates and goes to extreme lengths to deprive Elishe of any originality of style or subject matter, and from Lang's words: 'to detect everywhere self-conscious citations of the Holy Scriptues or the Apocrypha.' But to add insult to injury, here too, he mistranslates on a couple of occasions. I can go on, but would prefer not to.

In the case of Khorenatsi, delving into it is much more complex, because of the historical context which is quite complex. But to say the least, Thomson never adequately answered one important question which relate to Khorenatsi self representation in his own work. Those who write such texts in their given period do so without knowledge of the place their work will have in history. Khorenatsi in great lengths describes himself in his own work, and the incidences which he claims having been implicated in. If he was an author of much a later year, it's then a role playing work, the purpose of the role playing being unknown given the reasons he provides for which he wrote 'The History'. It could only make sense for us over a millennium later, why he did it, knowing about the current implications. But we know now of a couple of other attempts in writing an Armenian History, including predating his. So his ulterior motives in engaging in this sort of game, if he really did so, remains unknown to me and am sure to many others in the field. And Thomson never really came up with any answers about this central point. His thesis became even more unconvincing when one considers the other works which were attributed to him. Thomson also ignores that from the fifth to the seventh (and even eight and beginning of ninth) centuries several events have been repeating themselves and some of the arguments he provides could have been answered by this alone. More so, is that it is a common practice to retouch works and update, censure and even repair them. My review above of Agathangelos’s work is one major example of this, with the more original versions being different than the newer ones. There are different Armenian versions, at least two different Greek versions, so even for the same languages. Besides, even Thomson engaged himself with such a review by grammatically 'correcting' the Armenian version he provides.

Of course some of the arguments provided, attesting to the fact that he wrote his work later, are strong, but the credit given to Thomson is exaggerated. Lang (1979) is used in this article, but his review of the work is not given enough weight since he provide the main arguments in regard to Khorenatsi for which Thomson was strongly criticised. Six out of nine of the paragraphs of Lang (1979) are critical of Thomson's work. I agree with the former when he writes: 'T'homson finds little to admire in the work of Moses Khorenats'i,...' Those relevant points and Thomson dismissal’s of Khorenatsi does deserve a place in the article since this dismissal influenced several other scholars until the 1990's, when scholars finally realised Khorenatsi's important place in Armenian history, regardless of when he was born.

One must also take into consideration that sources predating the 1920s are unacceptable on the grounds because they rejected Movses' reliability as a historical source. When archaeological studies were later conducted, much of Movses' information was validated, such as Artaxias I's border markers. This information was not available to A. Carrière, Geltzer, Khalatiants, Gutschmidt, etc. (the so-called hyper-critics). Furthermore, the reason this criticism was raised was because it was a product of its time: as the nascent study of history was formulated in the 19th century and 20th century, many scholars began to cast doubt upon ancient historians, such as the venerable ‘father of history’, Herodotus, and Thucydides. Toumanoff, for a reason I ignore, have not paid as much attention to this important element when using Carrière. Mr. Dab provides Britannica, (but I assume the author is Suny) which lists no author and Mr. David M. Lang contradicts himself when he says that Movses did not let on more info because that would expose his story; if so, then how is it that he inserted anachronisms which clearly would have exposed him in the first place? If we're going to give such due weight to Britannica, we might just as well give the same weight to it in writing the Armenian genocide entry regardless of the fact that Britannica contradicts all other major encyclopedias there. In the case of Khorenatsi, there remains discrepancies between works, the last time I have checked the 'Reader's encyclopedia of Eastern European literature', it was still claiming Movses’ birth and death dates from 390-450.

These are only the glimpse of the issues, but there are far more problems in the 'school of Armenian studies'. For example, when Suny (a political scientist originally, not a historian) covers every possible era (particular periods could be understandable, even a political scientist could specialise in a particular period in history). Suny is in fact everywhere, for example criticising Dadrian’s (the indefatigable genocide scholar) thesis of a socially drawn effect of the series of excused crime. Suny is also there writing about Georgia and Azerbaijan, with a switched expertise. Suny even present himself as if being knowledgeable of classical Armenian. I think you can get the picture. When scholars of a particular school specialises in 'everything' this begs the question, on whatever the school has enough material to work on, so that one scholar is assigned a particular era, subject or whatever. In Armenia, that's what I saw and I think the 'school' would benefit in forming its expertise in specific fields. Because the way things work in this field, some scholars are given too much power. Suny, for instance, writes most of the materials in Britannica and Encarta regardless of the periods, and this I believe is a major problem, especially when using it as a source.

I can't fail to realise the timing of this conflict here. It corresponds with those students who have voiced their opinion and even recorded an offending message; I even had a colleague emailing me the link of a disturbing and slanderous YouTube video. Anyway, I'm sorry my reply has ended up becoming this long but I hope my points will be taken into consideration during the discussions.

Addenda: The allusion to the moral revert in my title was in support of Mr. MarshallBagramyan. The language and adjectives used by Dab is, to say the the very least, disturbing and contains hints of racism. Undoing nearly the totality of someone's work without prior engagement in more minor changes followed by discussions is inexcusable knowing the heated discussion this article has generated. The only reason I did not revert is because the interaction between users has rapidly turned it into a battlefield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diamond Apex (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Our objective here is not to find the truth, or establish who is right or who is wrong in a scholarly debate. Our goal is to present all the existing scholarly views according to their weight. I think the edits by Dbachmann did not remove any important information, and actually helped to improve the article, because they introduced the mainstream view into the article. I think it is quite obvious that most serious scholars outside of Armenia date Moses of Chorene later than the 5th century. In the original version of the article the mainstream view was not presented at all, and the position of Thomson was presented as wrong, etc. According to the rules, wiki articles must not assume any position, they must present all the notable positions accurately according to their weight. This is what we should do. Everyone is entitled to have his opinion about who's right and who's wrong in the debate about dating of Movses, but the article should not contain any personal opinions, it should reflect only published opinions of notable scholars. Grand  master  08:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to Thomson. He goes a bit too far in his criticism, and Lang notes that.


 * But despite Lang's rejection of some of Thomson's criticism, he agrees with the general opinion that Moses is not a 5th century author, and states that


 * So despite some over the top statements, overall the opinion of Thomson reflects the general consensus in the international scholarly community about the dating of Moses of Chorene. Grand  master  10:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no "general consensus", I can give two refs for that. Sardur (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which refs are they? Even if not general consensus, the prevailing opinion in the international scholarly community is that Movses lived later than the 5th century. Also, note the words of David Lang quoted above: Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia continue to defend the old fifth century dating... Grand  master  12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The world hasn't stopped with Lang you know. Both Mahé and Mutafian (or Toptchyan) wrote that there's no consensus on the dating; Mutafian / Toptchyan is particularly interesting as he presents every position without taking side. Sardur (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But Lang is a lot more authoritative than Claude Mutafian, Topchyan or Mahe. -- Grand master  13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so according to Dbachmann, apparently Lang is an Armenian nationalist promoting national mysticism: .--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see him saying anything about Lang. Grand  master  17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lang is the author of Armenia: Cradle of Civilization. Here's the paragraph added by Dab in the diff above: The phrase "cradle of civilization" plays a certain role in national mysticism, and has been employed, for example, in Hindu nationalism (In Search of the Cradle of Civilization 1995), Armenian nationalism (Armenia: Cradle of Civilization 1970), but also in esoteric pseudohistory such as the Urantia Book claiming the title for "the second Eden". --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dieter's comments were offensive. I thought he was reprimanded for his rudeness and that was why he seemed to have stopped editing Armenian-related articles, but he has since resurfaced and remains as mean-spirited as ever. Well this Armeniapedian cannot assume good faith or collaborate with the short-tempered Schweizer. Sorry. TA-ME (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you know Mahé? Or have you read some strong criticism about him? Sardur (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Mahe, but he represents a minority view on the subject. Most Western sources reject 5th century dating. Grand  master  04:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny: who said he supports the 5th century dating? He actually doesn't take side either in his translation. Sardur (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what's the problem? You say that Lang's claim that "Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia continue to defend the old fifth century dating" is not true. Then who are those experts outside of Armenia, who support the fifth century dating? When Mahe says that there's no consensus, he probably means that there's no consensus between Armenian and Western scholars. The former, according to Lang, are motivated by "patriotic zeal". Grand  master  06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On top of what I posted below: Lang doesn't say "motivated by patriotic zeal" but "upheld with patriotic zeal". That's of course completely different. Sardur (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but please know it’s not necessary to quote me their reviews (as from my answer above, I have already read those and am informed of their opinions but just to make a correction, six out of nine paragraphs go far beyond being a bit judgmental). Coming to the aforementioned consensus, as Mr. Sardur stated, there is no such general opinion as you (and quite rudely, Mr. Dbachmann) contend. Take the example of Anania of Shirak. There are many real problems with the attribution of 'Geography' to Anania, and even those who adhere to this position know about it. Hewsen himself admits to holding this position. But Greppin (1995), for instance, brings one of the strongest arguments against it, which is the persistent theme that 'Geography' was written before the catastrophic arrival of the Moslem Arabs.

Hewsen does provide some possible explanations, which Greppin does not find wholly satisfying. In the West, more precise studies of the concepts, conceptions and beliefs of the writers were never really conducted. You provided the link to the Haroutunian text (which I highly recommend you read), particularly the section dealing with Anania’s beliefs on the shape of Earth, its size, and so on and so forth, and those contradicting with the views in 'Geography.' Thus, you see, the matter is far from being resolved. In 1970, Lang (1970) pointed to the fact that many scholars adhered to the position that 'Geography' was neither written by Anania nor Khorenatsi –the debate is still ongoing. At hand are many problems, and there are similar elements found in both Geography and Khorenatsi.

Some scholars, realising this, have advanced that Khorenatsi might have been inspired by Geography, so Khorenatsi was a later scholar. But the new trend seems to be different; Smith (2006) for instance does echo what seems to be a recent tendency: he place Khorenatsi to the fifth century and advances Anania as being the author of Geography but having been inspired by Khorenatsi. Smith is well aware of Thomson’s criticism, for he uses Thomsons annotated translation and notes in his references. In fact, in a previous paper (2004) he actually placed Khorenatsi in the eight century using the very same Thomson.

This is unremarkable, though, since there have been dozens of publications since Thomson which have clarified several serious misconceptions. We can just bring out the one example of Julius Africanus's Chronicle in Khorenatsi's work, one of Thomson’s fighting horses in the text: we understand now with the help of brilliant scholars like Topchyan (2005, 2006) that the Chronicle controversy resulted most probably from a misconception due to misunderstanding of some classical Armenian expressions. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have learned that whenever my comments are discussed in terms of being "offensive" they are straight to the point. If there was something wrong factually with what I said, people would not need to try and find something to denounce in my tone or my vocabulary or my callous disrespect for the sacred feelings of patriotism cherished in the heart of every upright Armenian. See WP:SPADE. It is not offensive to call nationalist fringecruft for what it is. I am delighted to discuss nationalist fringecruft, but this will need to take place in articles about nationalism. I have already suggested we add a section discussing the role of Moses in Armenian nationalism. In such a discussion, Armenian nationalist publications are the primary sources, and our quotable secondary sources will be studies of nationalism, such as the Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations one provided by Grandmaster. This is exactly the kind of references we are looking for. If Eupator can cite another scholar criticizing the conclusions of Suny I would be delighted to see them. Producing such would at least be more productive than whining about the offensiveness detected by some Wikipedians in the tone of voice used by Dbachmann when he pointed out that Wikipedia isn't a patriotic project.

Since The Diamond Apex seems to know his way around this topic, let me repeat that I have absolutely no opinion on the matter, and that if he can produce an academic source stating that while the question was regarded as settled in 1970, it has been re-opened for serious consideration since, let him present it and I will be ever so glad to defend its inclusion. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Textbook red herring. How quick the mighty fall, and all it took was a small dose of his own medicine. It's all good though, all of this remains on record and will surely come in handy.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This may also come as a surprise: you calling the Armenian editors here 'patriots' is condescending in every sense of the word. I'm actually amazed that they have restrained themselves after all this time.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is from a source that came out this year:


 * Grand master  16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. Who does he use as his source?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check the source, I provided the link to google books. The authors provided their references. Grand  master  04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...Well that was a rhetorical question...sorry, what I meant was that they might as well have given the pen to Toumanoff or Thomson and let them write his entry.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Topchyan

 * Aram Tʻopʻchʻyan, The problem of the Greek sources of Movsēs Xorenacʻi's History of Armenia von Peeters Publishers, 2006 ISBN 9789042916623

I see this reference has cropped up in the literature section, without the article making use of it. According to the introduction:
 * The author of the present study has re-examined in detail the references to Berossus (third century BC), Alexander Polyhistor (first century BC), Cephalion (first - second centuries AD), Abydenus (first or second century AD), Julius Africanus (second - third centuries AD), and Bishop Firmilian (third century AD). From his study he has drawn conclusions that call for a modification of earlier over-simplified opinions. From his study he has drawn conclusions that call for a modification of earlier over-simplified opinions.

According to The Diamond Apex:
 * --we understand now with the help of brilliant scholars like Topchyan (2005, 2006) that the Chronicle controversy resulted most probably from a misconception due to misunderstanding of some classical Armenian expressions. ''

what exactly does this mean? There is no indication either in the blurb nor in The Diamond Apex' statement that this in any way implies the re-opening of this "controversy". If I am mistaken, and Topchyan does in fact claim the thing dates to the 5th century, correct me. If he doesn't, please avoid waving around references that do not actually support the claim made. I will be happy to have our attention turn from this silly "controversy" to actual philology of the work under discussion. Topchyan would seem to be an excellent reference for that. Let's hear to which "over-simplified opinions" he is adding complexity. So far, this article doesn't even list the Greek sources of the History, let alone "over-simplified opinions" associated with them. If anyone is interested in building this article as opposed to coatracking about Armenian patriotism, it may be an excellent idea to summarize Topchyan's conclusions about the sources available to Movses.

The "controversy" alluded to by Topchyan consists of "varied and often diametrically opposed views; scholars ended up with either an outright denial of the historiographic value of Movses' book or unreserved acceptance of everything he says" While we have met the latter position, especially on this talkpage, the article as it stands is completely unaware of any "outright denial of the historiographic value of Movses' book". I would be interested in references to that position. Obviously this isn't the dating "controversy", since saying that Movses wrote 250 years later than he claimed he did doesn't amount to "outright denial of historiographic value". I would be interested in who was supposed to take the position so summarized by Topchyan, as in every account of the work I have seen, it is characterized as of the utmost importance to early Armenian history. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dab, I have some difficulty following you. What claims were made? I don't know if you are realising this, but you are backtracking. This was your addition: 'he is mostly dated to between the 7th and 9th centuries by historians.' You also wrote previously: 'in light of the statement in Britannica that "Nothing is known of his life apart from alleged autobiographical details contained in this work', but it does not seem that you make of any use of the following from the same article: ''raditionally believed to have lived in the 5th century, Moses has also been dated as late as the 9th century.' Your removal of his birth and death dates are unjustified. Birth and death dates are not required to be agreed by all, they just have to follow tradition for historic or claimed historic figures. From the same token we can do the same for all those religious figures, or figures such as Socrates, Thuycidedes and Herodotus.


 * The 'latter position' is not accepted by most Armenian historians, actually. The studies done by Armenian scholars in recent decades, while accepting the fifth century dating persuasive, have found and noted many problems in the historical text of the work. But no, you are wrong here: German, French and Armenian orientalists rejected Khorenatsi's value as a historical source. In fact, I remember one notable orientalist (his name eludes me) commenting that the work had absolutely no value at all! Furthermore, it is unjustified from your part to ask clarifications only now with my answer when previously another user brought up the same author. Why only now? I can send you the paper, it's not accessible through JSTOR, so probably you don't have access to it. His words as the author are most probably more relevant than mine.


 * Just to summarise: the article is currently in a sad shape. The tragic language on 'nationalism' and the castigation of Soviet/Armenia Armenian historians reminds of the Soviet era rambling against the imperialists and capitalists. Why is there such a vested interest by you Mr. Dbachmann to consign of all them into the wastebin? If seventy years of sincere scholarship can be dismissed outright in such a fashion, I shudder to think how the rest of the articles on this encyclopedia are worded. Both on the scholars, and the editors here, both your tone and from the content of your own message are highly disturbing. What is more troubling is that you find nothing wrong in it.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism of the Armenian revisionist school (along with those of other Transcaucasian countries) is well known. In addition to Suny, you can read about that in publications by the Russian historian Shnirelman and Western archaeologist Philip L. Kohl  This does not mean that the Soviet Armenian historiography should be completely discarded, but it should be used with certain care. I find it interesting that the 5th century dating has no prominent supporters outside of Armenia. If arguments of historians in Armenia are so convincing, how come that experts outside of Armenia are not impressed? Also, I think the editors should stick to WP:NPA, which holds: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please keep it to the topic, discussing other people's motives and personalities will not help improve this article. I think Dbachmann is right, if someone is not happy with the present state of the article, he can improve it by adding the arguments of the proponents of the 5th century dating. It should not be that difficult, and once it's done, all the existing points of view will be properly reflected. The original version of this article was no good, it claimed 5th century dating as a fact, which we know it is not.  Grand  master  05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're oversimplifying: first, authors outside of Armenia supporting the "5th century dating" (this is already an oversimplification in itself: 5th century dating of what? the author? the text?) have already been mentioned: The Diamond Apex mentioned Smith, and I mentioned Hacikyan (if I'm not mistaken, he's "outside of Armenia"). And on top of that, there are authors that present "both" (there are of course more than two) views: I mentioned some of them, and some you mentioned yourself.
 * All this is making the article quite poor from the historiographical point of view. And we still didn't really talk about the philological one. This last point is btw (and in my opinion but who cares) one of the main explanations of the dating issue (of the text of course). Sardur (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about Moses, we are discussing the dating of the author. So far I'm the only one quoting sources here. It would be nice if you or anyone else quoted Smith, and other sources you refer to, so that we could form an opinion about the source and what it actually says. Grand  master  11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since someone had the wonderful idea to merge both articles, both datings have to be discussed.
 * As for sources, I will as soon as my computer at home will get repaired. Sardur (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So far what I see are numerous precise quotations given by Grandmaster, which are all clear, explicit and verifiable. What I read from The Diamond Apex is an awful lot of assertion with almost no clear verifiable content. So "Smith" supports a 5th century date. Well that's all we are told. Who is Smith? What is the title of the publication, what are Smith's actual words? As for the brilliant Topchyan, well I've actually taken the trouble to look at this short and rather evasive book. At no point can I identify any clear statement about dating in it. Mr Apex writes "I remember one notable orientalist (his name eludes me) commenting that the work had absolutely no value at all!" I suspect he is repeating what Topchyan says on p.5 about Alfred von Gutschmid. In fact Topchyan says that von Gutschmid reduces the value of Moses' "references and citations" to "almost nothing", which is quite different from saying "the work had absolutely no value at all". In other words we have nothing here that is clear or verifiable. Please provide it and we can progress. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally ^^
 * Topchyan (145 pages) short? I suggest you read footnote 2 on page 3.
 * Hacikyan: http://books.google.ch/books?id=uvA-oV0alP8C&pg=PA305&dq=hacikyan+khorenatsi&hl=fr#PPA307,M1
 * Mutafian: "Le problème de la date de Moïse et de sa fiabilité comme source historique est donc encore ouvert."
 * Mahé would be too long to quote (around 80 pages of analysis).
 * And as for Smith, that's a bad faith remark, as it is easy to find who he is on the net.
 * Sardur (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark is in entirely good faith. What is mysterious is why you will not answer the simple question. And yes, 145 pages is a short book. I note that you fail to quote Smith or identify him. If it's so easy, why not do it? You also fail to quote Topchyan, but link to a book which seems to have nothing to do with him. Why is it so difficult for you to be straightforward? Paul B (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Topchyan: did you miss the link on top of the section? http://books.google.ch/books?id=QRPxTNpJJfIC (or better: http://books.google.ch/books?id=QRPxTNpJJfIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0 ). And for a book linking Moses to 4 Greek historians (when most of what we have are articles or sections of books), that's definitely not short.


 * I did not miss the link. There is no footnote 2 on p.3. It's on p..2 and even then all that he says is that Moses was "presumably" writing in the 80s of the "same century". Why on earth would a writer express their main thesis in an obscure footnote, and so evasively? As I said, there is no clear assertion in this evasive book - even in the note. Paul B (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Smith: I let that to the Diamond Apex, as I didn't know about his writing before. Sardur (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, the most prominent supporters of the 5th century dating are the authors of the following book:

Agop Jack Hacikyan, Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, Nourhan Ouzounian. The heritage of Armenian literature. Vol.1: From the oral tradition to the golden age. Wayne State University Press, 2005. ISBN 0814328156, 9780814328156

But it should also be noted that they say in the preface:

Their vision of the issue can be found here:, pp 305 - 306. They say that "Today much of this criticism has been rejected", but also that "However, the Khorenatsi controversy is by no means over". I personally don't see that the criticism has been rejected, since most leading experts date Movses to 8 - 9th century. The opinion of the authors of this book appears to be a minority view. Grand master  05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Topchyan. His assertions are being criticized by other scholars. In particular, Topchyan's attempts at ascribing some of the material in Khorenatsi to the 3rd century historian Sextus Julius Africanus are rejected, see:

Also, same book, page 261:

This is the source that criticizes Topchyan, and which the authors of the aforementioned book agree with:

Terian, Abraham, Xorenac'i and Eastern Historiography of the Hellenistic Period, REArm 28, 2001/02, 101-141.

I have no access to it.

Grand master  06:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, from the above quote it seems that Mahe finds the 7th/8th century dating to be the most plausible, but since no quotes from Mahe have been provided, it is hard to make any conclusion with regard to what Mahe actually says. Grand master  06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also of interest is that another prominent expert in Armenian studies, Charles Dowsett, criticized an author, who stated the 5th century dating of Movses as a fact:

Grand master  06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Grandmaster (to Grandmaster 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

If that’s supposed to be taken as an indication of incompetence or lack of credibility, it’s unconvincing. Grandmaster, I assume you believe that what I have been writing is inaccurate, as if I have motive to do so. I have provided you Smith, and in my characteristically long reply you will see an encyclopedia being used which is more specific than Britannica. Listed below is a bibliography detailing more than the number of recent publications you have provided placing Khorenatsi in the fifth century (published in the 1990s and 2000s) The publishers are not provided; however, I have compiled this short list to show you that you are misleading the rest of these editors when you claim a consensus exists in Western academia.

p.145
 * When worlds collide: the Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-Europeans, Thomas L. Markey, John A. C. Greppin, Bellagio Study and Conference Center - 1990 p. 207
 * The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achaemenian periods, William Bayne Fisher - 1991 p.101
 * Introduction to cataloging and classification, Bohdan S. Wynar, Arlene G. Taylor - 1992‎ - p. 233
 * Encyclopedia of traditional epics‎, Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer, Guida M. Jackson - 1994 p. 29
 * The Dictionary of Art‎, Jane Turner (editor) - 1996 p. 154
 * The southern Caucasus in prehistory: stages of cultural and socioeconomic ...‎ Karinė Khristoforovna Kushnareva - 1997 p.190
 * Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian chronography, Richard W. Burgess, Witold Witakowski - 1999‎, p.199
 * Archaeology in the borderlands: investigations in Caucasia and beyond‎, Adam T. Smith, Karen Sydney Rubinson, 2003, p.144
 * Anatolian Iron Ages 5: proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages ...‎, Altan Çilingiroğlu, Gareth Darbyshire, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara - 2005 -
 * Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights‎, Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev - 2005 - p. 247

Do you believe that we can now discard sources such as the Cambridge History of Iran with the drop of a hat? As I have already indicated, those who are the strongest adherents of the position against the fifth century, admit, too, that this subject is far from being settled. In Robert W. Thomson’s latest work (1999) he himself admits that even though he claims that he presents the best explanation is to place Khorenatsi in the eight century, The dating of Khorenats'i remains highly disputed,... (Emphasis added). Hewsen too, in his Armenia: A historical atlas (2001) remark he's unsure, check p. 7, dates uncertain.

I don't see the relevancy of either of the links you have provided us with. How can their expertise be compared to scholars such as Aram Topchyan, who completed his fellowship at Hebrew University and specialises in Khorenatsi’s studies. If you read my long reply you would have seen that one of my main points was that in Armenia they form experts and scholars in specific fields. In the West, they form scholars on Plato or other Greek scholars, but there are no such specialists in the field of Armenian studies. This specialisation is specific to Armenia and only after the fall of the Soviet Union has this concept been transplanted to the West.

I can also only caution you to be careful, at least here, because I’ve noticed that you have had the tendency to select works in such a way that the reader, and to an extent some of the editors, might think that there is such a consensus and that this issue can be likened to a struggle between Armenia(n) and the West, a dangerous notion which has allowed these heated discussions to reach xenophobic proportions.

Don't forget that my only claim over here was that there was no such consensus and I have just to find several notable works to show you this. On the other hand you and Mr. Dbachmann, since you both claim that there is such a consensus in the West, should be advised to check works referring to Khorenatsi and then reach that conclusion. You have done some research (as shown from the references you came up with), but it’s rather peculiar that you did not find it worth mentioning a considerable number if relevant works have placed Khorenatsi in the fifth century. You must realise that we are dealing with a source from over a millennium ago, and the level of evidence required from Khorenatsi is not the same, as many scholars take into account the limited access to material.

I see, for example, that you questioned that the original text of Agathangelos writing of ‘History of Armeni’a in Armenian prior to the writing of the Greek version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agathangelos&action=history) Why are you questioning a statement that was, at least to my knowledge, never in dispute? David M. Lang (1970) writes that agreement on his identity and writings have existed for at least a century, and neither Thomson nor any scholars have questioned this. Why should any material be provided when every single published work from the 19th, 20th, 21th centuries claim him to be an Armenian? It's pushing the argument a tad bit too far; you might as well attach citation tags on articles which claim that the sky is blue or say that the Pope is Catholic.

As for your accusation of me making a personal attack, I can only sum up what has been going on here in a few words: whereas I have written here two thousand or so words directly concerning the material being used in article, Dbachmann has gone to extraordinary lengths to generalise the beliefs and attitudes of users. I will simply pretend that I never read your comments.

Answer to Paul (to Paul B (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Paul, I provided those names in the sense that anyone who is familiar with the topic will have little difficulty recognizing them. Those who know who Suny and others (which I assumed since Grandmaster quoted them) should know that it's about Adam T. Smith, a professor from the department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago who specialises in ancient Armenian history. I don't know of any other Smith having published anything that year about such topics. You can access his website here: http://home.uchicago.edu/~atsmith/ The paper in question is: 'Prometheus Unbound: Southern Caucasia in Prehistory' – it was published in the Journal of World Prehistory, Volume 19, Number 4, December 2005, pp. 229-279. The relevant quote is: 'In the fifth century A.D., the historian Moses Khorenats’i lent his narrative of Armenian national formation a sense of place by weaving myth and history into the major ruins that dot the landscape of the Armenian Highland (see Thomson [1978] for a discussion of the considerable controversy that surrounds the dating of Khorenats’i’s text).' p. 234. It will be my pleasure to send you the page. You see when I provided those names and the dates, I assumed those readers would recognize them and both Grandmaster and Dab from their edits in the article here have shown they know enough ofthe subject to know who the principle actors are. So when you say, 'is an awful lot of assertion with almost no clear verifiable content' you should take a closer look at the authors and dates mentioned and assume that I read them here. As for your comment in quoting me, no, I was not referring to Topchyan’s comment on page 5, but to a heated debate in the 1990s between some scholars after a lecture (which I was present at). Please forgive me for presenting an esoteric atmosphere when I make these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diamond Apex (talk • contribs) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear The Diamond Apex,


 * In a dispute like this it is not enough to just provide the names and titles, you need to provide quotes from the sources you refer to, since not everyone may have an access to them. This is what I did. I noted that you started editing fairly recently, so may I suggest you check some of the rules, such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There's nothing wrong with requesting a citation for a claim, as I did for Agathangelos, in fact, a good article should provide references in support of the assertions contained in it. I don't assume that what people say here is wrong or write, it is not my business to judge, we just need sources, not personal opinions to include material in the article. WP:AGF is also a good rule to follow, accusing me of tendentiously selecting sources is no good, if you noticed, I quoted top experts in Armenian studies.


 * I actually haven't found any strong proponents of the 5th century dating outside of Armenia, except for Hacikyan et al, and Topchyan, and I did check lots of sources. Of course I could have missed something, but it is up to those who is aware of such sources to provide them. I don't say that the quote from Chronographiae that I provided must prove incompetence or lack of credibility of Topchyan, the quote just demonstrates that Topchyan's opinion is not accepted as the ultimate truth, and is disputed by his colleagues. And for me it is not obvious that Mr. Smith is one of the "major players" in this field, even though he appears to be an authoritative scholar. As for your quote from Smith, while he says that this author is from the 5th century, he also mentions "a discussion of the considerable controversy that surrounds the dating of Khorenats’i’s text". As for Cambridge History of Iran, this is what it says in one of its earlier volumes:


 * I checked one of the sources you quoted, When worlds collide: the Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-Europeans, Thomas L. Markey, John A. C. Greppin, Bellagio Study and Conference Center - 1990 p. 207


 * While it says on p. 207 Khorenatsi and the following, 5th C., one page earlier, p. 206, it refers to Pseude-Khorenatsi, 7th C. Interesting, isn't int?


 * I don't claim as a fact that there's a consensus to date this author to the date later than the 5th century, I just see that from the sources provided so far, and they are for the most part the top experts on the subject, it seems that the mainstream view is that the author lived later than the 5th century. If the opposite can be demonstrated, I will have no problem with accepting that. The problem is that until now the supporters of the opposite view failed to cite any reliable sources. It is good that you started citing sources, but I hope you will support the references with quotes to demonstrate what exactly each source says. I do that, and it should be a problem for anyone else to do the same. Now, I think we can make some modifications to the lead of the article. It says now:


 * Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century, he is mostly dated to between the 7th and 9th centuries by historians.


 * Maybe we can change this to say that:


 * Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century, but this dating is disputed, and many scholars date him to 7th - 9th centuries?


 * Or if anyone wishes to provide alternative wording, please do so, and we can discuss it. Grand  master  10:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links.

True, it is difficult, as a student in Armenian studies, I can attest to that. The reason why we are seeing 7th, 8th, 9th centuries in many sources is, with little exaggeration, largely because of Thomson (and to a lesser extent some Toumanoff, who influenced Hewsen greatly). His work(s) in the past 30 years have not virtually not changed (in terms of their positions), and because he comes from very reputable institutions (Harvard, Oxford) and because his works are the most accessible to Western scholars, they have utilised him to great effect. Armenian scholars during the Soviet era may have published works in Russian but their works remain inaccessible because of a language barrier.

I must stress to you and especially the other sceptical editors that, based on my readings of certain works (I have skimmed through Sarkisian's 'Chronological Structure'), the disparagement of scholars from a certain country (with such colourful wording as 'nationalists') is highly unwarranted. Geography is simply a ruse used by some to sow discord when there really isn't. I've read dozens of book reviews from Armenian journals of Western publication but the language used in them is completely cordial and filled with appreciation and understanding, even for Thomson (Suny's quoted text in the article is thus very dishonest; unfortunately, Mr. Suny, a scholar on the Soviet Union and Georgia, got involved in Armenian studies very late, say around the mid-1980s)

Let's not forget that there many a great detractors of the king of history himself, Herodotus, even today, and yet his article lacks the shrillness present in this one. Anyways, the wording you have suggested is an improvement to what we currently are working with but I will withold my opinion (as well as any of my suggestions) until the very end, just to hear the other contributors' comments. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the position of the Western scholars on dating of Movses has anything to do with Thomson and Toumanoff. This is a source from 1952, i.e. before those 2 published their researches on Movses:


 * As you can see, even in 1950s the majority view was that Movses lived later than the 5th century. And another recent source:


 * With regard to the scholars from Republic of Armenia, have you read the "Declaration of the Chair of Armenian History at the State University of Yerevan about the basic tendencies of American Armenology"? This document has a support of even some academicians in the academy of sciences. This link also contains the description of the conflict between the western historians and their colleagues in Armenia by professor Jos Weitenberg. They say now that the declaration was issued without the knowledge of the chair himself, but this is the same person who helped Aivazian publish his book with attacks on Western scholars. I have the responses of most of them to accusations, and they are for the most part similar to that of Russell. I can post them, if you wish. I'm not saying that all historians in Armenia are not trustworthy, but obviously there's a certain group among them, driven solely by patriotism. It is quite typical for many former USSR countries, where the history is used as a tool in ethnic conflicts to justify claims to lands, etc. So we must distinguish between serious scholars and people like Aivazian. Maybe this article should not touch upon this topic, I don't know. It is up for the editors to decide. But the attacks on Thomson and others were very unprofessional and rude. Grand  master  16:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to Aivazian, when Aivazian was never used as a source in the article. There are plenty of neutral critics of Thomson so there is no need to use a questionable source like Aivazian to criticize Thomson's half assed work. That along with the autobiographical information that was purged needs to be restored, as well as some other dbachmannisms that still need to be fixed.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not his point. The fact that Thomson's 1978 edition was published by Harvard University Press means that it became the most widely circulated edition in English-language publications. He just revived claims which had been known since the late 1800s. Almost all scholars who quote MK use his edition and obviously, most scholars, who are not specialists in that area, cite the introduction in his work to support their conclusion that MK lived later on. The traces of his influence are unmistakeable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I see, the purported autobiographical information is for the most part there. As for Thomson, the article contained no valid criticism of him at all. There was some superficial criticism, but it concerned not the arguments for the later dating proposed by Thomson, but rather his choice of words. You can find such criticism in the works of other scholars too, such as Lang. Indeed, Thomson probably went too far calling Movses an "audacious and mendacious faker", etc, but while criticizing such wording, Lang supports the general arguments of Thomson on late dating. I think this should not be about the criticizing the choice of words by a certain scholar. I think we should include the general arguments in support of the 5th century dating, to represent both points of view. Of course, we should give appropriate weight to both positions. Grand  master  19:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of it is, some of it isn't. The paragraph (Sargsyan) that criticized Thomson said nothing about Thomson's vulgar and unprofessional language. You're confusing it with Lang's criticism of Thomson.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the Sargsyan part removed from this article:




 * As you can see, nothing but very general remarks, without providing any explanation on what exactly is wrong with the arguments proposed by Thomson in support of the late dating. Ok, he accuses Thomson of "hypercriticism", but what exactly has Thomson "hypercriticized"? And Thomson's criticism on Khorenatsi's failure to properly cite his source is better presented in Lang's review. However this has no direct relevance to the topic of the dating, it is just about the choice of words by Thomson. I think we need to present the arguments in suppport of the 5th century dating, to explain why exactly some authors think that the traditional dating is correct. Grand  master  04:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the criticism is quite detailed enough, but i'm sure we can expand it further. Of course if a reader wants more details they can always locate the full text. It's very relevant, because it criticizes the content and not Thomson's poor choice of words. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see.


 * Gagik Sargsyan, a leading scholar and biographer of Movses, as well as other scholars admonished Thomson for anachronistic "hypercriticism" and for stubbornly rehashing and "even exaggerating the statements once put forward" by the late 19th and early 20th century scholars, and in particular, those of Grigor Khalatyants (1858-1912).


 * Ok, which exactly statements by Khalatyants did Thomson stubbornly rehash, and what's wrong with repeating such statements, if they never were proven wrong? This needs explanation.


 * ''Sargsyan noted that Thomson, in condemning Movses' failure to mention his sources, ignored the fact that "an antique or medieval author may have had his own rules of mentioning the sources distinct from the rules of modern scientific ethics."

''
 * This is a general criticism, which can be found in Lang as well. It is just about the choice of words, and does not disprove any of Thomson's arguments in support of the later dating.


 * ''Thomson's allegation of Movses' supposed falsification of sources was also countered by Sargsyan, who contended that Thomson was "treating a medieval author with the standards of modern scientific ethics" and that numerous classical Greek historians engaged in the same practice.

''
 * Basically, this is about the same issue with the failure of Khorenatsi to properly mention his sources. Just a repetition of the above argument, which again does not disprove later dating. I think we need a more specific criticism, which explained why exactly Thomson (and all other scholars who agree with him) is wrong in asserting that Movses lived later than the 5th century. Plus, you can see that in his recent works Thomson is more accurate with his choice of words. Here's another article written by Thomson on the same subject: The last paragraph is of particular interest, it lists other works attributed to Movses, I think we can include that info into the article.  Grand  master  05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster again hammering a user with all those policies as he does best. It's obvious that the requesting of fact on Agathangelos article was a bad faithed move. Grandmaster is cherry picking here with all the quotations he finds on Google Books about Khorenatsi when just a Google Book search about Agathangelos would have indicated that all the works having been published in over a century claims him to be an Armenian for the very reason that the original texts were in Armenian. I guess Grandmaster was lazy here too before throwing a fact check for information that was not ever doubted. The Diamond Apex wrote in his long reply: ''I can't fail to realise the timing of this conflict here. It corresponds with those students who have voiced their opinion and even recorded an offending message; I even had a colleague emailing me the link of a disturbing and slanderous YouTube video.'' Of course there is a timing, it was after all Grandmaster who started the conflict with his edits coinciding with the off-wiki conflict. See here another recent and documented off-wiki conflict being brought on Wikipedia. The adding of that fact check is very much similar to all those edit wars engaged in the past by Adil Baguirov questioning the Armenianess of Armenian historic figures.

Check also how he is maintaining the debate with The Diamond Apex, The Diamond Apex claims there is no such consensus, he even quotes from Thomson's recent work by he is as usual drawn in a circular discussion by Grandmaster. Grandmaster even refers to Shnirelman, who is only a credible source when he criticizes Armenian nationalism, where he is much harsher in criticizing the Azeri one. See here Shnirelman exposing the position which Grandmaster and other users have been pushing on Wikipedia, compare for example what Shnirelman says about the Church_of_Caucasian_Albania created by Parishan,using mostly a single source which Shnirelman questions strongly, and all the rest of secondary sources using that same source. Grandmaster find that nationalist driven created article like a good article. Where is Dab when we really need him..., he is gladly invited on the Church_of_Caucasian_Albania article and other such nationalistic creations.

To The Diamond Apex, if you are going to discuss with Paul and Dab do so, but as you have seen by now, a discussion with Grandmaster will only end up in who can quote most game without much substance. You have shown that there is no such consensus, which was the most important element in your replies, mission accomplished, I advise you to cut it there. - Fedayee (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is time for you to stop proxying for the banned User:Fadix. And following me to every page and whining about how bad I am. If you have something to say on the topic, please do so, otherwise I'm going to ignore you. You wasted so much space and said absolutely nothing on the topic of discussion. Grand  master  04:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? That's one hell of an unambiguous attack if baseless.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I do. I never say the things I cannot back up with evidence. But I'm not going to discuss it here. Let's keep this page strict on the topic. -- Grand master  05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For your information, I did not proxy for Fadix, half of the material is from an editor from Russian Wikipedia who is not active over here who I'm sure you know. But thanks again for your accusations. If you search well enough, you'll find our dear Fadix has turned his attention to another wiki (I'll leave you to guess). I can turn the accusation back on you, for example your requesting of fact was 100% Adilish...


 * Speaking of posts without content, I think it was relevant to know that you have turned the discussion into a circular one. You first claimed it was Armenian vs international scholars... this means that an editor has wasted his energy documenting that that was not the case, providing like 10 works. Then you came up with your usual rhetoric of nationalist historians which had no relevancy here as the user has provided not a single such scholar, and you kept bringing one scholar which was explained to you time and time again that that had nothing to do with the article nor its talkpage. Are you not turning this into a circular discussion? You even started proposing what Eupator, Marshal and now The Diamond Apex have proposed in the essence of their replies and turned it as if it was a debate. Now prove me wrong that adding that fact request was not done in bad faith and find the source yourself by simply checking on Google Books and adding it yourself. - Fedayee (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are proxying not for Fadix, but for some user from the Russian wiki? Thanks for sharing with us this very useful information. As I said before, I'm not gonna respond to any off topic posts. If you are not happy with my behavior, you can take it to one of the appropriate venues. Ask the admins at WP:ANI, if requesting a source for a claim in the article is disruptive or not, and see what they tell you. Grand  master  16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're glad, I'd rather have the suspense continue :-) I still would like an adequate answer for that requesting of fact. - Fedayee (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It’s heartening to find that the conversation has still not dried up after the discussionless and senseless revert wars of last week. I have tried to incorporate as much of the arguments presented by modern scholars but have removed the preposterous red herring section on the reception of Thomson’s edition. I trimmed some terms in the bio which ad nauseum remind the reader that Movses' bio details stem solely from his bok – a clearly mistaken assertion because other Armenian historians like Kirakos Gandzaketsi, Stepanos Orbelian and Samuel of Ani add bits and pieces. Like The Diamond Apex noted above, the two cited works, LTP and P. Hovhannisyan note numerous times in the beginnings of the reviews their appreciation for Thomson’s undertaking but discuss and critique the viewpoints found in his introduction and the rest of the text. Contrary to RGS, the language and critiques were cordial in nature and it’s sad and dishonest that some are trying to substitute Ayvazyan’s wording for theirs.

I think the lead still requires some refining and the overall body of the article is welcome to suggestions, so long as last’s week usual brouhaha and overzealous and foaming-at-the-mouth edits are left out of it and everything is done in a civilized (need I even mention the exclusion of insults and condescending language?) manner.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So that the usual edit warriors don't start a revert war again, I think the intro should include a sentence about the dating question. Something akin to: "Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century, he has also been dated between the 7th and 9th centuries by historians."--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditionally gives off the sense that it was done before the advent of modern scholarship. Perhaps another word can be substituted for it so we can just noted that scholars are divided on the issue.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, as result of the latest edits all the info about the 5th century dating not being taken seriuosly by most scholars is gone, 5th century is again claimed as a fact, etc. So what was the point of all this discussion, if you just returned the article to its previous state?-- Grand master  05:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I rolled back edits by Marshall. You cannot present the 5th century dating as a fact, when it is disputed by most authoritative historians. You should present the positions according to their weight, the majority view is that he lived later than the 5th century, and the minority view is that he lived in the 5th. Please take this into account when editing the article. -- Grand master  05:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you think the dating is not justified, there is not a need to remove also other parts of information and change the name. And then, just look how much reliable sources place him at 5th century and explain what's wrong with the weight. How many scholars really oppose these views? Are there reliable encyclopedias among them? Gazifikator (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Did you actually read all the sources I cited at talk, including Britannica? Almost all the leading experts in Armenian studies outside of Armenia support the late dating. Before starting an edit war, please take the time to read the talk. Grand  master  07:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Britannica just says, that traditionally believed to have lived in the 5th century, Moses has also been dated as late as the 9th century. It is something I agree with and current version includes it. The majority of reliable encyclopedias KrugosvetSovet Great Encyclopedia and scholars of Armenian studies confirm 5th century. Among them International Committee of Historical Sciences, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Reader's encyclopedia of Eastern European literature, acad. Boris Piotrovski, Gerhard Doerfer, Jacob Salmon Raisin, Karine Kushnareva, many others. Gazifikator (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * GSE is not a reliable source in this issue. And the the link to google books is pointless. Please provide a quote for every source that you claim supports your position. -- Grand master  09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * , . Do you need more?Gazifikator (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Krugosvet, it is not a reliable source either. You can find very strange claims there, such as:


 * Армянское письменное слово начинается с клинописных надписей (начало 1 тыс. до н.э.), дошедших до нас с эпохи Урарту (по библейскому названию — Араратского царства).


 * Armenian written language starts from the cuneiform inscriptions (early 1st millenium B.C.), which came to us from the times of Urartu (after the biblical name - Ararat kingdom).


 * A serious publication would not make such claims. Grand  master  10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's strange here? Both are the best modern-time encyclopedias of Russia. Krugosvet is too much reliable and has a collective of editors/scholars from abroad . But anyways, you may keep your opinion, as I see untill now its just an opinion. Gazifikator (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they self-advertise like that, but any source claiming that Urartian cuneiforms were in Armenian language cannot be taken seriously. Grand  master  13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is a self-advertising? Do you mean yandex is payed, and Google books too? it sounds strange. Gazifikator (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that Krugosvet can describe themself whatever they want, but their texts show that they are not written by serious experts. See an example above. Also, according to the rules, the claims of consensus must be sourced. Who says that the 5th century dating is a majority view? For example, David M. Lang says:


 * And who says that there's a consensus to consider Movses a 5th century author, or that it is a majority view to date Movses to the 5th century? Why do you think that you can simply remove from the article all the sources that you do not like, and ignore their existence? Grand  master  15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Soviet Encyclopedia and Krugosvet are serious scholarly sources also for well-known English-language publications so your POV-pushing is not justified. Gazifikator (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you have made several false statements such as "They just returned the article to its original state" or that info about later dating has been removed. Evidently both are false. Please explain yourself promptly.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Marshall undid all the edits by Dbahman and myself, returning the article in its original state. Now the article claims the 5th century dating as fact, while the later dating as the opinion of "some scholars". The opinion of Thomson, Lang, Suny, etc was removed without any explanation. Clearly POV edits, and supression of info. The following section has been removed altogether:


 * At the same time superficial critisism of Thomson, which does not refute any of the above points, was restored. Lots of other info criticizing the traditional date is also gone. At the same time, Marshall added statements such as: In the early decades of the 20th century, however, a more balanced evaluation and approach was taken. The works of scholars such as F. C. Conybeare, Manuk Abeghyan, and Malkhasyants refuted many of their arguments and reinstated Movses once more into the fifth century. Of course, this is just Marshall's personal opinion, not supported by any sources. Who says that Malkhasyants refuted anything, or "reinstated Movses once more into the fifth century"? Such claims need serious sources. The prevailing opinion in the scholarly community is that Movses did not live in the fifth century, and most historians outside of Armenia are unaware, that certain Malkhasyants reinstated Movses. Grand  master  17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The sorry excuse for an article that you blindly reverted to was a version which neither you nor Dab ever attempted to come to a compromise with. It was heavily slanted toward one side and despite all the other users' protests on this talk page, unilateral edits were made and consensus was dismissed. No one agreed to add that irrelevant section about Armenian nationalism, strewn with its ugly adjectives, myths on "fierce criticism", and character assassination and misattribution (V. Nersissian is a Soviet scholar?), and supported by the writings of a political scientist who is considered a newbie when it comes Armenian studies. The IPA pronunciation was removed, Conybeare's article was given in the wrong journal, the birth and death locations were removed, etc. See Hachikyan et al. on the refutation section (pp. 305-306).

And, if anything, I added reasons as to why the fifth century dating was considered untenable (the four Armenias, the Persian advances) but we're not going to give undue weight to its critics. Rather than discussing your edits, you have done nothing to inch forward toward a consensus.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, Dab and you undid all his edits unilaterally. Marshall did not return it to the original state by a long shot, stop falsifying facts. He incorporated various sources and views that were not present in the original version. Everyone can compare the two versions and see this. The article does NOT claim the fifth century dating as a fact. It clearly states that the dating is in dispute and doesn't give undue weight to any single position.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you simply removed the criticism of the 5th century dating and claim 5th century as fact, and think that this represents a consensus? Hachikyan is not a top authority, and his opinion does not prevail over the opinion of Thomson, Lang, Toumanoff, Hewsen, Dowsett and many-many others whom I quoted above. You are just suppressing the info that does not suit a certain POV. It is absolutely unacceptable. Grand  master  17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, I proposed alternative wording for the intro, which you never even discussed. Grand  master  17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it as a fact; I simply sourced it and placed it in the lead and even inserted in the lead (and the infobox) the statement that many scholars dispute it. Even in the "Dab version" Movses' date and death dates were given, although that section was POV-ridden. Please scroll up and see that I as well as other editors more than amenable to discussing these edits so long as the discussion is done in a civilized manner and sans Dab's demagoguery.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Marshall, nice of you to assume good faith but clearly Grandmaster is inciting that: pay attention to the references to territorial disputes. Some people just don't seem to get that Wikipedia is not a battleground.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your version does claim the fifth century as a fact, and not as a version. It says:


 * Movses Khorenatsi (Armenian: Մովսես Խորենացի, Armenian pronunciation: [movsɛs χoɹɛnɑtsʰi], Moses of Chorene or Movses of Khoren; also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i; 5th century, circa 410 – 490s AD[1][2])


 * No mention that most scholars do not support this dating. Same dating in infobox, and a small note that "Some scholars have dated him to the seventh to eighth centuries", as if it is a minority view, not upheld anymore. Also, as I said before, you removed the criticism of the fifth century dating by the prominent western scholars. And I do not understand Eupator’s reference to battleground. No need to take the phrases out of context of my discussion with dab about the general trends in nationalistic historiographies. After all, whatever I said there is a scholarly opinion, you can read the same in the article of Ronald Grigor Suny. Maybe, he also violates WP:BATTLE. -- Grand master  19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you want the dates removed completely? Where would you suggest they be placed then? Those are the only specific dates attributed to Khorenatsi. If you want to make it clear that various scholars dispute that I think we can add a footnote next to it like in the infobox. "Some scholars have dated him to the seventh to eighth centuries" is correct right? I fail to see how it implies that this is a minority view, that sentence is simply stating a fact in a neutral manner. As for your nationalist rhetoric, it's quite apparent what kind of supposition it entails without further commentary from my end.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I already proposed the following wording:


 * Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), but this dating is disputed, and many scholars date him to 7th - 9th centuries


 * Once again, you cannot claim the 5th century as a fact. And it is not "some scholars", the vast majority of scholars outside of Armenia date Movses later than the 5th century. Grand  master  19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that your only bone of contention at this point? I don't want to waste any more time on this and i'd like this resolved today! The scholar you refer to dispute the dating in one way or another but there is NO consenus between them, some suggest that throughout the centuries additonal material was added to the original 5th century text while others propose that the author himself belonged to a later century and even then there is no consensus as to when and how. Throwing a blanket statement like: the dating is disputed is simply not sufficient.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It does appear to be. He's been hung up on this "fifth century/later centuries" nonsense for weeks on end; apparently nothing else about Movses concerns him and he's been beat this dead horse enough as it is. As Eupator has stated above, there is no consensus among them. The recent source given by you by Robert Thomson fails to mention any date; Robert Hewsen says the dates are uncertain and the fifth century dating props up occasionally in recent works by non-Armenian authors and works.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that the 5th century dating is not disputed? And that there's a consensus in the scholarly community to date this author to the 5th century? Grand  master  21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
When the dust settles, it would be nice to see more info about Mar-Abas-Katina, the Edessan library, the sources, Artaxian stelles etc. But I geuss all of that can fit into the actual book's article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, his work deserves its own article and a full discussion on the sources used and more importantly the stories and information that he gives.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About Mar-Abas-Katina: I wonder (for a long time on fr) whether "he" deserves (or not) his own article. Any thoughts? Sardur (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Britannica 1911
Please add to the article. Thanks. Grand master  07:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Grand  master  09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Ok, I created a table with the names of the most prominent supporters of either dating. I did not include there just any names, only more or less notable experts in the field of Armenian studies. If we add sources that occasionally mentioned the dating, the list will be much bigger. Feel free to add anyone you deem necessary. Grand master  13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And where are the names of acad. Boris Piotrovsky, International Committee of Historical Sciences, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Reader's encyclopedia of Eastern European literature, Gerhard Doerfer, Jacob Salmon Raisin, Karine Kushnareva, who support 5th century dating? Many of sources you represented do not support later dating, they just mark about it as another possible one. You need to read them once again and compare to the article's current version, where we mark Some scholars have dated him to the seventh to eighth centuries. So this table is your personal POV. Gazifikator (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pointless because like I mentioned two days ago (and you failed to respond), all those scholars have different views regarding this controversy. You can't just dump them in one column as if they all support an identical thesis.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I presented the views of each scholar I referred to at this talk. They all support the later dating. As for the sources listed by Gazifikator, you can add those to the table, but the thing is that I did not include there just anyone. Only top experts. I added Piotrovsky too. Gerhard Doerfer is indeed a prominent academic, but he is a Turcologist, not an Armenologist. Jacob Salmon Raisin (1877-1946) was a Reform rabbi of Polish birth. He was not an expert in Armenian studies. Grand  master  16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected your table according to the quotations which were presented in this page. Many of your statements do not correspond to what was quoted. I placed Thomson in two categories, from what has been quoted above by Apex, he admits it is highly disputed. Hewsen in his latest book, as it was quoted above says that the date is uncertain, Suny from what you have quoted does not give any dates at all. Also, if we are going to remove those who are not experts on Armenia/Armenians, we might as well remove Suny. He is not an Armenologist ([Suny] is not primarily a specialist on Armenia,... by Nora Dudwick, reviewed work(s): Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. by Ronald Grigor Suny, Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), p. 970) I have not added any new names but just fixed the ones you incorrectly placed in two limited categories. This is not a bipolar, majority vs minority argument. I have never provided any sources about the legitimacy of the 5th century date, Khorenatsi could be a 19th century scholar for all I care. The reality is that scholars have yet to reach a consensus regarding a date, this is in stark contrast to what you (i'm guessing cuz of this Talk:Sisak (eponym)) and Dab (his infatuation is not a secret) have been pushing all along.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if the issue is disputed, why then the current version of the article presents the 5h century dating as a fact? A small footnote that some historians disagree does not reflect the fact that the 5th century dating is not generally accepted. As for Hewsen and Thomson, even if they say that the dating is disputed (I haven't seen any quotes in support of this statement, but let's assume that it is so), their personal opinion is that Movses lived later than the 5th century, and they explicitly expressed their opinion in this regard. I provided the quotes. Grand  master  18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not presented as a fact. Virtually all birth/death dates of personalities from antiquity are shrouded in mystery. Take a look at a list of Byzantine historians for example and you will see that their writings are the only source of their early life. Same for religious figures. We offer the date we have. Some scholars think that the date is accurate others do not but that is not a reason to remove it! Of course the way it is presented can be modified, but you have not attempted to do so, you reverted the whole thing and attributed claims to authors which they have not made. You need to stop ignoring other users comments stubbornly, read what others write. It stinks of stonewalling. As another user already noted: In Robert W. Thomson’s latest work (1999) he himself admits that even though he thinks the best answer is to place Khorenatsi in the eight century, he continues: The dating of Khorenats'i remains highly disputed,... (Emphasis added). Hewsen too, in his Armenia: A historical atlas (2001) on page 7 he remarks that: dates uncertain. Thomson does claim a later date even if he admits it's disputed, but Hewsen's latest work does no such thing, he just says that it's uncertain. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With Thomson and Hewsen, you can add Jean-Pierre Mahé: I just found out that if he doesn't take side in his translation of 1993, he does so in Dedeyan's Histoire du peuple arménien (2007), while mentioning that the dispute still goes on. Same position for Annie Vernay-Nouri in her Livres d'Arménie — Collections de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (2007), and for Jannic Durand, Ioanna Rapti and Dorota Giovannoni in their Armenia sacra — Mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe ‑ XVIIIe siècle) (2007) . I would also like to add that people contesting the 5th century dating don't share a monolithic opinion on the dating. To present them in a single category is an oversimplification.
 * Finally, I'm much happier with the current structure of the article, which is closer to structures adopted by any author I could read, whatever their opinion on the dating. No surprise, as it matches the way history is written nowadays (you know, historiography). Sardur (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the date is uncertain, the article should say so. It should say something like: The date is uncertain, but it is traditionally believed that this person lived in the fifth century, while many scholars date him as late as the 9th century. There's no other way. As for Hewsen, if he says that the sate is uncertain, it does not mean that he has no position on this issue. He expressed it in a number of other works quoted above. He thinks that Movses lived much later than the 5th century. The current version of the article is absolutely unacceptable, it suppresses all the criticism of the 5th century dating and presents the 5th century as fact, without explicitly specifying other datings. Grand  master  04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it should be 1) traditionally 5th 2) but controversy 3)as late as 9th. Sardur (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I proposed something like that. You can propose your own version. Grand  master  06:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Other authors who support 5th century dating:
 * "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation", by Christopher J. Walker, Revised Second Edition, Routledge, London, 1991, p. 9
 * Sixteen Hundred Years of Armenian Writing, by A. E. Ter-Sarkisiants // Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia journal, 2007
 * Istoria stran i narodov Zapadnogo Prikaspiia, by I. G. Semenov, 1994, p. 15 (in Russian)
 * Kurs lektsiĭ po istorii tatarskogo naroda, 1998, by Zufar Zaĭnievich Miftakhov, A. N. Khuziakhmetov - 1998, p. 15 (in Russian). Gazifikator (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While there might be a need of additional confirmation, the sources provided, the former president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian, the British Library Curator Vrej Nersessian and the art historian M. Hasratian, seem also to support the fifth century dating. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Petros Hovhannisyan. He's written numerous works on the ancient Armenian literature.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Christopher J. Walker specializes on modern history, and he's not really a great specialist. But in any case, I can site lots of lesser known names who support the later dating. The fact remains that most prominent international specialists support the later dating, or say that the issue is disputed. I think the preference should be given to specialists, rather than just anyone who mentioned some date for Moses of Chorene. Another well-known expert who says that the issue is disputed is James R. Russell. In the article for Iranica he says: According to Movsēs Xorenacʿi (5th-8th century A.D.), ... But in his other publication he says that Khorenatsi probably lived long after the conversion of Armenians to Christianity, so he must be a supporter of the later dating too.


 * Grand master  05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "so he must be a supporter of the later dating too" - No original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Christopher J. Walker is more reliable than James R. Russell who believes Khorenatsi lived in 5th-8th centuries. Read the critics.


 * He is not a reliable one! Gazifikator (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Russel is a scholar with international acclaim. Who is Bert Vaux? He is not the scholar of the same level. Plus, Vaux does not criticize Russell's work, he criticizes his political views. People may have different outlooks, but that has nothing to do with scholarship. Grand  master  15:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Russel a scholar or a politician? Just compare both biographies (James R. Russell, Bert Vaux) to be surprized who is more notable. Gazifikator (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nina Garsoian:

Grand master  18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources you've cited don't add anything to what is already cited and written in big letters in the article. I don't get it GM, don't you want to learn more about Mar Abas Katina or about the landmarkers Artashes I placed in his kingdom instead of expending all your energies on Wikipedia on the dating?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I already asked him the same question earlier in more detail, as usual he ignored the finer points and rehashed what has already been said.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They do add a lot. The dating controversy is a very important part of the article, and the issue is not presented appropriately. I suggest we ask for unprotection of the article, so that we can add more info about the 5th century dating being disputed, and the reasons why exactly it is disputed, the arguments in support of both datings, etc. The sources that I have cited above have not been properly incorporated into the article, and the majority view has not been objectively presented. The current version of the article is not acceptable. Grand master  06:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to see WP:WEIGHT as you're pushing unreliable and criticized Russel and do not accept the reliability of Krugosvet and Christopher J. Walker. That's a problem! Gazifikator (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another known specialist on Armenian studies, Thomas J. Samuelian, describes 5th century dating as more accurate:

Gazifikator (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How can anyone take seriously a historian, who refers to Armen Aivazian as his source? Samuelian is a lawyer, not historian. How can you even compare him with Russell, a well-known specialist in Armenian and Iranian studies? Grand  master  11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any problems with Dr Armen Ayvazyan? Gazifikator (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, you can read above. He represents the revisionist school of history in Armenia. If you really want to use a Russian online cyclopedia, Russian Orthodox cyclopedia is a better choice. While not perfect, it still provides more or less scholarly views in its articles:


 * Grand master  12:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayvazyan is known and respected specialist. Any RS calling him revisionist? Gazifikator (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a PhD in Linguistics Thomas J. Samuelian is not less known than Robert W. Thomson. Check this ! Gazifikator (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A person, who says that the Western scholars are commissioned by the US State Department to falsify the history of Armenia, just because they disagree with his revisionist concept of Urartu and Hayasa being ethnically Armenians, cannot be taken seriously. Read Suny above, and there are plenty more sources about Aivazian, but his own words are better than anything else. Robert W. Thomson is a retired Harvard professor, and is an internationally renowned expert. Samuelian is an amateur, and he is not an expert on the topic just because he published a few books. His reference to Aivazian speaks for itself. Grand  master  07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on GM, that excuse doesn't fly. Using that logic, we can exclude Hewsen for making small use of Bunyadov and Mamedova, who make far dumber claims and erase the word "Armenia" from historical maps. In defense of Ayvazyan, while his conclusions are definitely wrong, the historical mistakes he finds in their works are nonetheless mostly correct. As for Samuelian, please refrain from unprofessional remarks and character assassination; he has been involved in Armenian studies and has served as an editor for important works on Armenian studies since at least 1982 and has translated the works of medieval authors such as Grigor Narekatsi, which invalidates your absurd notion that he is an "amateur." And, needless to say, Thomson is fair game and shouldn't always be the person to consult as a last resort when it comes to resolving these things. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayvazyan is known but he is not respected; in fact he is known mostly because he is not respected. Meowy 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why I call Samuelian an amateur is that while he accepts that there's a scholarly dispute about the dating, he points as the sides of the dispute to Thomson, and Rafael Ishkhanyan and Armen Ayvazyan. I don't think any serious scholar would be referring to the latter 2, who are well known for their revisionist views. He could have referred to people a lot better than them, but such choice shows what kind of literature he consults with when writing on a subject. And he even finds the arguments of revisionists more convincing. Leaving that aside, you saw the opinion of the third party. Obviously, a major rewrite of this article is necessary. Do you mind unprotection? Grand  master  07:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any serious scholar would refer to figures like I. Aliyev or Z. Bunyadov either but here we are. Samuelian could have perhaps consulted other sources, but it's entirely possible that he didn't have access to other literature at the time. Either way, you should leave your personal interpolations and OR at the door. Ayvazyan's book is unfortunately the only critical survey of works published in Armenian studies in the US.

I'm assuming the only part of this article that you are terribly interested in rewriting is the dating section (and the removal of those pesky dates following his name at the top). The article will be unprotected in due time but it should be noted that any further Dbachmannisms are entirely unwelcome.-Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would welcome, and encourage, Diamond Apex to work more on this article - he seems to have access to the relevant sources and he is looking at the article with a new pair of eyes. If the article is protected, shouldn't it have a protected symbol on it? Meowy 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, do you support unprotection or not? Please say so explicitly. We need to move on. Grand  master  05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, comments like "Dbachmannisms" are very incivil. You should stop making them. Grand  master  05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The article was protected on a day on which you made a full revert. You haven't said anything that would make one assume that you will not continue edit warring nor have you made any sort of a reasonable compromise to this day. --   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? If you look at the history of the article, Marshall made more rvs than anyone. He made 4 rvs and got blocked for violation of his parole. Back from his block, he practically rolled the article to its previous version, removing all edits by dab and myself, and when I restored our changes, Gazificator made another couple of rvs, after which the article got protected. I find it strange that you are accusing me of edt warring just because of 1 rv that I made, while others made much more reverts and even got blocked for edit warring. And I was the only one proposing compromise wordings, to which I never got any response. But let's leave the history behind, and move on. Grand  master  04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made two reverts with minimal contributions to the article, and you would have been blocked as well had you been under editing restrictions like Marshall. I find your relentless pursuit of unprotection quite suspect in light of the fact that the solution to the problem has not been determined yet.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion
I asked for a third party opinion at WP:3o to facilitate the dispute resolution. Grand master  10:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here from Third opinion. My personal view after reading over this discussion is that there is clearly an ongoing scholarly debate over the date, and that we shouldn't give priority to any one opinion. It is thus best to leave the date out of the intro, and have a detailed discussion of the issue in the article itself. This is done in many other cases where there is considerable scholarly debate over dates, for instance with the Matthew the Evangelist and other Biblical figures. - SimonP (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. Aside from the intro, I believe this article has other serious neutrality issues. While the dating of this author is clearly in dispute, the article asserts that the 5th century dating is an established fact, and that any criticism of this dating has been rejected and proven wrong, while it is not so. Some examples of such statements:


 * In the early decades of the 20th century, however, a more balanced evaluation and approach was taken. The works of scholars such as F. C. Conybeare, Manuk Abeghyan, and Malkhasyants refuted many of their arguments and reinstated Movses once more into the fifth century. Additionally, ethnographic and archaeological research confirmed information which was only found in Movses's work, and "much of the criticism" leveled against him today has been dismissed.[20] Despite these studies, these critical points were revived in the second half of the 20th century and many Western scholars continue to maintain the arguments raised by earlier scholars.


 * Much of the space dedicated to the criticism of professor Robert W. Thomson, but the opinion of Thomson himself is not even reflected in the article. It has been removed, along with the opinion of other prominent international experts in the Armenian studies. So we only see the opinion prevailing among the scholars in Armenia, while the opinion of the international scholarly community is not properly represented. In my opinion, this is not in line with WP:NPOV, which holds that the articles should not assert any position, they should objectively present all notable opinions on the subject. Grand  master  07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike Biblical figures, Moses of Chorene was a real person and his History of Armenia exists - it is an object that was created by human hands. So I think the various dates that scholars have assigned to that work, and to its author (or authors), should be in the introduction. Meowy 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know if he was a real person. His work could be a compilation made at later times. Grand  master  05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course he was a real person - History of Armenia was written by someone, perhaps several persons, so that someone (or those someones) had to have existed - unlike Matthew the Evangelist who exists only as a character in a work filled with fictional and historically unprovable events. Meowy 13:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that something about the date does belong in the introduction. The best would be some sort of summary of the controversy e.g. "traditionally believed to have lived x but other scholars have argued for y." No need to force the material into a post name parentheses. - SimonP (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work on a compromise along those lines if it will make us move forward. I would like to see more imput from the involved parties.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I proposed the following wording:


 * Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), but this dating is disputed, and many scholars date him to 7th - 9th centuries.


 * Any alternative proposals are welcome. Grand  master  04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many is a POV term. And as you can see Khorenatsi is not only traditionally believed to date to the 5th century, but also by a large number of modern scholars. I understand what you mean but it sounds a little incorrect as modern researches are based on academic material not tradition (only). Gazifikator (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Traditionally does not meant that the view is not upheld by modern scholars. It just means that this view was a tradition that existed for centuries. It can have modern supporters too. And "many" is actually a mild word, because the later dating is a mainstream view in the international scholarly community. I quoted almost all top international experts, and they say either that Movses lived later than the 5th century, or that the dating is disputed. I don't see that the 5th century dating is supported by any leading expert in this field. Smith and Piotrovsky are respected scholars, but they are both archaeologists, rather than the people who work with ancient manuscripts. Their opinion is not rejected, but still. In any case, if you look at the number of sources that I quoted, you'll see that the later dating is not the opinion of just a couple of people, but the opinion of many, if not majority of experts who work in this particular field. I proposed "many" instead of "majority" as a compromise. Grand  master  04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources we represented above are the obvious majority and the only reliable ones (despite your support to infamous Russell as a "great professor"). So many is not a compromise, it is a fake. Gazifikator (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Smith and Piotrovsky are respected scholars, but they are both archaeologists, rather than the people who work with ancient manuscripts" - this seems an invalid argument. A contributer earlier made the point that it is archaeological evidence (such as the actual existence of the boundary stones) that partly supports the 5th-century date. Meowy 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not saying that their opinions should be ignored, but neither of them published any researches on archaeological evidence in support of the 5th century dating. Piotrovsky is a prominent expert on Urartu, for instance. Grand  master  18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the majority: Gazifikator (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can make the list of those who support the later dating much bigger than that of those of support the traditional dating, if I included sources similar to Krugosvet, Christopher J. Walker, etc. But I only quoted those people who are considered prominent experts on the subject. You see that people like Hewsen, Dowsett, Toumanoff, etc do not consider the 5th century dating to be an accepted fact. Grand  master  18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think saying "other scholars date him to 7th - 9th centuries" would be fine, and avoid the potential concerns with the word many. - SimonP (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This explicit association of the 5th-century date with the word "traditionally" shows an unjusified bias - is could be viewed as suggesting the scholars who advocate a 7th-9th century date hold that view because of their researches, but those who advocate the 5th century date merely hold their view because of tradition. This would be better: "Traditionally believed to date to the 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD). The actual dating of Moses of Chorene remains disputed - scholars have argued for a 5th-century date, for a 7th to 9th century date, or consider his work to be a composite from several periods." Meowy 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Meowy's proposal.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too, Meowy's proposal makes sense. Grand  master  18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I don't know if "consider his work to be a composite from several periods" is the correct wording to use to reflect the opinions that there might be multiple authors and several time-periods at work. I'm also not clear what text will be removed to make way for this compromise (I was just trying to improve on Grandmaster's initial suggestion). Meowy 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the lead should be like this:

Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, Moses of Chorene or Movses of Khoren; also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i; traditionally believed to date to the 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), but the actual dating of Moses of Chorene remains disputed - scholars have argued for a 5th-century date, for a 7th to 9th century date, or consider his work to be a composite from several periods.)

I read somewhere that there's an opinion that this work was a combination of earlier and later works, but not sure where. We need a source for that statement. If no source is available for such statement, we can leave it out, and only mention various datings. Grand master  19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the possibility of it being a combination of earlier and later works was discussed somewhere on this talk page, though I don't know what sources were used. In the first sentence think you have to mention what he was. Like this: Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, Moses of Chorene or Movses of Khoren; also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i) was an Armenian historian, traditionally believed to date to the 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD). The actual dating of Moses of Chorene remains disputed - scholars have argued for a 5th-century date, for a 7th to 9th century date, or consider his work to be a composite from several periods. Meowy 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any mainstream scholar supports that view, not anymore at least. They floated that theory early on in the 20th century but most historians believe he either lived in either this or that century. With that said, my primary qualm with the above-proposed version is the word traditional; the word is fine if we are talking about medieval Armenian historians accepting the fifth century dating but prominent philologists and historians have conducted numerous studies on his biography and their opinion cannot be qualified as adhering to it purely out of tradition. The precise dating (410-490s) wasn't formulated out of thin air but was a result of decades of contributions made by scholars like Sargsyan and Malkhasyants. If an alternative word is proposed, I wouldn't mind adding something like Meowy's version.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's remove the part about composite. The rest I believe is Ok. The thing is that 5th century dating had been accepted for centuries, until it was challenged in the late 19th century. That's why the 5th century dating is called traditional, and it is the wording used by Britannica. I think the wording proposed by Meowy takes account of your concerns. It says that the 5th century dating is also supported by modern scholars, so no one can interpret it as something being "adhered to it purely out of tradition". Grand  master  05:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the sake of clarification, by saying composite, we are referring to the theory as found in the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (i.e., it has multiple authors). However, it is not out of the question that Movses Khorenatsi lived and wrote the great bulk of his work in the 5th century and scribes from the later centuries added small bits and pieces of information about places and events that took place in later centuries (Justinian's reforms, the Persian advances, the name Vaspurakan, etc.). That should not be ruled out. The LEAD should not get too bogged down on when Movses lived - a simple note that it's disputed is more than enough. The arguments on it should be relegated to the appropriate section of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a biographical entry, so it is usual for the subject to have a date or to be assigned to a particular time period, and for that important bit of info to be in the introduction. Maybe remove completely the "(circa 410 – 490s AD)" bit, or move it to just after "argued for a 5th-century date". I don't know if the multiple authors theory (as opposed to later copyists just adding little bits here and there) is an active one amongst scholars - but if it is no longer a widely held theory then it shouldn't be in the intro. The important thing is to make the intro distinguish between the traditional belief of a 5th C date and scholarly opinion (based on research) that supports a 5th C date - I think my suggestion did that. Meowy  18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, it's just that Movses' works and importance as a historian should be the main concern in the lead. The dating issue here has drained enough water. Removing the "(circa 410 – 490s AD)" serves no point if the reader is simply going to read those dates in the biography section. I certainly have not chanced upon reading about the multiple authors (and not scribal errors) theory in modern scholarly literature lately. Perhaps something to this effect: Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, Movses of Khoren; also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i, circa 410 – 490s AD, scholars have also argued for a 7th to 9th century date) was an Armenian historian, and author of the History of Armenia" etc. etc.? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something along these lines:


 * Moses of Chorene, also Moses of Khoren or Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i, the dating is disputed, scholars have argued for either circa 410 – 490s AD, or a 7th to 9th century date) was an Armenian historian, and author of the History of Armenia".


 * Grand master  05:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So does anyone object to my proposal? Grand  master  04:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the ordering of the wording of his name. However, I think mine was better in aspects. "Remains disputed" seems more accurate than "is disputed" I also still think there needs to be a mention of the traditional belief of the date of his works - the fact of that belief was an important aspect of his continued importance throughout the centuries. Since "410 – 490s AD" covers most of the 5th century, why not just say "5th century"? Meowy 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need to insult the reader's intelligence by placing " the dating is disputed" before the dates. If one date ("410 – 490s AD") and another date (or a 7th to 9th century) is offered and then other dates are immediately offered, then we are simply restating the obvious. I think retaining the 410-490 time period is important rather than the generic 5th century; after decades of careful calculations and the study of sources, historians have offered these as the most concrete and likely days of Movses' birth and death from a chronological standpoint.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. I think we should add circa before 410-490 though.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meowy's proposal, but others object to the use of the word "traditionally", which in my opinion fits in there, because the 5th century dating was considered to be accurate for many centuries. But I agreed to its removal to make progress with dispute resolution. And "remains disputed" also needed, because the dating has been disputed since the end of the 19th century, and it is nothing new. It would be good to indicate it. And the word "circa" is included in my proposal. Grand  master  06:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is disputed" or "remains disputed" has to be there, it is factually correct and indicates that the debate over the dating is ongoing and is fluid. I think "scholars have argued for either circa 410 – 490s AD date" reads badly. It is not clear whether what is being described is the possible periods within the 5th century that he was active, or the specific decades of his possible birth (410s) and death (490s). If it is latter the wording needs to be changed to make the meaning clearer. If it is the former, the wording suggests all scholars who advocate a 5th century date advocate that entire time period - that is obviously wrong and to use this overly broad yet overly specific "c410-490s" wording rather than just "5th century" is implying a lack of scholarship behind those who advocate a 5th century period. It could be read as giving (by using a different form of wording than that used for the alternative opinion) greater emphasis and credibility to those advocating the 7th to 9th century date. Meowy 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about: the dating remains disputed, scholars have argued for either 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), or a 7th to 9th century date? Grand  master  04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So is my proposal acceptable? Grand  master  12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit too much like splitting hairs - so I'm not suggesting anything specific. But there is confusion - it is not clear that 410 means his possible birth and 490 his death, though I know that is what is meant. Meowy 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good observation Meowy. I don't understand it GM, why is it so difficult to accept the wording I offered above? Do you really have your heart set on including the words the dating is disputed, even though its plainly obvious in that version? It's been over a month now, let's start adding the more juicy information Movses and the History of Armenia. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think "remains disputed", or similar wording, should be there. Meowy 02:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Marshall, if you agree that the dating is disputed, why is it a problem to state so? How stating this simple fact could harm the article? And I'm not the only thinking that we should mention this. So let's agree on the wording for the intro, and move on. I agreed to remove the word "traditionally", but "disputed" is really necessary to describe the situation. Grand  master  05:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We are making no progress here. Should we ask for another third party opinion? Maybe RFC? Grand  master  04:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to the following version as well: Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, Movses of Khoren; also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i, circa 410 – 490s AD, although scholars have disputed this and have argued for a 7th to 9th century date) was an Armenian historian, and author of the History of Armenia" etc. etc.?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But how can you write 410 – 490s AD as his date, when it is disputed? If we state 5th century as date, it should either be indicated as a traditional dating, or the dating supported by some scholars, or both. I think we should state that there are 2 different datings, one earlier, and one later. Neither one should be given a preference. Grand  master  09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's drop the word "disputed", this is what's left:


 * Moses of Chorene, also Moses of Khoren or Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի,, also written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i, scholars have argued for either 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), or a 7th to 9th century date) was an Armenian historian, and author of the History of Armenia".


 * How's this? Grand  master  09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not for me. Gazifikator (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, if no one minds, I will ask for unprotection of the article. Grand  master  05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * During the editwarring you also added some other text to the article, its why it was protected. Is there any ideas to readd anything else as WP:WEIGHT is very important and starting from the presented by you introduction it is not supported? Our purpose is to not made this a pov-article. Gazifikator (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need permission to add material. Since we agreed on the intro, we can get the article unprotected, so that people could edit the main text. We cannot have the article protected eternally. Grand  master  15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was protected to stop editwarring that goes againgst the WP:WEIGHT. We discussed the part of it (the intro, which is not ok for me, I represented more sources on support of 5th century dating, they are the obvious majority, see the table), your other addings to the text were against WP:WEIGHT and are not agreed with any of users. So if you're going to start this editwarring again, then we have a lot of things to discuss again! Gazifikator (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not edit warring. Just look at the history of the article to see who was reverting this article the most. Grand  master  16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I "edit-warred" was because neither you nor the implacable and intransigent dab held any sincere or meaningful discussions on the sudden changes you were proposing. How many times did I write "no consensus" only to face instant reverts afterwards? It's not my fault that dab essentially hijacked the article and then started hurling insults left and right on anyone who disagreed with him. I still am hesitant on agreeing to unprotection because I don't think the fires have cooled yet; perhaps another month...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if to unprotect it now, another editwarring will start concerned to the text as Grandmaster's conclusion after all of these discussions was "I don't need permission to add material". That's all! Gazifikator (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why there should be editwarring? Unless someone starts removing information he does not like, there should be no edit warring. It is impossible to prevent information about alternative dating from being included into the article. So let's have the article unpriotected and work on its improvement. Grand  master  12:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moses of Chorene, also Moses of Khoren or Movses Khorenatsi (Մովսես Խորենացի, ), also written Movsēs Xorenac'i or Movses Khorenats'i, was an Armenian historian and author of the "History of Armenia". His dating remains disputed - scholars have argued for either the 5th century (born c.410s, died c.490s), or the 7th to 9th century. Better? Meowy 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Grand  master  04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have lowered the protection to semi. I have also added it to my watchlist. It is my wish that as few articles as possible are protected, but I won't hesitate to reapply the protection if necessary and/or block editors who engage in editwarring or POV-pushing. Please continue to discuss any edits which may be controversial, and follow WP:BRD. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And what a mistake that was. Less than a few hours after this article was unlocked, GM just reinserted information without even bothering to discuss the controversial edits on the talk page first. What is the point of this page anyways? This is POV pushing, ad nauseum. If it continues, I will file a report.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And what is wrong with adding sourced info? Why are you trying so hard to suppress criticism of the 5th century dating? Half of the page dedicated to criticism of Thomson, and the man himself is not even quoted. This is absolutely unacceptable. Both points of view should be equally and fairly presented. And this is what I'm trying to do. Grand  master  05:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been cited three times in the lead and the infobox that the wording is disputed. You wasted no time in replacing the lead (which I am fine with) and haphazardly deleted information on a source (which you deleted once more). I have no doubt saying the wording is disputed but you're placing undue weight to some obscure authors (what is A. O. Sarkissian's background?) After all this, are you honestly contending that POV pushing is absent in your edits? To Martin, please lock the article, nothing clearly has been resolved and GM has resorted once more to blind revert wars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It never says in the intro that the dating is disputed, I dropped that word to reach a consensus with you. As for Sarkissian, he is an author Dowsett recommends as a source on dating, and Dowsett is a top expert. Plus, other sources also say that the first ever reference to Moses was made in the 10th century. For instance, Thomson also says the same. You keep on removing this sourced info time after time. Why? And why this page should be kept eternally protected? If a reliable source states something, it must be reflected in the article according to the rules. I asked for a third party opinion, and it was that the dating is disputed and that the article should not give preference to any. Yet I see that the criticism of the 5th century dating is being suppressed. That is against the Wikipedia rules. Grand  master  06:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Movses Khorenatsi (Armenian: Մովսես Խորենացի, Armenian pronunciation: [movsɛs χoɹɛnɑtsʰi], Moses of Khoren; also seen written Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Movses Khorenats'i, Moses of Chorene; scholars have argued for either 5th century (circa 410 – 490s AD), or a 7th to 9th century date) was an Armenian historian, and author of the History of Armenia." (version I retained)


 * "Some scholars have dated him to the seventh to eighth centuries."


 * "Movses identified himself as a young disciple of Saint Mesrop, although many scholars have noted internal discrepancies in his work which lead them to assign later dates (see below)."


 * That's all without scrolling down and then it's just repeated and heaped on without any context into a confusing mess of text. You're clearly being disingenuous; nothing is being suppressed. I would prefer this article to remain unlocked for a considerable amount of time if it meant that it would be stripped of the POV edits that have been plaguing it for the past three months. I would have possibly agreed to some of your edits (which I retained) but the brazen road you chose to take (unilaterally, no surprise) made them unacceptable. Clearly, the tenth century statement is disputed. Many dispute it and see references and traces of Movses writing in works by Movses Kaghankatvatsi and now Atanas Taronetsi (sixth century).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You yourself admitted that the dating is disputed, yet this word is not even used once in the article? Why? What's wrong with using it, if is a fact? You try to say that Toumanoff, Thomson and others revived the arguments of the 19th century authors, while those arguments were still upheld by the time those authors poublished their works. And what's up with deleting the opinion of Thomson? Considering how much space is dedicated to his critisism, as much space should be dedicated to Thomson's opinion and the opinion of those who agree with him, and the dispute must be presented fiarly and neutrally.
 * You yourself admitted that the dating is disputed, yet this word is not even used once in the article? Why? What's wrong with using it, if it is a fact? And if you have problem with just that one word (I cannot understand why, but still), why don’t you just remove that word and keep the rest of my edits, which all rely on published reliable sources? Also, you say that Toumanoff, Thomson and others revived the arguments of the 19th century authors, while those arguments were still upheld by the time those authors published their works. And what's up with deleting the opinion of Thomson? Considering how much space is dedicated to his criticism, as much space should be dedicated to Thomson's opinion and the opinion of those who agree with him, and the dispute must be presented fairly and neutrally. As for the first mention in the 10th century, why this should be deleted? If others disagree with it, their opinion should be mentioned too. Moses of Kalankatuyk is himself considered to be the author of the 9th – 10th century, or even later. Plus, many believe that his work is written by 2 or 3 different authors at various times. In any case, we must just present the opinions fairly, and not claim that someone is right, and someone is wrong, as the present version does. Grand  master  07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are just upset over the lack of the use of this specific word, even though it's clearly implied throughout the article? And, not being satisfied with this, you decided to mention it three more times, in successive order no less, in the body of the text? Yes, while they were revived, Thomson went several steps further and he is perhaps one of the most biased authors on the subject. I don't have any problem concisely (and neatly) inserting his opinions in the article but why did you do all this without saying so on the talk page? Why did you not propose your versions here? Why did you blindly revert the publishing data of Hacikyan's book? And so on.

As for the first mention by an Armenian historian – this is clearly disputed. The general consensus is that Movses Kaghankatvatsi was a seventh century author who wrote the first two books of his work (where Movses is mentioned) and that the third book was written by Movses Daskhurantsi, an author of the tenth century. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what is "Hypercritical phase"? Is it a generally accpeted scholarly term to refer to the critisism of Moses of Khoren in the 19th century? It does not seem to be. Grand master  05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a term which is not exclusive to Movses. Herodotus, Thuycidedes, Plutarch were all subjected to this during the 19th century. Read Topchyan's books.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Topchyan the only one using this term? Then it is not a generally accepted one. We can use it only as the opinion of Topchyan, but not as a generally accepted term. Grand  master  05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. If you had more access to the literature you would know this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do have an access, please cite sources that use this term. Grand  master  06:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sargsyan in his works (including in the SAE) mentions this, as does Malkhasyants in his Introduction to his translation. Googling should give you plenty of results. It's not exclusive to Movses alone and Topchyan provides ample literature on the subject. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion of 2 authors cannot be considered a general scholarly consensus to call the critism of 5th century dating of Moses in the 19th century "Hypercritical phase". Grand  master  06:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just that it's not only the opinion of just one or two scholars. It's not my fault if you want to choose the lazy way out and fail to read up on the additional literature Topchyan mentions but this isn't confined to the realm of one or two people. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New image
Please change the main image of this article to the following and perhaps move the existing to a new "gallery" section. Thanks. Serouj (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the protection. Please make the edit yourself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article on a church or museum for it to have a 'gallery' section. How many portraits of Khorenatsi do we actually have? I personally am satisfied with the main image. We can move the one you proposed further down the article. Perhaps I'll do it.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I followed what I said above.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it never hurts to have a better picture. The portrait at least has a detail on his face whereas the statue does not; that is why I advocate for the portrait to be the main pic, and the statue below, not necessarily in a "gallery" section. Serouj (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mates, I am disturbed with the way editing wars this article is yielding. Let's all take a deep breath and start discussing each others' edits instead of battering against one another.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Page protected again. Contact me on my talk when consensus has been conclusively reached. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
I want to file a request for mediation. Does anyone object? Grand master  06:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You see you started new editwarring as soon as the article was unprotected. I anticipated it same days ago and you opposed me that you will not push the POV on "majority scholars doubting 5th century dating" etc. Before accusing me and other users of editwarring you may look at your last edits after all the discussions. Gazifikator (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not start anything, I just added sourced info that was removed again. Please answer the question above. Do you mind mediation? Grand  master  10:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By adding of this "sourced info" (aka your POV) the first editwarring started. And then after all the discussions you decided to readd them once again. The second editwarring started. You need to accept less aggressive behavior for the first otherwise our discussions and mediations will look useless. Sorry I don't see any readiness for any consensus by your side. What you have, is just a "sourced info" that must be readded anyhow. Gazifikator (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's a no, right? Grand  master  10:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only user here, and my yes or no is not critical. You may ask to other users, if they are less pessimistic to your actions. Gazifikator (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm asking everyone involved, you included. If no one objects, I will file a mediation request. Grand  master  13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents: how a sourced info might be an editor's POV? In no way. brandспойт 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. There's nothing here that we cannot rationally solve by ourselves that we have to once more bother the administrators again. But you added information, once more unsurprisingly, without any context, without achieving any consensus on the talk page and, thus very provocatively incited another edit war. The staple rule on Wikipedia, as you should well know, is that you have to discuss controversial edits and only then make the changes. That has been a major failure on your part GM and your editing habits have unfortunately yet to change.

Can someone please archive this talk page?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please replace bottom template
editprotected I've created a new infobox template to be shared by relevant articles. Admins, please add it to the bottom of this page, replacing existing hard-coded text: Thanks. Serouj (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done John Vandenberg (chat) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet another revert...
As soon as the article has been unprotected, a user out of nowhere already reverts... I don't want an edit war, but given the removed templates, titles and so on, I had to revert. Sardur (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was indeed very suspicious. Semi-protection would be good to prevent editing by new accounts and IPs. Grand  master  09:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be good. Gazifikator (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)