Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 2

Summary:
(copied to here from AMA request page --TT)

The dispute is as to whether or not the ancient province Caspiane/Paytakaran was part of Caucasian Albania. Also, it is disputed that the city of Paytakaran, which was the centre of the province of the same name is the same city as Beylegan. Tigran, Eupator and Fadix claim that it never was a province of Albania. Moreover, they revert all of my edits, despite each of them being based on reliable sources. This is my version of the article, which was completely reverted: Currently the page is protected because of edit wars. User:Fadix also denies that Caspiane is the same province as Paytakaran, despite there being a consensus with other editors that it is. Fadix acknowledges that he reverted my edits even without reading them, which in my opinion is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

The sources that I quoted support the fact that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania.

According to Strabo:

To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. 

Article from Encyclopedia Iranica about the tribe of Caspies. It says, inter alia:

''Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn ''. 

Ancient Albanian historian Moses Kalankatuatsi (source is in Russian):

''А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. 

After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians.

Fadix claims that Caspiane is not the same land as Paytakaran, despite its having its center in the same city of Paytakaran. I cited my sources to demonstrate that it is. For instance, according to professor Robert. H. Hewsen, it is the same land:

BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. 

I have more sources, which are available on the talk page of the article. I would really appreciate any assistance in resolving this dispute.

Grandmaster 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion:
Here we come, another disruptive behavior by Grandmaster. The description of the situation by Grandmaster above is simply not accurate, embelishing things and claiming things which I allegdly claim. Not everyone has the time time to waste as he does edit warring and POV pushing on every single articles involving his Azerbaijan in some misterious way. The Land of Kaspiane, has no delimitation, it is the land of the Kasps, the same way as some could say of the Land(aka the continent) of America, is the land of America, when claimed to be found by Americo Vespucci the United States of America? Yes? So what is Canada? Bresil etc. ? Grandmaster has a history of attaching claims on quote, which the author doesn't imply. Just like he attempted to claim there was no Armenian in Paytakaran, and forged a signification for a sentence which used the term alien. Grandmaster is also lying when he claims I even treated about the Abania, it is a total none-issue, as the term Paytakaran is used to refer to the province which borders were invented by Armenia, all his fighting is over this, as usual he want to dissolve an article and place the Albanians in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLES RELATING TO A HISTORIC CITY, PROVINCE, KINGDOM OF ARMENIA. To do this, he will also add some Azeris term in the lead. Grandmaster has no evidence that the term Paytakaran was ever used to refer to a city or a district, the city he is talking about was never called Paytakaran, the Armenian records should 'know best', as the term Paytakaran is Armenian and that there was a reason why that province was called that way. What best evidence there is than quoting the actual scholar who started the rumor that both were called the same way, claiming that he is not sure of this? The only reason why Grandmaster want to equal both terms is to justify his inclusion of the Azerbaijani term.

The quotes he provides have absolutly no value, as the article already mention Albania, indirectly without implicitly saying anything, which is good since such theories are all speculations, one of those speculations Grandmaster is attempting to present as Truth when it is specified on the NPOV policy that this is a not to do. The current article has one mistake, which I have already reported, that Caspiane equals to Paytakaran, Grandmaster is using this mistake to introduce ittelevencies in this article. Fad (ix) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. I presented more than enough sources both in the talk of the article and User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk. And all of your above statements are just your original research, not supported by any sources. Please refer to aforementioned pages for the quotes and more detailed info. Grandmaster 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You did no such thing, providing sources is one thing, the source supporting what you want in the article is another. Also, you still don't understand that it is not to someone to show non-existance, but rather to the one claiming existance. It is like accusing someone wanting evidences for the existance of a god to do original research. I clearly said that there was no historic records calling a city Paytakaran, and that the first time the term you equal it was used was after the fall of the province. This is something which is established, no one denies that. Equaling both, can be retraced to one scholar, whom I personally quoted, but that scholar himself answer in a paper that he is not convinced of that, this too I have quoted. So, what you request is actually original research, wanting to include some minority view not only as a position but as a truth, is not only against NPOV, but in your cases is POV pushing. As for civil, not wanting to be considered as a sophist, I will still make a point, those accusations against you were directed not only by me, not only by Armenians(since your decisions are all ethnic based on Wikipedia), but also by Iranians, and probably others. Maybe it is time for you to think a little bit and consider that maybe there must be some truth there. And when I talk about accusations, I am not talking about hard core bad mouthing, but accusations of manipulating or POV pushing, which in this cases, can't be really considered as civil and personal attacks Fad (ix) 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So many words, and no sources whatsoever. How many times are you going to repeat that Caspiane and Paytakaran were not the same province? Just in above section I provided a quote from Iranica article by Hewsen, stating that it was the same province. Still you pretend that you have never seen it. If you think that they were not the same, then cite your sources. I cited mine that they were the same. Also in above section I cited sources that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania. I have plenty more sources on other talk pages. Deny all that you want, but I’m going to take this issue thru all stages of dispute resolution. And I’m not gonna respond here anymore, because Sir James suggested to continue the discussion at User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk. Interestingly, you abandoned that page as soon as he suggested to submit this case for mediation and get more advocates involved. He still expects you to answer his proposal. Grandmaster 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see in the above quote is about the land of Kaspiene, which had no defined borders. It is for you to document that both a border of a Kaspiene AND Paytakaran are the same. You never did that, and I doubt you could ever do that, there is no way in the world that two localities distant of few centuries would be identical, when the seconds border were invented. The Kasp does not refer to the province, but the land of the Kaspienes, Paytakaran does. Lastly, I don't know of what abandoned page you are talking about, the only reason I came here was because the guy asked to continue discussing it here. I see that you haven't stopped finding intentions in my actions. Fad (ix) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hewsen clearly states that the land of Caspiene was later called Paytakaran. If you don't want to see it, I will have to refer the dispute to impartial mediators. You cited no sources with regard to borders of Paytakaran, how can you claim that it had different borders? And please comment here: User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk, he made a proposal and expects your answer. He left a message at your talk and asked you to continue discussion there. Grandmaster 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He says the land of, he doesn't say province, a land has no administrative meaning, it has no defined borders. Paytakaran was a province. Impartial mediator? How many times were we there? Was Francis not neutral? How long did you obstinently tried on the Karabakh article and disagreed with him, did it ever end? No, we just left it, I too left it. Because when you have something in your mind, you have no inclination to understand what others are saying. This is why I always opposed to mediation, because mediation supposes that people will discuss, compromise..., while you on the other hand see in mediation a way to sell your sausage, and I always opposed to give you such opportunity. Fad (ix) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means that you are not sure that you are right and therefore avoid any mediation? Grandmaster 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me one example, just one example of any mediations, unformal OR formal, which both of us were involved and which gave any positive result, in which both of us have made concessions and not just me. One example of mediation, which finally I was not borred because you would not try to understand anything, and that I haven't left? Can you? Fad (ix) 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Grandmaster
Hello, I have to tell you that I can't stand impersonal messages. Wouldn't it hurt to do a little research on the involved parties before copy pasting messages? I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost two years longer than you and have even written a featured article during that time, i'm quite familiar with all the rules and policies which I often familiarize others with. Why do you AMA guys always assume that the complaining party is sitting on a horse wih high heels boggles the mind. Please do your research before proceeding. The least you can do is read the entire talk page of the article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to be a little more specific. What does Iranica say that we're contradicting? As it stands now I have no idea what you're talking about. Stop making generalizations, that sounds quite patronizing. Regards.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can be more specific. I cited numerous sources, including Strabo, Kalankatuatsi, same Iranica article about Caspians, etc, which say that Caspiane/Paytakaran was also part of Medes and Caucasian Albania. You removed all of my edits, which were a result of hard work and research of sources. You removed all the quotes that I added to the article, and all the references. It is not acceptable. Grandmaster 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the diff clearly shows I have done no such thing. My version clearly states that Strabo said Caspiane was part of C. Albania. I removed the Azeri name of the province which of course is impossible since there was no Azeri language at the time of Paytakaran. I also removed your false assertion that Baylaqan and Paytakaran are the same when the sources you provided mention no such thing and they clearly state that they are talking about a city and not the province. Your missleading attempts to portray the situation as something which it clearly isn't is inappropriate at best.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, that is of what you were refering to. Grandmaster is not saying the truth there, you should read the talk page before placing such stuff on my talkpage. Paytakaran refers to an Armenian province, much like Constantinople was Greek, Constantinople does not equal Istanbul. Grandmaster prejudicial view of the Armenians, will make him place every irrelevencies he could in encient Armenian towns and cities. He even wanted the incorporation of some Azeris term in the lead for a historic place which existed before the Azeris language even existed. Fad (ix) 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to start personal accusations, that won't help you. Mind civility. I cited my sources to support my edits, you cite yours if you have any. Removing sourced info is against the wiki rules, and you know that. Grandmaster 18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw you initiated personal accusations. "They do this...they do that...invalid arguments etc.".Nobody has said there is anything wrong with those sources. The sources are fine. Your interpretation of those sources are not fine, if you don't like what they say, don't bother bringing them up, but you cannot change the substance. Where is your source for the Azeri language name for Paytakaran?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this is also why I said I rest my case. While he talk about civility, it is funny to see him accusing me of owning the article when him from anyone else has been blocked so many times for edit warring and article content dispute, when I have been here on Wikipedia for longer than him and never was I blocked for article related content. Fad (ix) 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you have been blocked many times for incivility and personal attacks. Your block log speaks for itself. Yes, I have been blocked for 3RR violation, because I had to deal with numerous people undoing my edits. I cited my sources stating that the city of Paytakaran is the same as the city of Beylegan, which exist to this day in Azerbaijan. Therefore, Azeri language is justified. I added direct quotes from various authoritative sources, which you repeatedly removed. Now please explain why you removed a verbatim quote from Strabo: To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane? What was wrong with its inclusion and what does it have to do with my personal interpretation? I think this case may end up in arbitration, as the rule violation is blatant. Grandmaster 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of us have been blocked as much as you have though, nor do we have recent blocks like you. Regardless, the Azeri language cannot be justified by any means. The city of Baylaqan cannot be justified by any means. Your inteprepation is the assertion that Baylaqan has anything to do with this province. The article is a about a province, not some city. I will not respond to your queries so long as you ignore mine. As for the quote, it was simple redundancy. Also it's out of context, if we're goign to quote Strabo than I want to see the entire quote and not the line that appeases you.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire line was there. You removed the quote of Strabo just because you thought it was a redundancy? And Paytakaran was both city and province. In fact, the province was named after the city. Originally the city of Paytakaran was the center of the province called Caspiane, named after the tribe of Caspians, but when that tribe disappeared, the province was called by its main city. I cited the sources supporting the statement that Paytakaran was called Beylegan in Islamic times. It is not my assertion, but sourced info. Grandmaster 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it was out of context, not just redundant. Write an article about a city, this is bout the province! You are making up stuff, where are your sources claiming that Paytakaran was a city after which Caspiane was named? Where are your souces that claim that the city of Paytakaran was the center of the province of Paytakaran? Do you realize Paytakaran is an Armenian word meaning land of wood? For the last time, any and all information about the city is irrelevant.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for blocks, the last time Fadix was blocked on 6 January 2007. And neither of my blocks exceeded 24 hours, while both of you were blocked for longer periods and for more serious offences, such as trolling and incivility. I think it is not worth discussing any longer. Grandmaster 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the block that exceeded 24 hours was a mistake and was reversed a minute later. You have the most serious block, one for disruption which was initially indefinite...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, most of my blocks were done by the same administrator; I had received emails by two other administrators telling that the block was unjustifiable. You were the reason of the longest block, for the exact same attacks which you have directed against me. The other block was as an answer to someone who calls Wikipedia a mad house and call articles trash, the person having imposed the block imposed it after I have reported to him (the same administrator who placed the block which another administrator openly said he sees no blocking material there and two others privately) my own incivility. I have never been blocked for article disruption; I maintain the 2RR and even 1RR most of the time. From all of my blocks, only two were justifiable, one of those the one on which I have reported myself, the other was meant to cool me down after I had been angered that nothing was done against a racist disruptor. It is funny that you bring my blocks, when you very much know that incivility is the only argument you can bring, when I have never ever been blocked for disruption, for 3RR or anything regarding article content, and that the block which followed your report of my incivility was answered from my part documenting incivilities you directed against me which were worster. Fad (ix) 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR is not such a serious offence. Many people, including Eupator himself, were blocked for the same. As for the disruption block, it was merely a misunderstanding, and was lifted as soon as I e-mailed the admin. It was imposed just because I spoke with one of Iranian users in Azeri language, which the admin did not understand. But the issue was resolved almost immediately and was not anything serious. So enough about blocks, let’s get back to the issue. So far I have not received any answer why Strabo and other quotes were removed from the article. I don’t understand how the Strabo quote is redundant when it is directly related to the history of the region? I cited numerous sources stating that Paytakaran was the center of Caspiane/Paytakaran. They were all deleted. If you write the article about the province, why should you not mention its capital, which was the city of the same name? Grandmaster 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not provided satisfactory answer to any of my requests. You are dodging my questions. It strikes me that you are obviously baiting by your constant repetitiveness. Show me a source that says the city by the name of Paytakaran was the center of the province of Paytakaran. Where does it say the province had a capital by that name? Where is it? As for the block, your long block history speaks for itself. No need to justify them.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR, IS a serious offense, it endanger the intergrity of an article. Fad (ix) 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did that countless times, but you are still in denial. Once again, check this source, it is a quote from the Armenian historian Draskhanakertsi:


 * После смерти святого Трдата нечестивый второй Санатрук,* родом из дома Аршакуни, которого Трдат поставил правителем города Пайтакаран,** взбунтовался и сам возложил на себя корону.


 * ** Пайтакаран — город, центр одноименного наханга, близ современного Орен-Кала на Мильской равнине. В 338 г. Пайтакаран «стал временной столицей Албанского царства, здесь находилась резиденция мазкутских Аршакидов. (Армения по «Ашхарацуйц»-у, с. 88).


 * Следуя неправедному его повелению, те варварские северные народы* убили поставленного епископом Алванка** блаженного [65] отрока Григориса*** из рода св. Григория, затоптав его конями на поле Ватнеан.**** Святое тело его перевезли и упокоили в гюхе Амарас,***** что в Малом Сюнике.******


 * The footnote says: Paytakaran – city, the center of nahang (province) of the same name near the modern Oren-kala in the Mil plain. In 338 Paytakaran became a temporary capital of Albanian kingdom, the residence of Mazkut Arshakids was located there. Grandmaster 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the dispute is being discussed, so I will just post here. GM's source Hewsen states that Paytakaran was on Arax's right bank. Baylaqan was on its left bank. This alone shows that they are not the same city.

Iranica merely states there was a city Baylaqan built in 6th c ad, and it was also called Paytakaran. It does not say that the city was the same Paytakaran that was the capital of the province. The capital Paytakaran had been around before 6th c, so yet another proof that it cant be the same city.--TigranTheGreat 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hewsen does not say that Paytakaran was on Arax's right bank, he says that the district of Bagawan belonging to this province was located there. And there are 2 different Iranica articles saying that Baylaqan is Paytakaran. Grandmaster 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn.
 * To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared.
 * BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan.
 * This really does support Grandmaster's view. Prove me wrong. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Herodotus says nothing baout Caspiane being in Albania. Strabo says that, at the same time he contradicts himself by saying that Caspiane is in Armenia. Reconcile that...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strabo does not say that Caspiane belongs to Armenia. He says that it was conquered from Medes by king Artaxias, who lived about 200 years before Strabo, which does not mean that it remained in Armenian possession ever since. It’s the same if some source claimed that Ukraine was part of the USSR in 1977 and you claimed that it was part of that country in 2002 as well. By the times of Strabo the region changed hands again, that’s why Strabo says in present tense that Caspiane belongs to the country of the Albanians. Grandmaster 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to got to mediation if we can not decide on something here in a month or two? The cases at MedCab are usualy solved. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also do you want 2 advocates working on this? --James, La gloria è a dio 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree to any mediation and involvement of any number of third-party contributors. Grandmaster 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay just skimming through I am not seeing any discussion of the content on the article itself, rather than engaging in edit wars which are highly counter productive...I recommend that you discuss possible changes on the said talk page. This is the only real way to get this down, I am already seeing sparks fly, try your best to remain Civil. I understand that this is a content dispute, but what you need is sources, someone please give references of the truth, that is the first step. Please discuss, that in my mind is the only way to get anything done. Correctly. Arjun  02:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel as if you can not remain civil take a break from this. I think if you remain civil then this case will someday be resolved. Everytime you say something uncivil you are only making things worse. Also I am going to get a lot more people into this case. I think that it will make it go by even faster. Peace. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Strabo states that both Albania and Armenia had regions named Caspiene, which means that caspiene was larger in area than Paytakaran. Iranica further states that Strabo puts the borders of both countries along Kura. P. was south of Kura. Clearly, Strabo puts P in Armenia.

By the way, what is AMA? American Manhood Augmentation? Thanks.--TigranTheGreat 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strabo does not say that both countries had regions called Caspiane. He refers to the same territory and says: To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared.


 * It is clear from this statement that Caspiane was part of Albania at the times of Strabo, as he speaks in a present tense. He also mentions Caspiane in another place, where he states that king Artaxias conquered Caspiane from Medes, but Artaxias lived about 200 years before Strabo, so Strabo describes events of the past. The fact that Artaxias conquered the land from Medes does not mean that it remained part of Armenia ever since. It is the same as saying that if Georgia was part of Russia 200 years ago, it is part of the same country now. What happened between the times of Strabo and Artaxias is described in another source:


 * Pompey then rearranged the political geography of the east. The exact details of the changes and their chronology are not always clear. Some were changed after Pompey and the young Tigranes fell out and after Parthian intervention. But the upshot was that by 59 BC Syria and Phoenicia had passed to Rome, Sophene to Cappadocia, and Adiabene to Parthia. Lesser Armenia went, probably, to Brogitarus, son-in-law of Deiotarus king of Galatia, and Caspiane to the Albanians .


 * A. E. Redgate. The Armenians (Peoples of Europe) ISBN-10: 0631220372


 * Grandmaster 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Baylaqan
Gm, I want to end the Baylaqan issue once and for all. Be honest now! You have been claiming all this time that Beylagan is the same as the city of Paytakaran in the province of Paytakaran. Don't deny this you said this at least a dozen times in the last few day alone, justifying the use of Azeri name and a whole bunch of other nonsense. Here's Hewsen's map of Armenia in the fourth century showing the city of Paytakaran:. Do you see where it is? I'm not saying you were doing this in purpose or anything no, just admit that you were wrong and in turn we can move on with potential concessions.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is the first time you actually presented any reference at all. I never claim anything that is not supported by sources. I have two quotes (from Bosworth and Chaumont) explicitly stating that Paytakaran is the same as Baylaqan. But Bosworth says that Baylaqan was located at the junction of Araks and Kura, and I also have a number of Armenian sources placing Paytakaran at the same location. This map appears to locate Paytakaran at a different place, but it’s still hard to tell by the map as there’s an additional branch of Araks shown on the map, which does not exist nowadays. I would prefer a written reference to that, but still we can admit that there might be conflicting views on Baylaqan/Paytakaran issue among the scholars. What do you think? Grandmaster 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, this map supports my another point, Kaspiane = Paytakaran. Grandmaster 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When have I claimed anything without referencing something? Anyway, i'll get back to Baylagan shortly but your response is promising. Actually there is no issue regarding Caspiane. The sources do not contradict eachother. There was a province known by Greco-Roman authors as Caspiane. When Artaxias conquered the Medes and added Caspiane to Armenia or re-added it to Armenia it became known as Paytakaran. We don't know whether Paytakaran had the exact same borders as Caspiane. We know that Greco-Roman authors continued calling Paytakaran by the designation of Caspiane. The name Paytakaran is Armenian (wood+land) and it encompassed the Caspiane mentioned by Greco-Roman sources, wholly or not we don't know. The solution is the following, we compare the borders given for Caspiane by Strabo or other Greco-Roman sources with the borders given for Paytakaran by Anania Shirakatsi in Ashkharhatsuits.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we ignore Hewsen? He says that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran. Plus, Strabo says that Caspiane belonged to Albania, and it was after the times of Artaxias. Grandmaster 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we simply state what the sources say, i.e. that the region was at various times part of Medes, Armenia and Albania. It is sourced info. As far as I know ancient sources don’t provide clear borders for Caspiane. And even if the borders of the two don’t coincide, it does not mean that they are not the same land. The borders of states and provinces were not stable thru the centuries, except for islands, like Britain or Japan. The borders of France were different at different times, still it is the same state. My point is that comparing the borders would be an original research, we can only quote someone who did that. But we have a source that confirms that it was the same land, which changed name at a later time. I think this issue can be easily resolved if we only quote all available sources and include all existing professional views. Grandmaster 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Caspiene is not Paytakaran. Even GM's article on Casps makes this clear:

CASPIANS (Gk. Ka‚spioi), name of an ancient people dwelling along the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, whether north or south of the river Kura is not clear.

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f1/v5f1a019.html

So, Caspians could very well be living north of Kura (as Strabo makes it clear). P. was south of Kura. P was called Caspiene, but doesn't mean all of Caspiene was P. Strabo states that the Armenian Caspiene (i.e. Paytakaran) was populated by Armenians, while Albanian caspiene (north of Kura) was populated by Kasps. Obviously, Kasps lived north of Kura, their land and the surrounding area was named Kaspiene, while Armenians lived south of Kura, and their part of Kaspiene was called both Kaspiene and Paytakaran. --TigranTheGreat 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Euro's map makes it very clear that B is not P. The modern juncture of Arax and Kura is clearly shown on the map--it's way far from the city of P. the river on which the city P. is located is not the main course of Arax, and it's clear from the map.

Also, neither Bosworth or the other Iranica source state that Paytakaran and Baylaqan are the same. They merely say that Baylaqan was called Paytakaran. That's not the same. There could be 2 Paytakarans.

As for Hewsen equating Kaspiene and Paytakaran, he does no such thing. The ending letters of a label do not mean the border of a province. The label merely shows the approximate general area called Kaspiene.--TigranTheGreat 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That’s personal interpretation of a source, i.e. original research. The source does not say that Caspiane is not the same as Paytakaran. And wasn’t it you who wrote the current version of the article? You yourself included the statement that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran. Grandmaster 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was just informed that AMA stands for Member's Advocates. So, Sir here is GM's advocate--i.e. his representative. Clearly he is going to take GM's side. So, what are we doing here?--TigranTheGreat 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's not the case.  "Members" refers to Wikipedians.  And we're all Wikipedians here.  James is on everybody's side.  He just wants the dispute resolved, and resolved in a civil manner.  It keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. --The Transhumanist 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we examine the sources?
James, an AMA advocate, has contacted me, out of the blue, to help. I don't know him, and I don't know any of you. And I can assure you, I don't know much of anything about the topic being discussed. But I'm here to help, if I can.
 * I've read Paytakaran, and I've copied the AMA threads of the discussion to this page, above. I'm in the process of reading it all, but the debate is really hard to follow, because it is often unclear what exactly each participant is referring to.
 * Therefore, we need to gather to one place the specific statements which each of you wish to be in the article, and indented under each statement, the sources supporting it.
 * Toward that end, I've created the subpage talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources. As a suggestion, here are some simple rules:
 * Everybody gets a section on the subpage. Create a level 2 heading with your name.
 * In your section, write the statements of fact which you would like to see included in the article. One statement of fact per paragraph.
 * Indented under each paragraph, post the references which support it, down to the page number.
 * Don't edit a section once discussion has begun about it. Instead, create a new section.  That way, it remains clear what is being referred to in the discussion.
 * Post all discussion with respect to the items on the subpage on Talk:Paytakaran (you can use the backlink at the top the subpage to get there). This way, anyone else who comes across the article and wants to participate in this endeavor, can easily do so.
 * Once the statements of fact and their references are in place, we can begin a critical analysis of each, starting with looking up and reading each and every reference.
 * I look forward to seeing each of your statements of fact and references. Sincerely,    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the statements of fact
Grandmaster, please rewrite the statements of fact at Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources to exactly the way you wish them to appear in the article. In their current form they are either unpolished or unclear. Let's get everything set up correctly before we resume discussions, to prevent confusion. For example, in item...

1) the use of "/" is bad form. The sentence also appears to be two statements of fact in one.  If there is any disagreement amongst the participants of the discussion above that the province was named both Caspiane and Paytakaran, then that needs to be covered in another statement of fact (preferably preceding this one).

2) speaks in the present tense. Also, no dates or time frame is given.

3) "Population of Paytakaran" isn't a statement at all. Please complete it.

4) "Islamic times" is vague, as the reader may not know what time period that refers to, or what you mean by it. I don't.  The religion Islam is very much alive today, so we are living in Islamic times now.  Please rephrase statement #4 to get your idea across clearly.  Also, "/" is bad grammatical form.  Maybe parentheses would work better.

Once everything is set up clearly, and exactly the way you want it to appear in the article, then we can begin discussing the accuracy or appropriateness of each statement based upon its sources. Setting things up clearly now will hopefully prevent confusion in subsequent discussion. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely,    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, concerning your rewrite:
Grandmaster, I've posted to the statements subpage the rewrite you posted on my talk page. I split each paragraph up and numbered each sentence to make them easier to refer to.

I haven't included all of the references from your original posting at the top of that page, as I thought you would be better qualified to organize those within the rewrite. Would you do that please?

Also, several sentences have no references. Could you add them?

I've reworded a little. If you wish to change my rewording of anything, please do so. Once everything is set up in such a way that is completely clear, then debate on each point can begin without confusion. That's why I've numbered each sentence - to make it easier for participants in the upcoming discussion to refer to and access.

In the upcoming discussion, I intend to remain neutral, and will try to help things move along more smoothly. Such as focusing on one statement of fact at a time, suggesting when to move on to the next statement, and asking questions to clarify what is being communicated.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of quotes
I would like to make a short comment on Tigran’s sources. What he does is called original research, which is against the wiki rules. He claims that there were two different Caspianes, however he cites no sources that explicitly say so, instead he provides his own interpretation of various sources and draws his own conclusions, which is not allowed here. We only report what reliable sources say, and none of them says that there was more than one Caspiane in the region. Same with his claim that Paytakaran was not the same as Caspiane, I cited a source that says that it was, and he cited none saying that it was not. He only provides personal interpretations of sources, which is, as I said above, an original research. Every statement that I propose to include in the article is based on reliable sources, as required by the wiki rules. Grandmaster 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are those the only points he makes that are in your estimation original research? If not, could you point out the rest of them, and explain how each is O.R.?  I'd appreciate it, thanks.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are the main differences. It is an original research, because none of the sources says that there were 2 different Caspianes. If so, his own conclusions cannot be included in the article. None of the sources that Tigran cited says that Paytakaran was not the same as Caspiane, he draws that conclusion by analysing the sources, which is an OR. On the other hand I cited a source saying that the Caspiane was called Paytakaran at a later time (Hewsen). We should only include what reliable sources say, however our personal opinions should be kept out of wiki articles. Grandmaster 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, Tigran’s response on point 1 and 2 is OR, as for points 3 and 4, I provided reliable sources to support my statements, and those quotes should be included in the article, because they are based on reliable sources. I think my quotes speak for themselves and no further explanation is required. For point 3 about population:


 * 3a) Paytakaran was initially populated by the tribe of Caspians, after whom it was named Caspiane.


 * Strabo: "To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared".


 * 3b) Later it was populated by people called parcies.


 * From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or Parracies, mentioned by Starbo.


 * Same with point 4, everything is well sourced. Grandmaster 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, Grandmaster description of this situation is not accurate.
 * Keep in mind that it is not my description. I have not contributed any content, and have merely been asking for clarification.  I am not on one side nor the other.  I think we're skipping ahead into debating too soon, when neither side has their facts down yet in a clear and understandable form. --TT

Tigran did not affirmatively say that there was two Caspianes. Grandmaster takes the land of the Kasps as a clearly defined land, with official borders. While sources place the said Caspiane both in Armenia and in the land of Albanians. Sources also provide different borders, which too Tigran has documented. Something can not be at two different places, can it? This was the point Tigran was making, he said that the only conclusion is that they are not the same Caspiane. The Armenian Caspiane was not located at the same place, thosefor could not be the same Caspiane; and Tigran has provided sufficient evidence to support that. Nowhere has Tigran presented original research.

Indeed there is a mistake in the current version since it equal Caspiane with the more modern Armenian province called Paytakaran. A mistake I myself admitted, Grandmaster has used this mistake, to extend it and infiltrate in an Armenian province article some irrelevancies. First, Grandmaster included some modern Azeris term of some Azeris town in the lead as the Azeris term for this Armenian province. When, the town has nothing to do with the province, and that the Azerbaijani language did even not exist when Paytakaran was a province, neither was there any Azerbaijanis living there at the time. He did this because the Armenian name was in the lead. But there is an etymologic reason for this. The English term Paytakaran is recognized etiologically as an Armenian word, it derives from an Armenian name for that province, and the name is on the lead. It is relevant to include it, according to name conventions for geographic places. It is relevant for readers to know the etymology of the word. Besides, the Azeris term there isn’t even original etymology of its own pronunciation; it is the retranscription in modern Azeris alphabet of an Arabic word for a town, while the article is about a province. Here I provide one example, the rest of Grandmaster requests are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with Paytakaran. It is like Grandmaster has a problem with the article simply because it relate to an Armenian province, which covered regions now in the republic of Azerbaijan and as if this will question the legitimacy of that republic. I don’t get how, this article was meant to be an apolitical article about a historic Armenian province. I don’t believe it is that hard to understand. Is it? Fad (ix) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please mind No personal attacks. Comment on content, and not the contributor. It is not my personal claim that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran, it is attested by sources. Quote:


 * BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan.


 * This info is verifiable and should be included in the article. Grandmaster 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal attack? Where? Your provided source is neither clear(subject to interpretation), neither an absolute truth. Face it. Fad (ix) 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Get used to it. He cries "personal attack" everytime someone shows that the sources he digs up all contradict eachother.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided a source. You did not. Grandmaster 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided sources concerning the article in question that do not contradict eachother. You have not. Most of your sources are not about the province of Paytakaran and they all contradict eachother as to its location. Bravo !--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't. I provided a source for every statement that I proposed to include, and not just my personal interpretations. Each source says exactly what I proposed to include. In wiki we only report what authoritative sources say, and it's not up to us to judge them. Grandmaster 19:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of what you proposed was your personal interpretation of sources.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me an edit proposed by me which is not supported by a relevant quote. Grandmaster 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was clear enough when I said the entire proposal made by you is a personal pov pushing interpretation, the sources provided do not say what you're saying.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means that you are not able to show me a single example of my "POV push"? Grandmaster 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He did, as much as I did, you just refuse to see it. I gave an obvious example just above, with the Azeris term you're trying to impose. Fad (ix) 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I quoted 2 articles from Iranica, stating that Paytakaran was later known as Beylegan. It is sourced info, and in wiki we don't supress sourced info. Grandmaster 05:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are interpreting, when the term was used, there was no Paytakaran left. The funny part is that even if what you say was true, Beylegan is derived from Arabic, and not Azeris, name convention won't justify your inclusion. But this is a non issue, because Paytakaran is the province and Beylegan was a town. Fad (ix) 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, Fadix, like it or not, agree with them or not, but I quoted 2 sources that support that statement. In wiki we report the sources, don’t suppress them. Arabic or not, it does not matter, the city exists to this day in Azerbaijan. And Paytakaran was both the city and province. Grandmaster 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You never did such, your two sources are open to interpretation, your interpretation is original research, and is contradicted by the vast variety of sources and records, some here Tigran has already provided. And stop mimiking what I told you ('like it or not' etc.) I am not supressing sources I am supressing your interpretations not substanciated. Fad (ix) 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This source says: BAYLAQAN, Armenian form Paytakaran. Please give me your interpretation of it. And another one says: Arabs invaded Albanian territory and the eastern Caucasus and took possession of Paythakaran (Baylaqan).  How do you interpret that? I would like to see how your interpretation is different from mine. Grandmaster 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, this one. The Armenian forum is not Paytakaran, Armenians have always called Baylaqan, the way Arabs were calling it, Armenian texts relate to it as Baylaqan, not Paytakaran. Face it, you have no cases, this article is about an Armenian Province. Fad (ix) 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, when you didn't follow the suggested instructions for the statements/sources page, it didn't dawn on me exactly what was happening. By posting countersources, you were going right into argument/debate mode, and sucked everybody back into it, including me! But we're just not ready to do that yet. Let's get the statements of fact that are to be submitted to the debate ready, and then we can begin the actual debate. Grandmaster's statements and sources are all split up between two versions, for instance, and that will only add to the confusion. So please let's wait until he is actually ready to start. Thank you.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not ready to start yet
Let me look over the sources page, to see if the points are clear or not. Once they are made clear, then we can start discussing one point at a time rather than have this discussion devolve into chaos like it did before. I've read the arguments from your previous discussions, and they are almost impossible to follow. So bear with me please, and let's keep this organized and civil. I will not be voting or arguing for one side or the other. I'm just here to help things run smoothly, point out confusing or unclear text, ask questions, etc.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigran...
It looks like #2 on your statements list is the only statement of fact presented there. The rest are all counter arguments. I requested that only statements of fact which are intended to be included in the article, and their supporting references, be placed on the Statements and sources page. You have included arguments (against Grandmaster's proposed statements) which should be presented in the upcoming debate. We haven't even started the debate yet, so please, let's not skip ahead. Please remove them (or use comment delimiters to hide them). I'm in the process of going over all the statements of fact now, to see if there are any that are not completely understandable. Please bear with me.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanist, the #1, 3, and 4 are sources to preclude GM's statement's of facts. I clearly separated my statements of facts, and intermediate facts supporting those statements of facts (you call them arguments). My Statements of facts are numbered. The intermediate facts are in parentheses. Quotes are in italics. If I remove the intermediate facts, you will be confused as to how each source supports the statements of facts. --TigranTheGreat 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Statements of fact", I specified very clearly to mean passages intended to be included in the article. Your #1, #3, and #4 don't fit that definition, and appear to just be ammo against Grandmaster's entries.  The "statements of fact" which are being submitted for inclusion in the article shall be the focus of the debate.  The reasons for not adding the submissions to the article, including reasons by way of preclusion, will be part of the content of the debate.  Again, please be cooperative and remove the "preclusion items", or create a new section for evidence at the bottom of the sources page and place them there.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And I stated very clearly (in the intro to my sources) why I put #1, 3, and 4. If I just present the sources meant for those items, without the brief statement of preclusion, you will be confused as to the purpose of the sources.

Now, if you wish, you can modify the segment, but I still think what I posted was for maximum clarity. I can always go back to the history of edits if I need to.--TigranTheGreat 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the statements of fact - Tigran
Tigran, since you only have one statement of fact presented, it is easier to start with that: "According to Strabo, both Caucasian Albania and Armenia had provinces with the name 'Caspiane.'" Why is this included? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what its purpose is here. Is it to help the reader be careful not to get the two provinces confused?

Was the other province also called Paytakaran? Are there any sources that you know of that mention whether it was or was not?

In the article, "Paytakaran" is presented as the Armenian province's main name. Was it the main name, or was the main name "Caspiane"? What was the Albanian province's main name?

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist  

"Paytakaran" was the Armenian province's main name. The Armenian sources mainly use that name. The Albanian province was never called Paytakaran, and there is no source that refers to Paytakaran as being part of Albania.

As for my statement of fact, I presented it because Strabo states that Albania has Caspiene, and that Armenia has Caspiene. --TigranTheGreat 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tigran claims that there is no source that refers to Paytakaran as being part of Albania. How about these:


 * Half-way through the 7th century, under the caliphate of Osman, the Arabs invaded Albanian territory and the eastern Caucasus and took possession of Paythakaran (Baylaqan), Partaw (Bardaa), Shakashen, Kabala (Kapaghak), Shervan, Shaporan (Shaberan), and Chor (Darband); Aran was to be reunited with Armenia under a single governor. Encyclopedia Iranica. M. L. Chaumont. Albania.


 * Пайтакаран — город, центр одноименного наханга, близ современного Орен-Кала на Мильской равнине. В 338 г. Пайтакаран «стал временной столицей Албанского царства, здесь находилась резиденция мазкутских Аршакидов. (Армения по «Ашхарацуйц»-у, с. 88).


 * Paytakaran – city, the center of nahang (province) of the same name near the modern Oren-kala in the Mil plain. In 338 Paytakaran became a temporary capital of Albanian kingdom, the residence of Mazkut Arshakids was located there.


 * Shahrvaraz moved from Nisibis, through Media, to P'aytakaran in Albania.


 * The war in Armenia, 572-3


 * Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N. C. Lieu, Michael H. Dodgeon. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (Ad 226-363): a documentary history. ISBN 0415003423


 * Grandmaster 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to ascertain what each of you claim the article is supposed to be about. The article states that there were two (separate) Caspianes. Is that correct? Were the two Caspianes two separate provinces which each included different territory? If so, did those two provinces co-exist at the same time? Or were they the same province (with relatively the same territory) at two different points in time? And most importantly, if the two Caspianes did co-exist at the same time, were they both called "Paytakaran"? Please clarify.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the statement in the article is not correct. There was only one Caspiane. We have no source to support Tigran’s original research that there were 2 different provinces with the same name. The province of Caspiane, which had its capital in the city of Paytakaran, later became known as Paytakaran after its main city. Grandmaster 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Trans, the article doesnt' state that there were 2 Caspienes. It merely states that Strabo stated that both countries had provinces named Caspiene. But Paytakaran itself was only in Armenia. We can let the reader decide--either Strabo was wrong, or Caspiene's borders were blurry, while Paytakaran's were fixed and within Armenia.--TigranTheGreat 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the statements of fact - Grandmaster
Grandmaster, please finish the rewrite on the sources page. You posted it incomplete on my talk page and I copied it to the sources page for you to complete. You need to integrate all the material from your original section into it. Right now, having two versions is confusing. When we start the debate, we will be discussing only the final version of your submissions, whatever you want that to be. So please, edit the rewrite into the version you wish to be discussed. During the debate we'll be referring to specific statements and sources, so it is important that they are all organized well and numbered so we can refer to them easily.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  


 * Ok, done. I merged point 2 with point 1b, because that’s how it should appear in the article. Regards, Grandmaster 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you go against Yeremyan, Nersesyan and Voskonyan?
I hope the map I brought from "History of Armenian People", book published in Yerevan, Armenia here, "bible" on Armenian History will help Eupator and TigranTheGreat understand where the exact location of Paytakaran city and region was. I also regret that, being of Armenian origin and probably aware of this well known book too, they did not refer to this map earlier to end the dispute. As you can see, Paytakaran is on exact location where Beylagan is today, not in the shores of the Caspian, near Salyan or Neftchala as you (Eupator and Tigran) claim. I am sure this work is superior to other sources you brought, as both Yeremyan and Voskonyan, who worked on this map are considered to be ace of the subject. I suggest to keep Paytakaran, but in Beylagan page make reference to Paytakaran and mention that this is the old name of the city and larger region. References to the meaning of "Paytakaran" also needs to be changed in my opion. It is not in Armenian, but in Iranian (Pahlavi)and means the capital of Aran/Arran. "Paytakht", even in modern Iranic languages mean "capital". Indo-European roots need to be referred, if there is compromise. --Ulvi I. 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Paytakaran relate to the province, Beylegan to a town, not the same thing. No one is preventing Grandmaster to creat an article about Beylegan. I don't see how this map above answer the relevent critics of mine. They have yet to be addressed. Fad (ix) 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is both province and the city and on exact location of modern Beylagan. Look at the map, enlarge it or look at the original book - do you see the spot/dot of Paytakaran city there, as the center of Paytakaran province? Beylagan, is newer and if you want corrupted version of Paytakaran. As Atropatakan became Azerbaijan throughout the centuries, Paytakaran became Beylagan, as simple as that. Beylagan/Paytakaran was/is not in the shores of the Caspian as you guys claim. That's why, the current article on Paytakaran should mention about Beylagan, show its current location according to millions of sources brought by GM, Dacy69, including the one I brough and the page/article on Beylagan should make a reference to Paytakaran, but this latter is another issue. Now after all these, do you know where Paytakaran is/was? --Ulvi I. 13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Beylagan is word used for the town, in Armenian, it is an Arabic word, yet used in Armenian manuscripts, I have already quoted two scholars, one wondering why Armenian manuscripts were using Beylagan when Paytakaran existed in Armenian, doubting both are the same, the other scholars correspondance questioning both being the same. Paytakaran was exclusivally the province. True, Beylagan is more modern of a word, translated to Paytakaran by some, it becomes Paytakaran only by its translation, those I have already raised, and sourced at the beginning of the discussion. Also, please do not introduce wrong claims it isen't making the situation any wasier, where are the millions of sources provided by Grandmaster? Did you actually read Tigran sources? Paytakaran is an Armenian word, which was used for the province. I can't understand why it is difficult for Grandmaster to understand that, he is doing an issue out of a none-issue. Fad (ix) 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Both you and I are new to these discussions, but I think the only difference between you and me is that I have read through all discussions, but you have not had time to do the same yet, am I right? My mentioning of "millions of sources by Grandmaster" was about identifying the location of Paytakaran. I have looked at Tigran's sources, they are good, but quite contradicting to each other about the location of Paytakaran. There is also confusion or misunderstanding on sections/periods of history. As far as I remember, Caspiana included Paytakaran, when Paytakaran did not exist as such. Caspiana was also larger than Paytakaran and indeed reached the shores of the Caspian Sea. But when Paytakaran came into scene, Capiana as the name of the region was long gone. --Ulvi I. 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has Persian etimology too. According to it, the name derived from Paytakht Aran, i.e. capital of Aran (paytakht means capital). Makes perfect sense. Grandmaster 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You never change, do you? Either Albanian, Arabic, Persian, but never Armenian. Fad (ix) 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do you. Only Armenian and nothing else. Grandmaster 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of really? then you must have sure missed something, maybe you should check articles such as Armenian language, before throwing claims like this. You have yet to answer at NK, remember? Paytakaran AS IS, not in any modified form, is an Armenian combination of word, and is recognized as being such, an Armenian word. Fad (ix) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who recognized it as such? Grandmaster 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The two authors I have presented already, not to say all the results on Jstor, all the 4 articles, in short, what one could find on, check ISI also. There is no question that Paytakaran is an Armenian word, the English term Paytakaran is a direct retranscription of the Armenian word. Fad (ix) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Paytakaran was both city and province. Ulvi is absolutely right. Look at this map and see where the city of Paytakaran is located. Exactly at the same place as Beylegan, i.e. in the triangle formed by junction of Kura and Araks. Grandmaster 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They replaced the term Beylagan, which is the true name of that place. Fad (ix) 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who did? Grandmaster 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who made the map. Fad (ix) 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You were explaining to me that we are not here to judge the sources, but to report them, remember? Grandmaster 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sir, but the fact of the matter is that there is no manuscripts there supporting the map, and I have already provided a source claiming that Armenians were not using the term Payatakaran for that town. That term was never used, it only is used in a translation, a translation which an authority on Paytakaran claimed doubting represent the same thing. Fad (ix) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided other sources stating otherwise, you cannot discard them just because you don't like them. Grandmaster 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you did not, to show they are equivalent words, you have to provide evidences that Beylagan was used as the word for the province. Fad (ix) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, let's keep this to an analysis of acceptability of the sources. When Grandmaster's proposed additions to the article, along with their supporting sources, are ready (including being checked for coherence), the debate as to their acceptability will begin.  Once the debate begins, I will expect all references to sources to be crystal clear.  They should be enumerated on the statements and sources page, so they can be referred to easily, without confusion.  Fadix, it would help if you presented your sources in your section of that page.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to, Grandmaster made the claim, claiming that Baylaqan is the same thing as Paytakaran. It is to the one making the claim to support his assertions. Grandmaster has yet to provide any single sources using the term Beylaqan for the province. He is turning around and not addressing the center issue. Fad (ix) 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

of Grandmasters proposed additions to the article will begin. At that time, all statements referring to sources will need to be accompanied by those sources, which can be placed in an evidence section on the statements and sources page.

Please clarify the nature and origin of the map
What is that map of, exactly? That is, is it a modern map, or an historical one? And if it is historical, what period is it supposed to represent? Also, is there documentation (a title, anything) that specifies what period the map covers?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a map from a History book about Armenian people published in 1980 in Yerevan, Armenia and is drawn I assume in those years by Armenia's own No 1. experts in this particular section of history, I expect referring to historical maps. I indicate the names of the authors - those names speak for themselves.  If it is Bunyatov and Mammedova in Azerbaijan, it is Yeremyan and Nersesyan in Armenia.  The map unfortunately does not give the period it covers and in the book nothing is mentioned about this.  But my guestimate is that it is covering the 1st century BC - 4th century AD and mostly refers to Chapter II - Creation of Armenian People and Ancient Armenian Statehood (pages 27-45).  Although I, as well as many other historians would not agree with such a massive coverage of Greater Armenia even during Tigran II, the map however shows correct location of cities and provinces and Paytakaran above all, which is part of our discussion.  The book itself also draws distinctive lines between historical Armenia's boundaries and Paytakaran, as well as Albania and Atropatena and indicates that these territories were not in Armenia, for example while talking about local resistance against Arab Khalifate in 9th century (Babek's rebel covering Paytakaran, Albania and Atrapatakan) (page 112). I hope this information helps and please do not hesitate to come back if you have more questions.  Thanks,

--Ulvi I. 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have some questions. Let me see if I have this straight:
 * So, the subject of the book is clearly historical in nature, and therefore so are the maps. Is that your position?
 * 1) And since the maps are historical, intended to support the text presented in the book, the authors intended and indeed did place the names on the various places which they as historians believed those placed were called at the time period represented on the maps.  Does that correctly identify your position concerning the map?
 * 2) What about Tigran's claim above that the name placed on the map identifying the city was a mistake?
 * 3) At the risk of being redundant, why did the authors label the city on the map "Paytakaran"?
 * 4) What language did the authors use to identify the locations on the map, and why?
 * 5) Are the place names on the map translated, or are they the actual place names used for those places during the period the map represents?

I look forward to your replies.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, Yes/Positive to the questions 1 and 2.

Question 3 - Let Tigran argue with his own Historians. I think Armenian Historians are right in this issue and would not make such a big and shameful mistake. Question 4: Because that's where Paytakaran city was and is today as Beylagan, then center of Paytakaran province. Queston 5: the Book is in Russian, probably for a larger audience. Thus the map is also in Russian for the same purpose. Let's be realistic, how many historians in former USSR and West could read or understand modern Armenian? Question 6: Yes, they are actual Greek, Parthian, Urartian, Caucasian names of that period. Authors have even mentioned ancient, pre-"Greater Armenia", Urartian and probably Hittit names of, for example lakes Van, Sevan, Urmia and etc.--Ulvi I. 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ulvi, you are not helping in this situation, you are repeating Grandmaster claims without addressing the central points I have raised.


 * Here be glad to answer them.


 * 1-	Baylakan is an Arabic word, not Azeri
 * 2-	Baylakan was a term used for a town, at most its districts.
 * 3-	To present Baylakan as synonymous for Paytakaran it is not enough to show that Baylakan has been translated as Paytakaran (which is a mistake BTW, as in Armenian literature that place was never called Paytakaran, which is an Armenian word), but also show that Baylakan is used as a synonymous for the province since Paytakaran was just that, a province.


 * Having said that, Grandmaster has still been unable to support his contention that Baylakan is the same thing as Paytakaran. Minorsky and Dowsett both who were formost authrity in the history of Paytakaran do not agree with Grandmaster POV. Minorsky writes:


 * Abdul-Asad Step'annos's origin is unknown, though the fact is interesting that he invoked Babak's help against those of Balak (or Balakan). I am tempted to connect this name with Arabic Baylaqan, i.e. the town which lay in the present-day Mil steppe on the road from Varthan (now Altan, on the southern Bank of the Araxes) to Barda'a (Partav). It had a very mixed population, known for its turbulence. I feel the strength of C. Dowsett's objection when he writes to me that 'it is rather unexpected to find an Arabic form of the name in Armenian, when they have their own P'aytakaran.' However, I am not quite convinced of the philological identity of P'aytakaran with Baylaqan (Belakan), of which the former is the name of the province and the latter primarily the name of the town (though occasionally referring to its district). (Caucasica IV, V. Minorsky, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953))


 * In short, Payatakaran is the province, Beylakan is not. This article is about a province called Paytakaran. Everything else, is just irrelevant and Grandmaster documentation is based on this everything else, since he never addressed the main point, which is Beylakan is a town at most a district, and that even if what Grandmaster would say would be sourced, which it isn’t, as he never provided anything about that, it will still stick that Beylakan is etymologically Arabic and not Azeri, an Azeri term those for would have no etymologic value; but since Paytakaran is a province and Beylakan a town having appeared after the fall of the province and that one has little or no connection with the other, raising this issue would simply be diversion.


 * Like I said previously, no one prevent Grandmaster to create an article about the town, and then say according to some source it was also called Paytakaran, but this main article is about the province as Paytakaran is for the very large majority in the academia only and only the province. Given this situation and that Grandmaster has shown no inclination for this obvious I had no other option than concluding that the problem with Grandmaster is that the province of Paytakaran was within a region which is now in the boundaries of the current republic of Azerbaijan, and that he find the need to dissolve any mention of Armenians by irrelevancy. Fad (ix) 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m tired of repeating the same thing million times. Fadix claims over and over that Paytakaran is a province, and not a city, while in fact it is both, as attested by sources. So the article is both about the province and the city. I provided sources stating that Paytakaran was later called Baylaqan, we cannot discard authoritative sources according to the rules. If there’s a contradiction between the sources, we report all existing views. And whether the name is of Arabic or Persion origin is irrelevant, there are many place names of Arabic, Persian or even Russian origin in Azerbaijan, still they have Azeri spelling too. Grandmaster 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You did nothing sych, where is the source claiming Beylaqan was the province? Fad (ix) 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Beylegan was the city, not the province. The article is about both the province and its capital. Grandmaster 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the acceptability of maps as sources, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policy (that I'm aware of) that states sources have to be printed in words. I'm fairly certain that graphical sources (pictures, films, maps, etc.) are not precluded by policy. It is a gray area, yes, but maps are a type of source, and can be cited, as far as I know. The sticky issue is that the reading of maps is commonly referred to as "interpretting the map", but if what the map shows is clear, then it probably shouldn't be construed as interpretation, but as simply reading the map. I hope this helps.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the map is authentic, it's outdated. The book it refers to was published at teh latest in the 70's. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, published in 1986, clearly places P. below Kura. So does Hewsen (his map is provided in my list of sources.--TigranTheGreat 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, what do you mean by saying "if the map is authentic"? Do you want to question the authencity of the map I provided and think that I am doing nothing but forgery and change of "Armenian maps"? Also, what is this "late 70's" issue? The preface of the book is also provided - it is published in 1980 and I do not agree that small article in Encyclopedia by one author is stronger thant the book on the subject written and checked by 10 scholars, mere 6 years earlier. --Ulvi I. 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but 1986 is still more recent than 1980. The Enyclopedia (which by the way was checked and written by 100+ authors) reflects the consensus of the official Armenian historiography. So, your map is outdated. --TigranTheGreat 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, is your rewrite complete?
Is the rewrite of your section of the page on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources complete? You stated that it was, but I need to make sure. If the rewrite is complete, then it is safe for me to remove the original from the page. Are you ready for that? When we start, you will have one presentation on the page. Right now you have two, with the rewrite slated as being the final submission. Does the final submission have everything in it that you want in it from your original submission? (The rewrite doesn't appear to be complete, such as missing statements of fact and sources that appear in the original submission). I suspect there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the word "rewrite". Synonyms here would be "new complete version" or "revision" or "new edition". Please let me know when your final version is ready, then I can begin analyzing each point for clarity.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My rewrite is complete. Nothing is missing. The second paragraph of my version of the article, to which you are apparently refering, was written by Tigran. I left it as it was, but since it was not my contribution, I'm not insisting on it. However, if Tigran insists on it, I would like to see the quote from the source he refers to. Grandmaster 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding, but have moved ahead based on your statement above. I've removed your original draft, as you have stated that the rewritten draft ("the rewrite") is complete. The rewritten draft (all the text that was below the heading "Rewrite 1"), now takes the place of the original draft. The rewrite does not look complete.  It is missing the statements of facts themselves, and most of the original references.  If you intended for those to be included, please add them back in (in the proper order within the document).  Or if you intended for the material that I've left in place to be removed, please remove it and restore whatever you wish to take its place.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what statements of fact are missing. I would appreciate if you could point out such statements. Thanks. And I added some references in full, so I think it should be OK now. Grandmaster 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the rewrite more carefully. I thought #4 from the original was missing, but I see now where you've placed it in the rewrite.  I'll try get to my analysis late this evening.  And hopefully the debate can begin before the weekend is over.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, looking over your statements and their sources...
1a - Your statement presents 4 forms of the province's/town's name. The source only presents 2: Iranian = BAYLAQAÚN and Armenian = P¿aytakaran. I don't see any sourcing for Azerbaijani: Beyləqan, Փայտակարան, or Persian and Arabic: Baylaqan. Please explain this discrepancy.

1b) Did you mean to say it was "the province"? Shouln't it read "a province"?  And by being part of the 3 political entities, that means it changed hands over time. Right?  So perhaps it should say "was at various times".  Like this: "also known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors, was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.  Paytakaran was also the name of the principal city within that province."

1c) this statement refers to "It". It doesn't differentiate between the province or the city.  Shouldn't it say: "The province was located"...

Where was the city located? Shouldn't that be presented too?

1d) "is located in" should probably be "lies within". The former expression implies that the area moved rather than jurisdiction.

Where are the sources for 1d? Though the statement can remain if nobody objects to it.

1e) Seems straight forward. Though I have no way to access the source.

1f) Remove the first comma.

2a) Punctuation: Caspiane needs to be in italics or placed in quotes.

2b) ...same for "parcies".

3a) This statement of fact mentions the city. But what happened to the province?  What did it get called?

3b) Change "it ruins" to "its ruins".

I look forward to your reply.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  08:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1a) The city of Beylagan exists in Azerbaijan to this day, thus the Azerbaijani name, as for Persian and Arabic, the link provides references to medieval Persian and Arab geographers, therefore those names are justified too.


 * 1b) I agree with your proposed edits. They make perfect sense.


 * 1c) Agree. According to most sources the city was located in the triangle formed by junction of Kura and Araks rivers, however some sources place it at a different location.


 * 1d) Agree. I think this part is not disputed.


 * 1e) It is a direct quote from Strabo (Geography 11.3.1), the text can be accessed online here:


 * 1f) Agree.


 * 2a) Agree.


 * 2b) Agree.


 * 3a) The province seized to exist, and the city became known with a slightly different name.


 * 3b) Agree.


 * Grandmaster 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide a source that Beylaqan was used to refer to the province, afteral this article is about the province. Go ahead do that. How many time shall I request that so you answer finally? Fad (ix) 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says that the article is about the province and not about its main city? The article is about both. You cannot describe the province without mentioning its main city. Grandmaster 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We can write maybe one short sentence at best about the city. The scope of this article is the province that has existed from 198 BC to 428 AD. Anything before and after is irrelevant and outside the scope of this article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus will decide what the article is about. If Paytakaran refers to both a province and a city within that province, then it makes sense for the article to cover both, but that is up to the community to decide.  You guys will be debating the inclusion and exclusion of the statements presented on the Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources page.  If the consensus decides to focus exclusively on the province, then an article named Paytakaran (city) could be created.


 * Grandmaster, have you added the changes discussed above to your draft? Once that is done, we can begin the debate.  Also, please include the references for the city names in 1a.  Right now, they are merely referenced within a reference.  You need to reference them directly.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, you mentioned that the province ceased to exist, but that the city went on. What happened to the province?  The land was still there.  It had to be controlled by someone, or fell within someone's territory.  And as such it must have had a name, or fell within the borders of a domain with a name.  The fate of the city is being traced, but why not the province?   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fadix, please explain the relevance of the naming of the province in relation to the naming of the city. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.  How does one follow from the other?  And please be specific as to how the naming of the province supports your conclusion that the city did not continue to exist.  Please see the article on Syllogisms, to assist you in presenting your logical argument concerning this issue.  Thank you.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transhumanist, as I have already said, this is an easy situation. First, to request the term Beylaqan to be there on the lead, Grandmaster has to show that it is a synonimous word for the same place. Since Paytakaran was a word coined to name the province, he must show us that Beylaqan was also used to name the province. It is funny you ask me to read the article on Syllogism, since my criticism of Grandmaster reasoning is specifically that it is not logical.


 * If A=B, obviously B=A, if B does not equal A, A can not equal B. When the term Beylaqan was coined and used, the province did not exist anymore. The term Beylaqan was never used to call the Province which did not exist when that word(Beylaqan) was invented. If Beylaqan is not a word for the province, it can not be an equivalent word for Paytakaran, a word which is pratically only the name of the province. In fact, Paytakaran is an Armenian word, while there is not a single Armenian manuscripts that call that place now being called Beylaqan, Paytakaran, it is only in the translation that it became known and this only recently in the last century as Paytakaran. It is asserted by presenting an Armenian map, that Armenians had no reason to make a mistake on that map where Paytakaran is written for the city where Beylaqan is. But there is indeed a reason, Beylaqan is an Arabic word, used by the Tartars, and some Armenians would be quick to replace an Arabic word with an Armenian one.


 * So, here is the situation, Beylaqan was the name of a town, at most a district, and Grandmaster was unable to provide a single source asserting that Beylaqan is the province. Paytakaran by the very large majority of sources being only the province name, and Beylaqan by ALL the sources being the name of a town at most a city. So, obviously Beylaqan does not equal Paytakaran and those for can not be used in the lead as an also called, because it is not an also called. Equality is from both sense, if something is equal it must be equal from both sense, and Grandmaster not only was unable to show us it was, but even indirectly admitted it wasn't. Fad (ix) 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't label your A's and B's, and so you lost me right away. Could you explain to me why the naming of the region and the naming of the town couldn't become independent of each other at any point in history?  Most capitals for instance are named differently than the countries they are in, so when the region was conquered by invaders, why would it hold that they would name the region and the city the same thing?  I'm just trying to make sense of your logic.  If I'm not mistaken, Grandmaster was claiming that there was a Paytakaran city inside a Paytakaran province, and that along came some Arabs who conquered the region, renaming the city one thing while calling the region the city was in something else.  Please explain how this could not be the case.  What would force the conquerers to name the region and the city the same thing?   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fadix, correct me if I have this wrong. Are you saying that "since Paytakaran was renamed 'Beylaqan' and the province wasn't, then you can't present 'Beylaqan' in the first sentence as if it applied to both"?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I have been saying from day 1. Paytakaran for the majority of sources represent the province, and Beylaqan has never been a term to refer to the province. Fad (ix) 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious, but maybe I was mistaken.

Labels and simplification

Be Grandmaster claim that Paytakaran was a town and a Province be accepted as a fact.

Testing the thesis that Beylaqan is a synonymous for the word Paytakaran

If A1=Paytakaran is the town; then is a must, B1=Beylaqan is the town If A2=Paytakaran is the province; then is a must, B2=Beylaqan is the province

Grandmaster accepts as statement of fact, A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are contained in A, while B1 and B2 are contained in B.

Is A1=B1? According to Grandmaster it is, he provides sources for that, I and Tigran have provided sources, claiming it is not. Starting from there, “the also called” being Beylaqan is not valid, since according to some it is and according to others it is not. The majority of sources support that it is not. So right from there, Beylaqan can not be used as a synonymous for the term Paytakaran.

The second point is;

Is B1=B2? According to everyone, including Grandmaster it is not, as Beylaqan has never been the name of the province, this term was coined when there was no province left.

A; which includes A1 and A2, could for those reasons not be equal to B; which includes B1 and B2.

The statement that A=B is then wrong.

In a more complex was, the conditional equality A=B is maintained while B=A is not.

Let me develop on that too.

Beylaqan is claimed to be a synonymous for the word Paytakaran

Be

A=Beylaqan B=Paytakaran

Lets test if always A=B and B=A

Let use Grandmaster statement of fact.

Is Beylaqan the town the same as Paytakaran, he says yes, so A=B Now, is Paytakaran the province Beylaqan the province, everyone admits no, the condition B=A is not true.

Grandmaster claims that a city called Paytakaran was replaced by another name called Beylaqan. First, two authorities on Paytakaran history question that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is situated, as even Armenians were calling the town Beylaqan (Arabic word) and not Paytakaran (which is an Armenian word). So that there was any town called Paytakaran where Beylaqan is, is a matter of debate. And this Tigran has provided sufficient sources for that.

Suppose that indeed Beylaqan was built exactly in the place where a city by the name of Paytakaran was built. Still, the word Beylaqan was never used to call the province.

So, while according to Grandmaster A=B, which is Beylaqan a town was called Paytakaran, even Grandmaster admits that B does not equal A.

The majority of times, Paytakaran refers to the province, and the article is about the province called Paytakaran, so the majority of times Paytakaran is not Beylaqan, and given that the article is about the province, Paytakaran is not Beylaqan.

Sure, like Eupator said, there could indeed be a little mention in the article, that according to so some city of the same name existed which was by some called also Beylaqan, but even then, the Azeris term is not justified, as the word is Arabic and that during the period covered the Azeris language did even not exist.

I hope I have been more clear now, oh and sorry for the size of my reply. Fad (ix) 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, a question concerning 1a
In 1a, a number of names are given for Paytakaran. And since you are referring to two different entities named Paytakaran, please clarify which of the names you provided apply to the province, and which ones apply to the city.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The names Caspiane and Paytakaran applied to the province, the names Paytakaran and Beylegan applied to the capital city. After the province became part of Caucasian Albania, it seized to exist as a separate province and after the Arabic conquest it became part of the province of Arran. See Encyclopedia Iranica: The Islamic geographers of this period give descriptions of Arran in general and of its towns (Barda’a, Baylaqan, Ganja and Shamkur or al-Motawakkeliya) in particular. Grandmaster 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated sources page with the changes we agreed on. Grandmaster 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just checked this source again:


 * BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan.


 * And it appears that Armenians did not initially call the province Paytakaran either. Originally the area was known as land of Caspians (Caspiane, or Kaspk in Armenian). So we should clarify this in the article as well. I propose the following wording:


 * Paytakaran was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia. Paytakaran was also the name of the principal city within that province. Originally known as Caspiane by Greco-Roman and Kaspk by Armenian authors, the province was located in the area of the lower courses of the rivers of Kura and Araks, adjacent to the Caspian sea. Later the region became known under the name of Paytakaran.


 * Another point is that the name of Paytakaran was not known in Greek and Roman sources, for them it always remained Caspiane, and the sea is called Caspian Sea to this day. But that’s a different topic, and I don’t insist on inclusion of that in the article. Grandmaster 11:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. Please edit 1a and 1b so that "Paytakaran" in 1a is accompanied by alternate names for the province, and "Paytakaran" in 1b is paired with the synonyms for the city.  "Paytakaran" in each 1a and 1b should be followed by its own parenthetical note with its own names only.  Is that acceptable to you?  If so, please change 1a and 1b accordingly.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Grandmaster 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As soon as the proofreading corrections above are added to the draft, the debate can begin
And just as soon as the discrepancy in 1a is clarified. Then...

Assuming there are no objections, the basic procedure will be as follows...

First, I will archive all previous discussion, so the debate can start with a clean slate. Then the participants in the debate will discuss each statement of fact, one at a time, with each side presenting its position on whether it should or should not be added to the article, along with each side's arguments, and supporting evidence. I will continue to ask questions for clarification, and will do my best to keep things moving forward. Once it appears that all arguments have been presented, I'll ask for final comments from both sides before declaring that the debate move on to the next statement of fact to be considered.

Discussion will continue until all arguments and counterarguments of substance by each side are presented concerning each statement of fact. "Yes it is!" and "No it is not!" are not arguments of substance, for instance. We're looking for actual reasons, not unsubstantiated opinions. Another example of an unsubstantiated opinion is "I don't believe that statement should be included in the article." In that argument no reason is given. We need to know why each statement of fact should be included or excluded from the article.

Once all of the arguments have been presented from both sides, I will then place notices for feedback everywhere (appropriate) on Wikipedia I can think of, to bring here as many people as possible to interpret the arguments and evidence presented in the debate - if you are still in disagreement as to what should go in the article. These people will be asked to examine the debate, and will determine which position is the most sound. With wide enough participation, a fair and accurate consensus should be reached.

If no consensus is reached by the community, then the article will remain as it is.

Is this procedure acceptable to all of you?

Are there any questions, suggestions, or comments before we begin?

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist  19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable to me. Grandmaster 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)