Talk:Principality of Khachen/Archive 1

Discussion
Why do you, user Grandmaster, think that Khachen principality didn't exist after X century?


 * Rovoam? Your edit was not about timeline, you just included the word "Armenian" everywhere you could. Grandmaster 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you answer on my question?

From when is Khachen a Caucasian Albanian princpality? All the sources I have place it as Armenian. Besides, that region was Armenized during that period. Can anyone provide futher documentation? Anatolmethanol 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the page from the article. In Caucasian Albania does not mean Caucasian Albanian by ethnicity. Do not misquote.Hetoum I 19:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I am following you, I have not quoted anything. Anatolmethanol 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the paper, I didn't find anything on it being Albanian on that page. Also the same author write in another paper: ...Khachen region of eastern Armenia... C. J. F. Dowsett, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Feb., 1980), p.138. Is there a source supporting the claim that it is an Albanian principality? Anatolmethanol 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant I checked the page that Arabek cited and his citation is dubious. Hetoum I 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * C. J. F. Dowsett. "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Goš", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3. (1958) on page 475:
 * "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence, and we know that it was partly at the request of one of its rulers, Prince Vaxtang, that Mxit'ar composed his lawbook."
 * First of all, I have hard time seeing how name Vaxtang would be Armenian, rather than Georgian-sounding, hence being Albanian (Albanian language was closer to Georgian). Please, present your evidence. Thanks. Atabek 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By god you have a point. And Armenian people should not have the name Davit because it is jewish sounding. No original research.Hetoum I 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the name David is Hebrew in origin. Anyways, I presented the evidence to support my edit. Can you please, present yours. Thanks. Atabek 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have another source? You are assuming. Anatolmethanol 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why another source is needed? I believe C.J.F. Dowsett is NPOV and verifiable enough. And why don't you present your sources too, please. Thanks. Atabek 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your source does not support that it was an Albanian principality. Khachen was officially an Armenian principality with contacts with Georgian princes. Your source does not say it explicitly. If you check the source I provided, it was from the same author and a more recent. Here few more sources, if you want more just ask.
 * Sartakh recevait bien tous les chrétiens, et particulièrement les princes arméniens; il honora beaucoup Djalal, prince de Khachen: ce fut aussi par la médiation de Sartakh et de son père, que les princes arméniens et géorgiens qui était soumise à Batchou, furent moins vexés. Ser. 6, v. 11, 14 and 18; ser. 7, v. 1 and 9, ser. 7, v. 16 and 19, ser. 8, v. 5, 9, 13 and 17; "Journal asiatique (Paris, France), Dondey-Dupré père et fils (1833) p. 212-213
 * Hasan Jalal Dawla, a Muslim Armenian Melik, proclaimed himself autocratic lord and prince of princes of variously Khachen (Zangezur), Artsakh and Aghvank (Albania)... Small Nations and Great PowersA Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell, Routledge (2001), ISBN 0700711627 p.66
 * A few native Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun. The New Encyclopedia Britannica by Robert MacHenry, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Robert MacHenry, (1993) p.761
 * All of the melik clans traced their origins to the house of Khachen, the last remnant of Armenian nobility... Gha-ra-bagh!The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia, by Mark Malkasian, Wayne State University Press ISBN 0814326048 p. 19
 * Here a Muslim traveler in the year of 950
 * Khajin (Armenian Khachen) was an Armenian principality immediately south of Barda'a. Abū-Dulaf Misʻar Ibn Muhalhil's Travels in Iran (circa A.D. 950) by Abū Dulaf, Cairo University Press, (1955) p.74
 * ...Armenian Prince of Khachen named Jelal,... History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century. Part 2. The So-Called Tartars of Russia ... by Henry Hoyle Howorth, Adamant Media Corporation p.95 Anatolmethanol 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating explicitly it was an Albanian Principality? Anatolmethanol 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted someone who seems to not have logged before reverting. Lets give Atabek the occasion to provide his sources about the principality Albanian origine. Anatolmethanol 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did provide evidence to the fact stated in the article that Khachen was Caucasian Albanian principality, see the bolded text above. C.J.F. Dowsett is an expert in the history of Caucasian Albania and the only scholar who translated Movses Kalankatuaci into English in 1961. The anon IP should not be removing sourced material from the page. Atabek 05:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have access to that paper, I don't see anything remotly supporting it. Do you mean you have other sources? If yes, please provide them. As for my side, if you want more sources just ask. Lets say 48 hours, if you do not provide sources than I will have to replace this by what the sources I have posted supports. Regards. Anatolmethanol 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One other point: Sahl ibn-Sunbat, a descendant of ancient kings of Caucasian Albania the source by Dowsett makes a proposition that this might have been a fabricated descendance to give him legimicy over an Albanian trone. I think you've misread Dowsett. Anatolmethanol 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 462, clearly states "one cannot exclude the possibility", it's not a definitive statement. According to the source provided, Smbat was from the family of Arranshahiks. Atabek 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't see anything explicit there, it is a family name allegedly and Dowsett claims it has no connection with Arrashah, therefor using his name, as how it sound is speculative. I don't understand, why don't you provide a source which is explicit? Don't you have any other reference? I mean, I have provided you 6 with clear explicit terms. I kind of believe that Britannica and a Muslim traveler of the time should have been enough. Anatolmethanol 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also fail to see what this has to do with Khachen: In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan Anatolmethanol 06:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, taking time to read the referenced page 139 from the book by Charles van der Leeuw would help. Atabek 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book, could you quote? Also, I am wondering why you used Cornell to equal Khachen with Zankezur, Khachen is in Artsakh. Cornell is not a neutral source he runs the Cornell entreprise which serves as a lobbying groupe for the construction of pipelines. It is logical to think that he'll link Khachen to Zankezur which is in Armenia rather than Arstsakh which is officially in Azerbaijan. I don't think you could substitute a biased source with what all others say on the location of Khachen. Can you provide other sources which place it in Zankezur rather than Artsakh? Anatolmethanol 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Both pieces from Cornell and van der Leeuw are available through Google Books, of which I am sure you're aware, due to references you listed above. I believe Cornell was reasonably NPOV, when he claimed that Hasan Jalal was Muslim Armenian, while van der Leeuw claims that "Jalalian" is an invention of Armenian historians.Atabek 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way on the same page 462 of C.J.F. Dowsett's article he completely dismisses any claim that Sahl was related to Armenian Bagratids. Atabek 06:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you be sure of what I am aware? Cornell is not a neutral source, he was awarded by the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan for his work on the subject. He works with Fariz Ismailzade, Political Program Director of IRI(so-called International Republic Institute) with a mission of global support of Azerbaijani politic, Fariz is also Azerbaijan Bureau Director of Cornell Caspian Consulting. The Institute is based at the Caspian Business Center. Cornell run the Cornell Caspian Consulting which is allegedly on the Peace in the Caucasus, but its true mission is to attract investors, if you go on his site on left you press The Caspian Region you will get the Consulting real mission. Cornell does not qualify as a neutral source not in this article or anywhere else. It is obvious he claimed Jalal was Armenian. Denying the obvious would discredit his covering of the subject. What he did insteed is to equal Khachen with Zankezur (in Armenia), rather than where it the recognized to be by the other sources, Artsakh. He knows well that it is an Armenian dynasty, he just changed its location. The possible purpouse of this is obvious, amputate Armenians historical tie with Artsakh. Anyway, I'll check for Leeuw. As for Dowsett, he indeed dismiss Bagradid, he does not dismiss on the other hand him being Armenian. To the contrary, in his footnote he explicitly say that Smbat is not incommon for Armenians and that someone can have that name but not be necessary the son of Smbat. Anatolmethanol 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Atabek, der Leeuw does not appear to be on google book. Any link? Also, please don't forget your sources for Khachen being an Albanian principality. Anatolmethanol 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have two parallel articles called Principality of Khachen and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to merge these two? Principality of Khachen was ruled by the family of Hasan-Jalal. --Grandmaster 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are quite the same. Lets see about that. Anatolmethanol 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't insist. Just something to think about. --Grandmaster 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain me why the page was redirected? Anatolmethanol 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Atabek, an explanation for the redirect would be appreciated. VartanM 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did provide the explanation in move comments. But will gladly provide them again here. I noticed that Khachen page was empty, so it would only make sense to move this unique topic to shorter title, it will make it easier to search and access. Since there was no conflict with other topics or articles, I guess this should not cause any concern. Unless you specifically want the page to be only at Principality of Khachen. Atabek 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I provide six sources I propose to provide more. Then, you don't provide any when I request you. When I settle this by showing that indeed the Principality is Armenian, Grandmaster propose its merging. I say they are not quite the same and then you rename it. It didn't appear you had any problem with the title when you were claiming it to be Albanian, why the change of mind? I mean, it is pretty much obvious that the principality of Khachen and the location of Khachen are not the same. With this move, you could even justify removing the word Armenian all together by justifying that Khachen is in Albania and that this article is not about the principality. I don't agree with the move, this article was about the principality while you move it for the location. Anatolmethanol 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The most prominent expert on history Caucasian Albania in Western world was C.J.F.Dowsett, as he was the only one who translated Movses Kalankatuaci into English, and cited Artnerseh as Albanian prince of Khachen. But in the spirit of consensus of discussion I incorporated sources mentioning Khachen as Armenian as well. Also references to Minorsky are relevant too in this regard, as he was another top expert.
 * I don't see how renaming of article is connected to whether Khachen was Armenian or Albanian. Does it really matter if the article is called Khachen or Principality of Khachen? In either case, it means the same thing, and I doubt that is a subject to any form of dispute. There is no evidence you have presented so far to show that Khachen was different from Principality. And, please, assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, here is the link to van der Leeuw's book, scroll for the page cited in the article. And, please, provide precise links to references you provided above as well. As it seems you ask for weblink verification of every reference I provide, I expect the same courtesy in return. Thanks. Atabek 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Dowsett is a very valiable source, and I don't remember saying anything else. The main issue here is that Dowsett does not claim what you claim he claim. I have cited a more recent paper of his, a review of a work..., in which he specically calls Khachen, Armenian. In fact, nowhere does he ever claim that the principality was Albanian. I don't think it is fair for the man who has put so much work into this, to have his research misinterpreted. No one would like that. As for the question on wherever or not the article is renamed. Yes, it is important, you took the decision alone. I did not want the article to be renamed because the principality of Khachen is its principality, Khachen on the other hand is the location. And also, I do see how the location vs the principality could make a differences on the relevency of Caucasian Albania history or Armenia. Please change it back and discuss on the changing of name. BTW, you can check the works I have cited on google book, the reason I have asked Leeuw, is while I do find his work on google book, for the reason the pages are not there. I can not browse the pages. Anatolmethanol 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per your claim: "I have cited a more recent paper of his, a review of a work..., in which he specically calls Khachen, Armenian", you do not appear to be citing Dowsett anywhere on this page with quotes from his articles, reviews of his articles. The quotes from Dowsett above were presented by me. In addition to the source I provided above from "Mxitar Gosh", saying, "in Albania, Xacen part of the old province of Artsakh", his other article on "Neglected passages..." also mentions Atrnerseh, lord of Xacen, and one of the three Albanian princes captured by Bugha in 854.
 * Page 9 is accessible, and please, provide the weblink references to the material you're sourcing. I asked for that in previous comment above.
 * Regarding your claim that Khachen is a location different from principality, please, provide references to support your viewpoint. Pending such a proof, the move remains to be legitimate, as both titles point to the same topic. Atabek 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and read carefully what I write. I accept to repeat myself, one time, two time..., but more than this I don't see the necessity. If you read this page, you will indeed see that I did quote from one of his review of another work. Check. He calls it a region of eastern Armenia, it was published in 1980.

None of your sources support your claim. From the same token, we should use a source regarding Anatolia to claim that it was not within Ottoman. Albania was Armenized during those periods, the term Albania was used for nothing more than its location on a map. The principality was clearly run by Armenians. The term Albanian here does not mean that the principality was ethnically Albanian, rather that it was a dynasty in Albania. On my comment, please do not put words in my mouth, I never said the location was different. What I said is that one is a location and the other is the principality. So, how does the move remain legitimate?

I still can not access the work, why don't you quote the relevent part. I am saying that I can find it on google book, but for a reason it does not even let me open a page, for the rest of the works it works. You just have to type those titles on google book and you will find each and every of those. Now, do you finally have a source which will support your claim? I have waited 3 days and still have obtained none. Anatolmethanol 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I am calm and assuming good faith. Regarding the links you provided above: claiming Dowsett called it a region of eastern Armenia, you're missing the title of the article. And actually no article by C.J.F.Dowsett was published in 1980 but if you provide the title of the article, I can certainly try to find it. You do need to provide legitimate and verifiable evidence.
 * My sources as shown above, clearly spell "Albanian prince Artnerseh, lord of Khachen" and "in Albania, Khachen was...". I am yet to see the evidence provided by you to prove that Khachen was Armenian principality. The claim itself is actually baseless, as Xachen and Artsakh were clearly part of Caucasian Albania in the named period in first place. On one side, you're disputing only the ethnicity saying they could be princes of Albania, on the other side, you're saying Xachen was part of eastern Armenia without any sources. So there is a clear inconsistency in your point of view.
 * If you would like to continue in a repetitive fashion providing no references, ignoring those I provided 3 times already, and insisting that Khachen was Armenian without any evidence, then perhaps, we can engage third parties to identify, verify and review the source of your evidence yet to be seen. I am more than comfortable with that as long as it will help you in finding and seeing the sources I already provided above. Atabek 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering will be repeating myself. Do what you wish to do with the article. Remove any mention to Armenians I won't bother you more. Regards. Anatolmethanol 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I already incorporated your contributions, particularly from Cornell, claiming that Hasan Jalal was Muslim Armenian Melik and from Abu Dhulaf claiming Khachen was Armenian principality south of Bardaa. I also included the evidence by the top expert on Caucasian Albania, and Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies at Oxford, Dr. C.J.F. Dowsett, citing Khachen as Albanian principality and its Albanian princes. So, I believe the balance and neutrality of positions, despite weighty Dowsett reference to Albania, is already there. Please, present further evidence to justify your point, and we will get those points incorporated into the article. Atabek 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted anon who deleted info from the article. --Grandmaster 05:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version
First paragraph

Caucasian Albania (dissolved during those years, Western part was controlled by Armenia, the information for which is totally missing). Then a descendany of ancient kings of Caucasian Albania. This is attributed to Dowsett by Atabek, Dowsett never say anything like that, he is translating an Armenian text, which he will later criticize. Atabek's wording these way to build an Albanian descendant, that Dowsett is skeptic about. Then Artsakh, present day Azerbaijan (ignores the hard reached consensus on other articles). Then Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, historians John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake. Atabek misquoted Dowsett and replaced Sahl son of Smbat with Sahl ibn-Sunbat and made the result muddy, even more when he attributed to Minorsky in the footnote, on the main, there is no attribution.

So, in the first Paragraph no mention of Armenians, Armenia in one context which is the claim that the Sahl ruled it.

Finally on the second paragraph, something about Armenians, there is Abu Dulaf description, in this case there is attribution of sources, when in the first paragraph when he is presented as an Albanian prince it was presented as fact. Then: This association is due to the peaceful coexistence of Armenians and other, mainly Caucasian, ethnic groups in Caucasian Albania for more than two centuries under the Arab dominion. Which of course is irrelevent on that paragraph. And of course, this too is presented as fact. The only times Atabek attributed claims, is when he developped about it being Armenian principality or something to do with Armenians.

Then, the third paragraph, Atabek starts: In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan which of course has no relevency with the article in itself.

He then goes to add this: a feudal prince named Hasan Jalal Dawla, whose origins are obscure but who has been renamed to "Jalalian" by Armenian historians[6], proclaimed himself the lord of Khachen. The reader has absolutly no clue that Jalal is recognized as Armenian by every sources which covers his ethnicity. '' To support it, he uses Leeuw, a non-credible author (see Davo88's sandbox, for evidence) who's work has been compared to Soviet Azerbaijan nationalist version of history.

Then the claim that he is Armenian (which no one disputes) is relayed to the second order, with other sources claim, and muddy it more by claiming him Muslim Armenian Melik, to support this assertion he uses Cornell, again a none credible source (see Davo88's Sandbox), who places Khachen in Zangezur when it is was centered on the Eastern extremity of Artsakh by every other sources. Even Muslim sources place him as Christian. Then the accurate and non-disputed information that after the Arab dominion, the Caucasian church became a diocese of the Armenian church..., is attributed a source on the main, when it is general knowledge. VartanM 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, I believe the information contained in this article was also discussed with the sock of Fadix, from whose material Davo88 created his Sandbox. So, provided that sock was banned, and Fadix's ban was extended by another year, due to persistent personal attacks and individual harassment, I don't see how the information contained there is supposed to have any credibility whatsoever.
 * Actually, the fact that you criticize Cornell reference in this case, indicates that you should probably read the referenced page of Cornell before disputing him based on Fadix's sandbox. Because Cornell was the one who said Hasan Jalal was a Muslim Armenian Melik, I don't see what part of this statement of Cornell you're disputing as it clearly fits your POV.
 * Your claims about me, supposedly misportraying Dowsett, do not have a basis whatsoever. I already recited several times the precise word-to-word quote from Dowsett on this page as well as Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat. The name of Sahl ibn-Sunbat is in Arabic spelling, it means the same as Sahl, son of Smbat, as cited on Sahl ibn-Sunbat page. The spelling, however, which I only wikified, does not change the essense of Dowsett's quote, that Sahl was an Albanian prince, neither does it mean that Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Sahl, son of Smbat were different people.
 * And what's your dispute about the fall of Ildegiz Atabegs of Azerbaijan? It's well known that Albanian princes of Artsakh were vassals of Turkic rulers, they were semi-independent. Moreover, I did not add it by myself, that entire sentence comes from the reference cited at the end. Atabek 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, You have answered none of the points raised. I don't see how Cornell admission that he was Armenian is a testament of his credibility when he places Khachen in Zangezur, far, far away from Partav. He's the only scholar who claims this, which is not substantiated by any other sources. Cornell is not credible, and wherever or not Fadix has been banned does not change the fact that he is a political source. To claim that Jalal was Muslim, you have to provide another source to support it. Works which have been written to create sources can not be substitute to decades of scholarship.

You claim that you have quoted Dowsett several time word by word, which is wrong, you removed Dowsett's Sahl son of Smbat for Sahl ibn-Sunbat, while it is true that ibn means son this is not what Dowsett writes word by word, neither does he use Sunbat, he writes Smbat, by substituting one for the other the footnote looses any sense(on his Armenian connection). You have also not replied to my observation that you have used Dowsett citation by changing the name to then attribute it to Minorsky.

Iidegiz Atabegs have no relevency with Khachen, their fall has no relevency with Khachen, and no it is not well known that they were vassals of Turkic rulers, ud-Din Ildegiz ruled until 1172 and nothing to do with Khachen, and there was nothing called Azerbaijan during those years. You quote Leeuw, when one of the reviewers Fadix uses writes: His interpretation resembles the one developed by Azerbaijani nationalists in the Soviet era: that Azerbaijan has been distinct state since ancient times and has always been centered on what is now the republic of that name.

You are mudding it down, by direct source attribution for everytime there is something on Armenians you placed it in second order, as if its some opinion, and if there is somehting about Albanians and Azerbaijan, both of which words you abuse, you presented as facts. VartanM 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, you're yet to define what is your disagreement with Cornell reference in the article. If you're concerned with the fact that his citation is used, we can go ahead and remove the citation saying that Hasan Jalal was supposedly Muslim Armenian Melik.
 * The citation by Cornell was first provided by the sock of Fadix - Anatolmethanol at Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat, not by me. So I don't quite see why are you disputing it with me, perhaps, you need to read the talk pages a bit more carefully.
 * Khachen was not on Mars, it was in Caucasus which was under control of Ildegiz Atabegs. Again, that quote was taken from the source, I didn't insert that statement deliberately from elsewhere.
 * Regarding, Dowsett reference, before disputing the quote, do you deny the existence of this quote:
 * "C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:
 * "Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl, son of Smbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."
 * and which part of it do you dispute?
 * Finally about your comment: "You quote Leeuw, when one of the reviewers Fadix uses writes" -- why should the opinion of Fadix's sock should in any way be decisive in omitting legitimate scholarly reference? Atabek 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I still quite frankly don't see where you address my criticism above. Fadix banned or not, it doesn't change the fact that Cornell is a political source, therefore not creditable. You present this as fact, so you shouldn't have any problems finding any other source. Idegiz rule ended in the 12th century, and its control on the region is still contradictory in sources. First over a century passed between the two dates, second the word Azerbaijan has no place there, third Leeuw, who is a journalist, has been criticized by historians and is not credible. On Dowsett, this is the first time you quoted him accurately, don't make this as if it is something I have not seen. Now please, answer my criticism above. VartanM 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, assume good faith and answer my response above item-by-item addressing your concerns. I still don't see how your comment above disputes the validity of CJF Dowsett reference or explains your argument against Cornell reference. Atabek 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, this is the third time I'm repeating myself, you're just wasting my time. You are yet to address the points I have raised.


 * First, you can not just copy Dowsett text, change a word and change its author, it borders intellectual dishonesty.


 * Second, Atabegs of Azerbaijan have no place in this article, their not the same date, not connected, the region controlled has not been confirmed and then you use Leeuw as source, when he is not credible.


 * Third, you can not attribute positions only when the word Armenia or Armenians are there.


 * Fourth, you can not push anything having to do with Armenians in the second order, just because it is Armenian, more particularly when no scholar denies it (On Jalalian for exemple).


 * Fifth, you can not take an unilateral decision, and ignore a consensus on the wordings used for Nagorno-Karabakh. You do not own articles, considering that there was wording consensus.


 * Sixth, you can not dismiss Armenian scholars when they do not agree with your position, solely based on their ethnicity. And on the other hand use political sources (Cornell) as sole source for an affirmation.


 * Seventh, when I request sources, you should have no problem providing them, given that you word those as if there is no opposition. You can not base some statement on one single source, when there are relevant and significant reasons to question the credibility of the source. (this is common sense and I should not need to explain it to you)


 * Eighth, you can not add stuff in articles which are not relevant to the article.

Those are just few clarifications on the top of my head, while you have not answered any of my concerns. I don't see any item by item addressing of my concerns. As for assuming good faith, malign pushing of the word Armenian still continuous, and in spite that, it requires from me to pretend that it was not done or done with no intention. This article is a testament of that. VartanM 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM,
 * 1."you can not just copy Dowsett text, change a word and change its author, it borders intellectual dishonesty" - I have a right to present Dowsett's sentence in its entirety as long as I properly reference it, which I did. You have yet to present any evidence disputing Dowsett's expert conclusion though. If you noticed, you haven't posted a single article reference yet, only disputing the references I presented with words so far.
 * 2. Atabegs ruled all of present-day Azerbaijan (including Khachen) at the time. So it is relevant, as for van der Leeuw being non-credible, please, present your credentials to show that your point on removal of van der Leeuw source is credible.
 * 3. I did not attribute any positions, I only cite references.
 * 4. Dowsett denied it clearly. He is NPOV, Western expert on Armenia and Albania.
 * 5. I don't see any consensus or discussion regarding the word Nagorno-Karabakh on this page. Please, clarify what you're talking about.
 * 6. I don't dismiss Armenian scholars, in fact, Dowsett recites Armenian historians in claiming that Sahl ibn-Sunbat was Albanian prince, and Khachen was in Albania. If we cite Armenian scholars, I will be glad to also cite Academician Farida Mamedova, indeed an expert on Caucasian Albania and one of the few remaining speakers of Grabar (ancient Armenian), who also recites Armenian scholars. Again, you haven't made it clear how you dispute Cornell reference and why do you dispute it.
 * 7. I didn't base my edit on a single source, there are 7 sources listed in the article, and regarding "this is common sense and I should not need to explain it to you" - assume good faith.
 * 8. I don't believe my response to this POV is necessary. Contributions in Wikipedia are guided by certain rules, which are enforced by appropriate authorities. All I can say, is assume good faith.
 * Thanks. Atabek 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1.Did you even read before replying? Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, historians John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake. This text has no attribution because it is made part of the article and not presented as citation. You attribute the content to Minorsky while you have plagiarized it from Dowsett and changed Sahl son of Smbat for Sahl ibn-Sunbat.. So in this addition, you presentedd a citation as part of the article (which is plagiarism), second you changed the original written Armenian name as is written by Dowsett by its Arabic name. And finally you attributed it to the wrong person. This is an obvious mistake, but you're refusing to addressing it, which leads me to assume that it was not just a simple mistake. A good faith editor would correct his mistakes after it was pointed out.

2.'Atabeg of Azerbaijan'' is historically invalid, ud-Din Ildegiz and Khachen principality are not connected in any way, neither does the term Azerbaijan has any validity, it is a recent term and didn't exist in 13th century. You have erroneously added the term Azerbaijan. Leeuw is not a credible third party source, because he is a journalist, who has been living in Azerbaijan since 1992. Muriel Atkin who criticized his work, teaches at George Washington University and specializes on the region history. There is no peer reviewed criticism of his work which presented it positivity. I am waiting for another source.

3.No, you did not.


 * a) Khachin (Khachen) was a medieval semi-independent principality in Caucasian Albania presented as fact, when reputable sources claims it to be Armenian. Nothing on the intro is saying anything about it. While sources like Britannica support it as an Armenian principality, you redirected the page to the geographic region, misleading the reader, and totally excluding the fact that it was Armenians who were living there and it was ruled by Armenians.


 * b)According to medieval Arab traveler Abū Dulaf, Khachen was an Armenian principality immediately south of Barda'a[5]. This association is due to the peaceful coexistence of Armenians and other, mainly Caucasian, ethnic groups in Caucasian Albania for more than two centuries under the Arab dominion[6]. The information of it being an Armenian principality, on the second paragraph, while things like Babak Khorramdin etc., are given first order. Then it is attributed to Abu Dulaf, when no one disputes this. Then it is watered down with the coexistence, reminding that Armenians were not the only ones living there. We are talking about Khachen. and you have provided zero statistics. You footnote it with Leeuw.


 * c)In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, a feudal prince named Hasan Jalal Dawla, whose origins are obscure but who has been renamed to "Jalalian" by Armenian historians[6], proclaimed himself the lord of Khachen. Azerbaijan is not a a term in any articles covering those periods, neither does this have anything to do with Khachen. You have yet to provide any materials, Leeuw is as credible as Mamedova (who's claims he recycles in his book). Then, you claim that he was renamed by Armenian historians. Nothing is said about him being Armenian.


 * d)Other sources claim that Hasan Jalal Dawla was a Muslim Armenian Melik[7], who proclaimed himself a prince of princes of Khachen (Zangezur), Artsakh and Albania, and became a local figurehead of Mongol Hulegu Khan against the unruly Turks. Not only his Armenianess is thrown as 'other sources'', but he is presented as a Muslim Armenian, and Khachen is placed in Zangezur. Khachen is nowhere near Zangezur, this is only claimed by Cornell, who is not a credible source. Partav is not near Zangezur, Britannica and other sources place it as Artsakh, including Armenian maps of the period. No one besides Cornell disputes that.

4.Dowsett didn't say anything such, stop placing words in the mouth of scholars.

5.I doubt it, that you even edited those pages, that you haven't checked their talkpages makes it worst.

6.Dowsett is an Armenian historian, he is Armenian, he is a specialist of Armenia, he treated Albania as part of Armenian history. Before his death he gave various lectures, had you read any of his other works, you would've known that you are totally wrong about the way you interpret he's writtigs. You are distorting his words. Mamedova is nationalist Azerbaijani scholar who is considered as an academic fraud, we are here discussing about official and credible history. She will be taken seriously by no reputable western scholar. She for example fabricated a Dynasty of the Djalalides from 9th to 15th century in her works, which she of course place as Albanians. When Jalal wasn't even born in the 9th century and after Jalal, it was the throne of the Meliks who claimed it. This is one of the absurdities she provides. I dispute Cornell, because any person who just started reading about the period in question will know that Khachen is not in Zangezur, the mistake is just too obvious, because western part of Khachen barely touches Zangezur. Besides Cornell is assuming him to be Muslim because of his Arab sounding name.

7.You're understanding of Wikipedia is all wrong, I am observing on your behavior, assuming good faith doesn't include observations but rather concerns to not jump to judgments on ones behavior, without obvious malicious acts. But the observation on your current behavior leaves no doubt that you are editing this article in bad faith, and I hope the arbitrators will be reviewing this talkpage.

8. I'ts not even worth answering to. --VartanM 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, assume good faith, re-read CJF Dowsett reference.
 * 1. Again, Minorsky refers to "Sahl being lord of Shake", that's why the reference was added at the end of Shake. And that whole sentence was not plaggiarized (again you assume bad faith) but referenced from CJF Dowsett. You're yet to present any evidence that Dowsett's sentence is not true. Sahl ibn-Sunbat is Arabic version of the prince's Albanian name, Sahl son of Smbat.
 * 2. I don't see why I should consider Muriel Atkin of GWU as credible source in questioning van der Leeuw. And will you present evidence that van der Leeuw resided in Azerbaijan since 1992 as well as Muriel Atkin's work criticizing him, before proceeding. Khachen in 13th century was part of the state of Atabegs, which actually possessed entire present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia and North-west Iran. Armenian state did not exist since 5th century A.D., and it for sure did not exist upon Arab and later Seljuk Turkic conquest.
 * 3a) Present the citation from reputable source.
 * 3b) Again your SOAP and POV that it was Armenian state must be substantiated by citations of articles, books, etc. not by words. Do research, and present citations for consideration, instead of repeating Fadix's material above. Again, I am yet to see any citation from you.
 * 3c) Mamedova is a prominent Albanologist, and her book actually has many references to Armenian as well as Georgian scholars.
 * 3d) "Nothing is said about him being Armenian" - "Hasan Jalal Dawla was a Muslim Armenian Melik" - I think you contradict yourself. As for Khachen being Zangezur or Artsakh, we are not talking about two different hemispheres of the planet, Zangezur and Artsakh are neighboring regions. So some scholars (and it wasn't not only van der Leeuw or Cornell), presented it as Zangezur, others as Artsakh.
 * 4. Assume good faith. Also, read the Dowsett's article, especially his footnote in "Neglected Passages..." about Daghbaschean.
 * 5. Assume good faith again, and define clearly which source and page you're referring to.
 * 6. Dowsett was not Armenian. He was only a Professor of Armenian Studies at Oxford. As far as his treatment of Albania goes, please, present evidence instead of POV/OR.
 * 7. You've just violated WP:NPA.
 * 8. Assume good faith, yet again.
 * Thanks. Atabek 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my last reply, I am considering fixing the article, which I assume will end up with an edit war, or I can wait and wish the arbitration decision will stop these sort of disruption.

1.You have not addressed it, you plagiarized Dowsett sentence. No matter how you justify it, it was still plagiarizim. The rest, I have replied, which you have ignored.

2.Leeuw does live in Azerbaijan since 1992. Here you will see the note on the bottom on him living there for more than a decade. Muriel Atkin is a PhD and her expertise is Russia, Tajikistan, Iran, and Central Asian history. . Her review of the book can be found here. Every peer reviewed reviews of his works in the West, completely demolishes them including the one by Atkin. As for the Atabegs, you are changing the subject, Atabegs of Azerbaijan never attained such success and are unrelated with Khachen. A History of Persia by Percy Molesworth Sykes merely say: This family, however, never attained to more than local importance. The said Atabeks of Azerbaijans were in the southern part, and the province has no connection with the actual republic of Azerbaijan. As for Armenia, the Kingdom was reinstated in the 9th century.

3. a) I kind of think that Britannica is a more notable source, that an Arab explorer or all other sources some of which are quoted in the above talkpage should be sufficient.

3. b) I can cite whatever I want, those materials have been cited and you have addressed none.

3. c) She is a nationalist Azerbaijani historian, member of the Academia of Science, also in the same line of Soviet Azerbaijani nationalistic revival, which even authors such as De Waal don't take seriously. She fabricate the Jalalid Dynasty, which obviously is not substantiated by credible peer reviewed publication.

3. d) You are distorting my words, you have taken my criticism on the first paragraph and compared it with the later criticism of another paragraph. Khachen is not in Zankezur, period. Center Khachen is on South of Partav which is Eastward of NK, even outside its Eastern frontier. This is an obvious mistake which no writer in good faith would make. Britannica and other reputable sources including the Arab explorer place it in Artsakh. Cornell is a political source who changed its location maliciously because Zangezur is in present day Armenia while NK is officially part of Azerbaijan. You claim that Cornell is not the only one who place it there, which is of course wrong. Provide those other scholars.

4.Daghbaschean is an Armenian. You are misinterpreting Dowsett.

5.NK to be one, which you edited.

6.Dowsett is Armenian, it's known. Check for exemple the article written on him in The Independent. His treatment of Albanians is made clear in the intro of all those papers, and evidences have been provided here and the Sahl talkpage.

7.I did not violate anything, I made an observation on your behavior in this page.

8.It still doesn't worth answering to.

I am going to ask a second opinion, but will not be answering you. The discussion doesn't give any results. VartanM 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Again VartanM, you have been asked two times to assume good faith. Your charge of plagiarism is groundless, provided that the sentence is provided with a reference link at the end. And I don't see how your accusation would dispute C.J.F. Dowsett's sentence that Sahl was Albanian prince? It seems that it's only intended to attack me and not prove the reference wrong.
 * 2. The fact that Muriel Atkins disputes Charles van der Leeuw does not change the facts cited by him in regards to Khachen. Indeed, Atabegs of Azerbaijan (Atabakan-e Azerbaijan) existed from 1136 to 1225. Moreover, CJF Dowsett's other article, "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxitar Gosh", has some references relating Atabegs and Khachen:
 * "In Ganjak he (Mxitar) attracted many pupils, but afterwards oppressed by the Turks at the instigation of the Catholicos of Albania, Stepannos III, (1155-95), he went to Khachen, where he enjoyed the protection of Vaxtang, prince of Haterk"(p. 473)
 * "Eltkuz(Dowsett's spelling of Atabeg Eldiguz)... took for himself the rank of atabeg, for he had killed the Xazbek, the atabeg of the sons of the sultan, in their rivalry. Because of this he took possession of the kingdom of Persia, grew strong and suppressed great princes and subjected many and completely destroyed the rebel chiefs of the Turkmans; and he pacified the troubles of the land of Aran, and the savage race of Ismaelites were appeased, and the looting which they often perpetrated in the land of Albania ceased. However, the war with the King of Georgia and with the princes of Xachen was not at an end, for they came on one occasion by stealth and took the fortress of Haru, and put all to the sword"(p. 488)
 * And AFTER THIS you're saying the fall of Atabegs had nothing to do with Xachen?
 * 3a. Arab explorer cited by Minorsky and CJF Dowsett is more reliable than Brittanica, I would think. Moreover, what's that argument you have against the quote by Arab explorer Abu Dhulaf?
 * 3b. Assume good faith and present your material with citation in an appropriate manner.
 * 3c. Well, if Mamedova is claimed nationalist just for being member of Academy of Science of Azerbaijan, by the same logic any Armenian source is simply not credible or neutral too.
 * 3d. Zangezur's connection to Khachen is well reflected in Minorsky's article "Caucasica IV", on page 525:
 * ''"According to historian Moses, Spram married Artnarseh, son of Sahl, lord of Suinia, who had seized by force the canton of Gelam."
 * Further in the footnote about Gelam, on the same page of Minorsky:
 * "Brosset, in his notes to Orbeliani, ii, 24, contests his appurtenance to Siunia and prefer to take him (Atrnerseh) for a scion of the Albanian house who encroached on the territory of Siunia. Brosset's surmise suits well the illuminating identification of Adhar-Narse Khashini (of Khachen) by Marquardt. Moses himself is silent on the appurtenance of Khachen, but even if Spram's marriage was arranged with a prince outside Khachen, it's possible to imagine that after the marriage, Khachen - undoubtedly friendly to the Mihranids - was included in the dominion of Spram and her husband"
 * As you can see above, Cornell's connection of Khachen and Zangezur (Siunia) was not groundless.
 * 4. Well, here is the quote from CJF Dowsett about Daghbaschean (p. 462 of "Neglected Passages..."):
 * "Daghbaschean takes Sahl to be the son of the contemporary generalissimo of Armenia, Smbat Bagratuni; this is completely without foundation and his surprise that "Sahl is nowhere called the son of Smbat the Generalissimo but merely the son of Smbat" is wholly unjustified. Smbat is hardly an uncommon name in Armenian history"
 * 5. Why would discussion on NK page be at all be related to Khachen? I don't even remember when I last edited NK page.
 * 6. "Armenian scholar" - means he is an expert in Armenian scholarship. From the same article you provided link to, read the sentence - "This happily brought him into contact with Professor (later Sir) Harold Bailey, who first introduced him to Armenian." I wonder how Armenian would be first introduced to Armenian language/culture/history by a British professor.
 * 7, 8. Assume good faith, so I won't have to comment/report on your disruptions. I welcome any form of dispute resolution. Atabek 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vartan and I hope the arbitration will be reviewing this talkpage.

First, he skipped the copy of Dowsett's text, second distorts Dowsett fully. Third uses Leeuw who does not qualify as a credible source while every other source provides a different location. Atabek does not understand the differences between source attribution which should be present in the article itself and citations to support what is claimed in the article. Next, Atabek manages to distort IIldiguz Atabakan-e and makes of a variant as Azerbaijan which requires either exclusion or clarification per guideline because it qualifies as a misleading term. Then he finishes that with assumptions.

He then turns this as if it is Vartan who is not agreeing with the Arab explorer, when it is actually Atabek who rather preferred attributing to Dhulaf what is accepted as general knowledge, and present Cornell's position as something which is maintained by some scholars. Vartan requested another scholar being cited, Atabek's answer was unsatisfactory. In short, the Arab explorer does not contradict Britannica; it is Cornell who contradicts Britannica and the Arab explorer. Atabek claims that Zangezur's connection to Khachen is well reflected in Minorsky's article. But his quote doesn't say anything of such. Sahl is believed by some to have founded the principality of Khachen. But he was not only governing Khachen. Atabek answers are full of assumptions. He talks about connections (which he makes) while Cornell's reference explicitly places Khachen in Zankezur which the Arab explorer, Britannica and other sources place elsewhere. Atabek sticks to one source, Cornell, but refuses to provide any other sources explicitly claiming this. Completely ignoring what every other source which situates Khachen places it.

Atabek still keeps the reference to Smbat Bagratuni by Dowsett, which he misinterprets it, claiming the author is saying he was not an Armenian. When in this discussion which Atabek preferred leaving, it is actually shown that Dowsett takes it for granted that the Sahl is Armenian. Then Atabek finishes claiming he forgot the last time he edited NK, when one of his edit conflicts included on the wording, opposition of the consensus reached on the main of NK.

A funny incident, on Armenian scholar...funny because Armenian scholar does not mean Armenian scholar, while in both articles for him Albanian prince can not be Armenian prince of Albania, when the author he cited took that as granted but he still sticks and does not want to correct himself. Vartan, if you are hearing me, accept your mistake and be done.

Now, what comes as self-evident is that Atabek has yet to reply to the initial criticism by Vartan. In one way or another, what can be said now is that we can not hope Atabek to correct any mistakes, not even admitting to a single one when they are self evident. I will be fixing both articles in the upcoming days; I have patiently waited to see Atabek fixing his mistakes on both articles, which of course did not happen... - Fedayee 01:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fedayee, the sources I presented on both pages are verifiable. So instead of assuming bad faith, and repeating Fadix's arguments from above, already repeated by VartanM, I suggest that you completely read the article, as well as sources presented. Minorsky article referenced presents a connection between Khachen and Syunia (Syunik), which in modern day is a Syunik marz of Armenia, a.k.a. Zangezur. As Zangezur and Artsakh (modern-day Karabakh) are neighboring lands, there is nothing surprising in either Minorsky or Cornell reference. As for me supposedly "distorting" Ildegiz Atabekan-e, I offer you encyclopedia Iranica article Atabakan-e Azerbaijan to verify the fact that Ildegiz state was known as Atabakan-e Azerbaijan.
 * I did not leave the discussion at Sahl ibn-Sunbat, I simply wasn't checking it after Fadix's sock was identified. But I will keep an eye on it.
 * Regarding CJF Dowsett's origin, I don't see how him being Armenian scholar (which, as already presented in newspaper "Independent" reference by VartanM above, is not true) is going to change the fact of his quotes?
 * As for Vartan's "initial criticism", as you called it, I am yet to see any reference from Fadix, him or you, which would question the validity of C.J.F. Dowsett's claim that a) Khachen was in Albania; b) Sahl ibn-Sunbat was Albanian prince. Thanks.
 * Also, please, present in formal wording the "mistake", which I have contributed. So far every single sentence presented in the article is referenced from one and sometimes even two sources, most credibly CJF Dowsett and Minorsky.

Atabek 09:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cornell is an acceptable source to use. User:TigranTheGreat used it the article about Nagorno-Karabakh to support the following claims:


 * Despite these conquests, the population of Upper Karabakh remained largely Armenian.


 * The Armenian meliks maintained control over the region for four centuries, until the mid-18th century


 * And a number of others. If this source is acceptable for that article, why is it not acceptable here? And if it is not acceptable here, it should not be acceptable elsewhere. Grandmaster 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your written article is full of misleading terms, erronous controversies which in reality do not exist to justify languages of the sort, "some source" "while others". You make various assumptions, which other readers reading the same text won't make. You use sources which do not support statements. Here for exemple, you keep talking about Khachen and Syunik connection, when on a map, both were different, one is in Artsakh and the other not. I can too connect Canada with the United States of America, this does not mean that Canada in in the United States of America. There is no evidence that the Iideniz have ever ruled that far West, besides it is misleading.

You claim that you were not keeping an eye on the Sahl article after Fadix' sock was identified, this didn't seem to be a problem for you in this article when the same sock was contributing here too.

Also your failure to see how the Armenian scholar will change anything, I can interprete it as sarcasm. We are in the same situation. In both articles, it starts with information to which the reader need to read the rest to understand the context and real sense. In the article about the Albanians it is even more explicit. Any third party editor by now will see that Dowsett isn't even questioning the Sahl being Armenian part but you keep bringing this up. On the other hand, you do use double standards and correctly interpret that in that sense Armenian scholar did not mean he was Armenian. Why should Albanian mean being ethnically Albanian, while Armenian does not necessarily mean being ethnically Armenian?

Vartan's initial criticism was never addressed, there was no state by the name of Albania those years, the term Albania is misleading and does not provide any new information to the reader other than being used politically to mislead the reader into believing that those living there were not in fact Armenian. Dowsett's intention was not this, and I think by now you should have known this.

Your last paragraph is unsatisfactory because no one here has questioned those scholars, but rather the dishonest way you put words in their mouth and misinterpret them.

Here are my changes fully justified.

Removed Caucasian Albania (there was no state by that name) removed Sahl (who was a prince of Khachen, but no sources provided that he founded the principality), I removed the rest because it is about Sahl which again has little relevency. Jalalyan was the most known prince of the Khachen principality, but I removed him regardless to reorganise and expend the article. Oh and I removed it being region of Azerbaijan, because as we both know, people will be adding stuff like disputed territory, de facto independent but officially in Azerbaijan. So I removed this all together, leaving the reader pressing on the hyperlink to try understanding on the main article all the mambo jumbo words and terms to call NK.

The second paragraph has little to do with the Khachen principality.

Third paragraph is OK, I merged it in the intro.

I removed the fourth paragraph, which covers a little bit Jalal, but two phrase about his origin, which are unnecessary... it is not as if someone disputes him to be Armenian. The Gandzasar Monastry... this could be worked on, but adding the rest of the phrase, Atabek made this as if the Gandzasar monastry was Albanian but was Armenized, which of course, is wrong.

I removed the last paragraph, it is not sourced, probably could be. I have removed materials from both side. But that Khachen was an Armenian principality, I don't think serious scholars question this. And of course I renamed the article back to what it was. No one besides Atabek agreed with the move. We started on the principality, lets continue on the principality. Thanks. - Fedayee 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fedayee, I don't see why you remove a whole set of references, while keeping a short set of POV/OR websites. Please, discuss your edits instead of removing Caucasian Albania (historical state which existed even according to Armenian sources) or claiming that it did not exist. Atabek 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read his justifications for the removal, before blindly removing it. The only way we gonna be able to fix this article is if we start from the scratch. Which he clearly stated in his response. VartanM 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What you call his "justifications" are based on WP:OR, without a single reference. Especially, saying "Removed Caucasian Albania (there was no state by that name)", this is simply ridiculous, because even Armenian sources say that there was! Removing references by prominent scientists like Minorsky and Dowsett, and inserting OR instead is simply unacceptable. Atabek 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Those sources are coming back, when we rewrite the article. And the text you call OR is going to be rewriten and sourced accordingly. Without personal interpretations. VartanM 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, please be so kind and justify your addition of POV and Neutrality tags to a two sentence long article, which were both sourced. VartanM 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Vartan, you're not supposed to remove dispute tags from a page. The explanation to insertion is provided, following the sock of User:Fadix, you're intentionally getting rid of CJF Dowsett reference to the fact that Khachen was Albanian principality and intentionally inserting POV that it was Armenian. The article is currently in a POV and OR condition. Hence the tags shall remain here until the successful conclusion to dispute is reached on the talk page. Now reinsert the tags back, otherwise, I will reporting your removal of tags to the attention of ArbCom as disruptive editing. Atabek 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek adding POV and OR tag to a two centence article was done in bed faight thats why I removed it. now lets disscuss how to re-create the article without POV's and OR's. VartanM 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually bad faith was your removal of a large body of sourced text with 7 article references. But anyways, even two sentences can be POV and OR, I clearly explained the reason for insertion of tags, insert them back. Atabek 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The large body of text was removed because you didn't answer my criticism, and the article was full of OR added by you. Circular discussion wasn't going anywhere and the only logical thing to do was to start over. VartanM 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're quite warranted to remove sourced material from the page in the middle of dispute. As talk on this page shows, you haven't succeeded in disproving the major point about C.J.F. Dowsett's mentioning of Sahl Sunbat among three Albanian princes and of the fact that Khachen was the province of Caucasian Albania. There is no source to support your POV that Sahl or Khachen were ethnically Armenian, that's called OR and disruptive misinterpretation of selected sources. Atabek 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute
An editor should not add dispute tags without making a good faith effort to explain why he thinks they are needed. Other editors should not remove the tags without making a good faith effort to address the issues raised (denying that an issue exists is not sufficient). When in doubt, ask for comment or a third opinion. Thatcher131 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
VartanM would you care to explain why you revert the article again reinsert unsourced claim "Armenian principality", when CJF Dowsett reference, removed from the article, clearly says it was Albanian. Atabek 15:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Atabek, you must have missed above, where 6 sources are provided, I'll just add one more, Hewsen who considers it as such in his paper on the Kingdom of Artsakh. This makes 7 and I think should be sufficient. VartanM 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the CJF Dowsett reference back to the article. Discuss your further removal of references from article on talk pages. Repeated removal of a prominent source on Khachen, Albania and Armenia, like Dowsett from the article, will be repoted to ArbCom. Atabek 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again CJF Dowsett says the principality was in Albania. There was nothing in this reference to say that Khachen is Armenian principality. Atabek 07:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
Melikbek, welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion above. The edits you are making have been discussed and debated before. Your claim that the Armenian sourced place it in Armenia, and then giving Howorth, Henry Hoyle as the said Armenian source make no sense. Also if you haven't seen the NPOV guideline of Wikipedia please take a look at it. Happy editing! --VartanM 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vartan I'm just learning about how Wikistuff works and only just finding some of the talk features. Meanwhile I've read through much of the argument above, but am not quite sure that I understand how that affects my suggestions - the discussion itself seems to point to a considerable degree of doubt and all I was trying to do in my corrections was to flesh out a bit more of that doubt to help readers for whom the sad politicisation of the history might not be immediately obvious. What is it in my re-write that you dislike? I'm certainly very open to fixing it with a wording that seems uncontroversial and simply want sources like Wikipedia to be balanced. Malikbek 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't use an Azeri source in such a manner period. Note you also added a riduclous line saying "Armenian sources state" when the citation has nothing to do with Armenians. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "You can't use an Azeri source in such a manner period."? Sisternarmin 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough re 'Armenian source'. But why did you simply revert rather than trying to improve the article? I am trying to be constructive. Also I don't understand your statement "You can't use an Azeri source in such a manner period". Why not? I agree that the source is not a historical source. But it was only meant to illustrate a point of view in the Azeri way of looking at this so has relevance here.Malikbek 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple, it's irrelevant and unencyclopedic and on top of that your additions grossly add undue weight. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is written from a neutral point of view. Your additions of Azerbaijani side make the article POV. If there are neutral sources that support your additions please present them. VartanM 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, the article "written from a neutral point of view", so far contained Armenian POV, including the webpage "karabagh.am", which does not have much to do with neutrality. I added Oxford's CJF Dowsett back, he was an expert on the subject, and probably the most important reference, albeit being removed in other edits and replaced by POV/OR. Discuss your further edits. Atabek 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He does not speak of a state. The state has been done since the 8th century AD at least. He's referring to the province of Aghvank that's all. It's merely a geographical setting.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Karabakh.am is mearly confirming what the Arab traveler said. I'm sure I'll find a neutral source and replace it. And for Dowsett I belive we have established how you have and still misrepresent it. VartanM 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, why do you keep removing CJF Dowsett quote without discussion? Unless, you will legibly explain your removal of important reference, I will be forced to report this. Moreover, Karabagh.am is not an appropriate neutral citation source, period. If we have Arab traveler reference, there is no need for non-neutral (moreover, unrecognized) Armenian source to repeat the same. Atabek 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Vartan agrees I have no objection towards removing the .am link that repeats what the other sources say anyway. You have to reach an agreement before adding the Dowsett line because it has been added before and has been discussed here before yet you as always decided to unilaterally add it again after some time has passed. It is controversial and we are saying that you are misrepresenting what Dowsett actually says. Dowsett does not mention any country by the name of Caucasian Albania so we cannot even link it to that article since that state nor the people that used to inhabit it did not exist during the time of this principality.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought you exact quote from CJF Dowsett, who by the way translated into English Movses Kalankatuaci's "History of the Country Aluank". Caucasian Albania is modern scholarly name of the country Aluank, which was used by prominent scholars like Minorsky for example. Albania is a Latin spelling of Aluank, refered to by Strabo. We have had these length discussions. The issue is that VartanM never discussed and justified the removal of CJF Dowsett reference, he simply removes the reference every time without providing legitimate counter arguments. Atabek 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Dowsett's work. I think he's a great source, the issue here is not the source or the name but the meaning of the name. Aluank was not just a country it was also a province and a geographic designation. What are we trying to say here with that quote if the country and its people simply did not exist when this principality existed? I suggest to elaborate the quote in a larger context of Dowsett's work or to explain what Albania means in this case with a tertiary source. Linking it to the state of Caucasian Albania which ceased to exist in the 8th century will merely confuse a reader, particularly one that is not familiar with the topic.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania was a historic region, not just a state, which included Utik and Artsakh as well. There is another reference from Dowsett, in this regard, which clearly shows that 1) he used the title Caucasian Albanians in article name, 2) referred to Khachen as Albanian principality:
 * C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:
 * "Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl, son of Smbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh." Atabek 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a historic region after it ceased to be state with different borders at different times. So they were princes from Albania. These two Armenian primary sources are talking about princes of the region of Aghvank who were also Armenian. We know for a fact that Smbat was Armenian based on other sources. Artnerseh was Smbat's son according to Movses Kaghankatvatsi. According to Minorsky contemporary Armenians often assumed Arabic names so the other prince was Armenian as well. I'll try to get access to Minorsky's Caucasica IV. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, provide reference to Artnerseh having father Smbat from Movses Kalankatuaci. And there is no reference in CJF Dowsett saying the region of Aghvank or princes thereof were Armenian. My concern is mainly with the fact that CJF Dowsett reference to Kalankatuaci is being discarded to favor instead some Arab traveler or POV Karabagh.am. Atabek 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is from Kaghank:

''Тогда, после этой беды Спрам, жена убитого, обрела мужскую храбрость и, взяв оставшуюся в живых дочь свою, преодолела трудный ночной путь и укрылась в крепости Хачена. Она заботясь о доме своем, выдала свою дочь Спрам за Атрнерсеhа, сына Саhла из рода hАйка, владетеля Сюника, завладевшего силой гаваром Гелама. Сын его, Атрнерсеh, [таким образом] встретился с благоразумной женщиной, и жили они в страхе Божьем, вели благочестивую жизнь и были любимы в стране своей.''

It says how princess Aspram took refuge in the castle of Khachen, where her daughter Aspram married with Atrnerseh, who was Sahl's son and descendant of Hayk (i.e. Armenian).--TigranTheGreat 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already discussed that descendant of Hayk does not necessarily mean Armenian, it is a reference to the dynasty being in power for a very long time. And Dowsett is a reliable source that should not be removed from the article. Grandmaster 09:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, Khachen was a principality in Caucasian Albania, regardless of the ethnicity of its rulers, so the article should reflect this fact. Albania did not stop existing in the 8th century, it was mostly under the control of Muslim rulers, who called the country Arran, and people of Arran/Albania spoke their own language. Grandmaster 10:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Grandmaster: "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence"! How can a independent country by a part of another country (we speak about the middle ages, when there werent so-called "de-facto independent" countries)? Dowsett surely means the geogr. Albania (is the word of "Caucasian" your addition?). Another fact: "Khajin- Armenian Khachen, was the name of principality....." "Хаджин  армянский Хачен, название княжества в бассейне р. Хачин-чай, на севере Карабахского хребта. См.: Minorsky, Caucasica, IV, p. 526." http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus8/Dulaf/text/primtext.phtml Абу Дулаф. Вторая записка. Ред. Беляев В., М., Наука. 1960 (Комментарии). Also the Minorsky is cited! Andranikpasha 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Albania was not independent at the time, as I said above, it was under the control of Muslim rulers, and only minor regions like Khachen preserved their independence. And your quote does not say that Khachen was Armenian state, it only says that the name Khajin is spelled in Armenian as Khachen. Grandmaster 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break
This appears to be a dispute between a couple (apparently) reliable sources. When this happens, cite all of them and note that there is a disagreement. So, how is my compromise version? If you all dislike this version, I know it's good. If any of you like it in the least, I'm going to have to come back and make it more unsatisfactory. Oh, by the way, karabagh.am is not a reliable source. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks Picaroon. I think Sahl ibn-Sunbat page needs the same NPOVing, as Dowsett and Minorsky references were purged out of there by VartanM and Andranikpasha as well. Thanks. Atabek 06:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after another look, I am not completely satisfied. References 3 and 4 are essentially the same, Abu Dulaf (one is in Russian another is translation of book title into English). The reference to Abu Dulaf in Russian, says: "Хаджин — армянский Хачен, название княжества в бассейне р. Хачин-чай, на севере Карабахского хребта. См.: Minorsky, Caucasica, IV, p. 526" actually means, "Khajin, in Armenian, Khachen", not "the Armenian Khachen". You are welcome to look into Minorsky, Caucasica IV, he numerously refers to Khachen as Albanian principality, and his article starts with an important sentence, that Caucasian Albania roughly corresponded to territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan, which completely denounces any claim that Khachen, which is on territory of Republic of Azerbaijan during Minorsky's writing was part of anything other than Caucasian Albania. Atabek 07:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, and if only Armenian users are dislike (at least me), is it a compromiss? Id like to repeat myself and if you can give an answer, than maybe your consensus is OK! "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence"! How can a independent country by a part of another country (we speak about the middle ages, when there werent so-called "de-facto independent" countries)? Dowsett surely means the geogr. Albania (sorry, the word of "Caucasian" is an obvious OR). Andranikpasha 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Andranik, calm down please, geographic Albania (in Balkans) is different from Caucasian Albania. The terms is accepted and used by variety of scholars including Armenian scholar Smbatyan as well as Minorsky. Atabek 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Andranikpasha, perhaps, you may want to know this before disputing the word Caucasian. CJF Dowsett, Oxford Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies, actually has an article titled: "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians" (C. J. F. Dowsett, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468). Please, provide further explanations for your dubious tag, else it shall be removed for lack of justification. Atabek 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I keep calm, Atabek! I dont know (I dont think so) if geographic Albania is really in Balkans (I know a country by this name), but if you're sure, than this quot is just unreliable. As the Albania country is more than surely is in Balkans... and any respected scolar (surely, Dowsett too) knows and differs Albania from Caucasian Albania... and we are not scolars here to decide if he misuse "Albania (according to you, in Balkans)" as "Caucasian Albania". Especially after what the Marshall wrote, which is another serious reason to stop original explanations of Dowsett's work. Andranikpasha 21:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Andranik, I see no need to address this part any more. I provided you both with article of CJF Dowsett and with reference of Minorsky spelling out Caucasian Albania. If you still don't know the difference between Albania and Caucasian Albania, then perhaps, editing Khachen page is not such a good idea. Thanks. Atabek 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, pls try to be more correct while you're discussing something! Surely I know the difference between Albania and Caucasian Albania, its why I prefer to not put Caucasian Albania in a reliable text which asks Albania. And sorry, I cant find the reference of Minorsky spelling out Caucasian Albania at this talk page. Where is it? And what's the connection between an article from Dowsett on Caucasian Albania and referring to Albania in a different article? By this logics, can we ask if he is a specialist on Armenia, everything he wrote is... about Armenia?? Andranikpasha 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Andranik, I have no interest or time to engage in wasteful discussions about obvious facts and we are not in a kindergarten. I will address the topic when you do present a point worthy of scholarly response.
 * Please, scroll below for dubious nature of Belyayev translation of Minorksy and see the Minorsky quote which Bagramyan just removed from the page. I believe we should seek 3rd party mediation, since User:MarshallBagramyan now does not seem to be willing to engage in constructive discussion. Thanks. Atabek 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And whats the need for the Marshall "to engage in constructive discussion"? Im trying to engage, and only answer to my questions I receive is "we are not in a kindergarten"... Id like to know if we can call this a "constructive discussion". Andranikpasha 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Dowsett surely means the geogr. Albania (sorry, the word of "Caucasian" is an obvious OR)." Andranikpasha, that is utter hogwash. (Further warning to desist such nonsense left on user's talk page.) Picaroon (t) 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not my idea that geographical Albania is in... Balkans (Balkans inself are a geographical region!), but Atabek's (any facts?). Albania was a partially ex-Armenian and mostly Armenized geographical region of former Caucasian Albania (the state, part of which became dependent Arran at that time). Sorry my knowledge at history and geographics is OK:) Andranikpasha 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian or in Armenian
Grandmaster and Atabek! Im sure you're good in Russian, so I hope your words are simple misunderstanding. "Khajin- Armenian Khachen, was the name of principality....." "Хаджин - армянский Хачен, название княжества в бассейне р. Хачин-чай, на севере Карабахского хребта. См.: Minorsky, Caucasica, IV, p. 526." http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus8/Dulaf/text/primtext.phtml. Армянский Хачен never means Khachen in Armenian (spelling), as Армянский means Armenian, and in Armenian (spelling) can be only "по-армянски" or "на армянском". Pls stop OR on Russian linguistics (Grandmaster, its not the first time!), as we can ask to any Russian user to check your explanation... Andranikpasha 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- Compare "АРМЯНСКИЙ КАМЕНЬ" (Armenian stone) Dictionary of Dal or "Армянский Тавр" (Armenian Taurus, not Taurus in Armenian:) great Soviet encyclopedia to АРМЕНИЯ (по-армянски Айастан) (Armenia - in Armenian, Hayastan) ... Andranikpasha 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Andranik, nowhere does Minorsky's "Caucasica IV" (and I have the English original version of article in my hand) explicitly say that Khachen is Armenian principality. What you're doing is referring to a Russian translation of English original, claiming "Armyanskiy" means only Armenian. Well instead of this dispute, I propose the following, why don't you actually bring us the quote in English from Minorsky's Caucasica IV, where he supposedly said that Khachen is Armenian principality. That should, in my mind, solve the problem. Until then, I am adding a dubious tag to Russian translation of Minorsky reference. Atabek 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No such a need! The reference is not from Minorsky, but from Russian scolar V. Belyaev (who marks also Minorsky, its his responsibility, not mine:). you cant find a reference by Minorsky at this site, so what's dubious for you (scolar Belyaev's understanding?)?! Anyways I also hope to find a source by Minorsky and also use at this article. Andranikpasha 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, there is a need Andranikpasha, because that's what the reference used on the page says:
 * "Хаджин — армянский Хачен, название княжества в бассейне р. Хачин-чай, на севере Карабахского хребта. См.: Minorsky, Caucasica, IV, p. 526."
 * So look up Minorsky "Caucasica IV" please, on p. 526, and let us know where in English original he said that Khachen is Armenian. And if he didn't then perhaps, Belyayev's is a dubious translation as properly noted on the page. Atabek 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Any entity known as Caucasian Albania disappeared shortly after the 9th to 10th centuries. How is it that you continue to insist on this well known fact whenever we even have Armenian princes ruling Khachen (Hasan Jalal, especially) from the 13th century? There's no disagreement of sources: This is nothing but a willful distortion of facts on your part and your personal interpretation of what Dowsett's work.

We've been going around in circles on this ridiculous issue you seem to be able to understand for months on end. I'm going to sit down and now await your inevitable complaint about me on the ArbCom page. --Marshal Bagramyan 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Marshall, stick to the topic instead of discussion about "circles". There is nothing ridiculous here, both Minorsky and Dowsett, indeed expert scholars, say that Khachen was part of Caucasian Albania and was ruled by Albanian princes. Now whether Caucasian Albania existed as a state or not is absolutely unrelated to this issue, it's a historical region, where Khachen was. Just like Armenia did not exist as a state for most of known history, nevertheless there is historical region known as such. Atabek 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"both Minorsky and Dowsett, indeed expert scholars, say that Khachen was part of Caucasian Albania and was ruled by Albanian princes." - sorry, no sources proving your words! pls provide them! Or see: "A few native Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, by Robert MacHenry, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Robert MacHenry, 1993, p.761. And we never use "historical regions" while describing a country. if you recognize the existance of historical Armenia, are you going to add to the description of Turkey that it is partially in the region of historical Armenia? Surely no! So whats the difference here? Andranikpasha 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Minorsky "Caucasica IV", p. 526 says:
 * "Khajin is a good transcription of KHACHEN (Arm. Xacenk), independent from Tabari who calls it Khashin."
 * So, Andranikpasha, Belyayev's translation is indeed dubious, because in the above sentence Minorsky only meant the Armenian spelling of Khachen, not claiming that Khachen is Armenian. Thanks and I hope with this discovery we can close yet another misrepresentation of history through wrong interpretation of a 3rd party translating source. Atabek —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, whats this? Is this a comment or the main text? what means "good transcription"? What means Arm. Xacenk. Khachen itself is more in Armenian (have a sence) and commonly used (first time I saw a source with Khacenk). according to this, Belyaev must use "Khacenk"... Anyways Ill try also to check what Minorsky asks. Andranikpasha 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said Andranikpasha, review p. 526 of Minorsky, since that's what Russian translation references, and provide us with statement in English which says Khachen was Armenian. I already provided you above with that sentence, but if you believe there is anything else, welcome to review and bring it to our attention. Atabek 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon thanks for your help, but clarification is missing. Readers of this article can't guess that there is no contradiction between the geographic Caucasian Albania, and it being an Armenian principality. From the 5th century and later Caucasian Albania was culturally Armenian. Here is the author which Grandmaster uses quite often.


 * That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. Contrary to Bunjatov, there is no evidence that any of this literature was translated into Armenian from another language and his assertion that the Armenian Church caused the Albanian literature to be translated into Armenian and then had originals destroyed is a flight of facy. (Hewsen, Robert H. Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982).

Bunjatov was an Azerbaijani nationalist historian who was basically claiming that nothing was Armenian.

Caucasian Albania passed into history in the Ninth century: A number of potentates in the Transcaucasus — Armenian, Georgian, and Muslim — all continued to lay claim to the kingship of Albania until the twelfth century, although for all intents and purposes, Caucasus Albania had passed into history by the ninth century. (An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James Stuart, Olson Greenwood Press (1994) p.27

No one dispute that Khachen was an Armenian principality, Caucasian Albania or Caucasian Albanian does not denote an ethnicity in the context following the ninth century. The text found written by the natives from the region were written in Armenian. Caucasian Albania was just a geographic region. Grandmaster removed the word Armenia in several articles for less than that.

Britannica doesn't play with words either, it plain and simply say Armenian principate (While Hewsen prefer Kingdom): A few native Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun. The New Encyclopedia Britannica by Robert MacHenry, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Robert MacHenry, (1993) p.761

Both Grandmaster and Atabek question that Artnerseh of Khachen was even Armenian, while the lineage of the two founding principates (his side and Bagraduni side) are known for a period of at least 300 years.

Ashot (died in 761) had two son, Vasak and Smbat Bagraduni. Vasak had a son, Artnerseh who had Ashot of Iberia, who in his turn had Atnerseh, Bagrat, Guiaram and a daughter. Artnerseh had Smbat and Gurgen as son, Bagrat had Davit as son (who had Atnerseh who become king of Iberia (888-923)), Guaram had Nasr. They are all Armenian. Atnerseh was from Vasak lineage, brother of Smbat Bagratuni according to Movses Kaghankatvatsi, those references were provided here and on Smbat talk page.

Grandmaster in the past misinterpreted Hewsen, by claiming that Hewsen questions Haikazan being Armenian, while he was merely questioning the claim that their lineage could be traced back to Haik.

All of this conflict would not have happened, had Khachen not been present day NK, some editors should edit apolitically, history must not suffer because a region is now disputed. VartanM 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, I am bringing a quote from another article by C.J.F. Dowsett yet again:
 * C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:
 * "Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."
 * As Picaroon suggested, both references should be included when they oppose. So far I presented the fact that Belyayev translation of Minorsky is false, moreover Minorsky's "Caucasica IV" numerously discusses Khachen in light of Caucasian Albania. Atabek 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The claims that Albania passed into history in the 8-9h century are baseless. The region was largely Islamized after the Arabs took it over in the 7th century, and from that time Arabic and Persian spelling of the name as Arran prevails. Arran persisted well into the 13th century, when the name finally drops out of use. And as late as the 10th century population of Arran spoke their own Arranian/Albanian language, as reported by contemporary Muslim geographers. See the following primary sources:

Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:

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

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

Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:

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

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

Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:

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

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

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

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

''Bardaa had never revived fully after the Rus sacking, and is little mentioned in the sources. It seems to have been replaced as the capital of Arran by Baylaqan, but this was in turn sacked by the Mongols en route for Shervan and Darband in spring 1221 (Jovayni, tr. Boyle, I, pp. 148-49); after this, Ganja (q.v.), the later Elizavetopol and now Kirovabad, rose to prominence, the southern part of Arran now becoming known as Qarabag (q.v.). The old name Arran drops out of use, and the history and fortunes of the region now merge into those of Azerbaijan (q.v.)''

As you can see, Arran/Albania persisted well into the 13th century, by which time the aboriginal Albanian population became Turkicized and almost completely mixed with Oguz Turks, who moved into the region in the 11th century. So I don’t know why MarshalBagramyan reverted the edits by the admin without any discussion on talk page, while his claims that Albania vanished in the 8-9 century are not supported by facts. Grandmaster 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Marshal, no one who cares about accuracy would want terms which mislead readers. Dowsett article starts by clarifying that he is covering a part of Armenian history. We've been there thousand times already. Minorsky does nothing of the such, he footnotes on the region of current Azerbaijan by relating to the many Armenian villages, he speaks of Babak intrusion and the Armenian population. Artnerses was ethnically Armenian, admitted by Movses himself, the genealogy of both family lineage are widely available on google book. No serious scholars, not Dowsett neither Minorsky dispute that. Britannica position about Khachen being an Armenian principality is not disputed. Caucasian Albania and Albanian are never in those situations used in contradiction with Armenia. Caucasian Albania is used as a geographic location, nothing more, since the fifth century the culture there was Armenian and even Hewsen who Grandmaster likes to quote admits that. How many times will you be bringing this, over, over and over. It is starting to become tiresome. And check the ethnicity of Esay Abu Musa yourself. There were no princes who were ethnically Albanian.. VartanM 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, you concur with Marshall about what? Instead of generalizing and original research/interpretations, please, bring precise quotes from the references you mention above, not excerpts but entire sentences with page numbers, and we shall discuss as to how those quotes establish that Khachen was supposedly Armenian. Also, if Oxford Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies said "Albanian princes", and VartanM says there were no princes who were "ethnically Albanian", guess which one is more relevant for citation. Thanks. Atabek 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand how come that Albania did not exist in the 8th century, if Muslim geographers referred to the area as Arran in the tenth century and reported that people of Arran spoke their own language? This is confirmed by a secondary source, Bosworth, as well. Yes, it was not an independent state, and some parts of it had more autonomy than the others, but it was still a political and administrative entity at the time. So yes, Albanian people existed at that time, and yes, the vast majority of population spoke its own language, despite cultural influence of Armenians, reported by Hewsen. Therefore discarding Albanian version is not an option, it would be more fair to report all existing scholarly opinions. Grandmaster 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, former Caucasian Albania was not only Armenized, but even its own population were surely not only Albanians ("Caucasian Albania was inhabited by the nations of different tribes, included Albanians(Caspean seaside, low flows of Araxes and Kura)" (населённое разноплеменными народами, в том числе албанцами (на побережье Каспийского моря, в нижнем течении pp. Араке и Куры): [Great Soviet encyclopedia, Cauc. Albania]). So there werent an Albanian majority in Khachen even during the independence of Caucasian Albania. Andranikpasha 08:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Albanians consisted of 26 tribes, one of which was called Albanians. Albanians became the nucleus of this nation, and the name of this tribe became applied to all the 26 tribes that comprised the Albanian tribal union. This does not support the claim that Khachen was not populated by Albanians. Grandmaster 09:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, GSE also does not support Marshall's claim that C.Albania seized to exist in the 8-9th centuries. It says:


 * В течение 9-10 вв. албанским князьям удавалось несколько раз на недолгое время восстанавливать царскую власть в А. К.


 * During the 9-10th centuries Albanian princes managed several times to restore the royal rule in the Caucasian Albania for short periods of time. Grandmaster 10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite multitude of references brought from reliable sources by myself and Grandmaster, we are yet to see any reference from User:VartanM, User:Andranikpasha or User:MarshallBagramyan but just words, original research, sourceless or fragmented claims, or simply reverting. I propose that we pursue this dispute through mediation, as a first step I opened an RfC below. This should provide us with opportunity to achieve a neutral solution, hopefully. If RfC is not successful, further mediation steps will be pursued, until all relevant and neutral references are incorporated without POV pushing, OR, and talk page hogwash. Thanks. Atabek 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have really had enough of the misinterpretation of sources. We were talking about Khachen, then Grandmaster changed the entire subject and dropped us a few misplaced Muslim quotes which do not support his affirmations. Al-Muqaddasi does not speak of Khachen. Ibn-Hawqal does not support Grandmaster’s affirmations; Dabil and Vaspurakan were the central dominion of one of the Armenias, while Armenia was the huge conquered region. Khachen was dividing the Arabs Arran. Actually, the Arabic division generally consisted of Armenia I: Which was incorporating Arran with the capital Bard'ha'a (AKA Partav), and the districts between the Kur the Caspian Sea. Armenia II: was Djursan (Georgia), Armenia III: was consisting of central Armenia or Armenia proper, with the districts of Dabil, Vaspurakan. Armenia IV: the South West with Shimshat, Kalikala, Akhlat, Ardjish. You will find those lists and informations from E. J. Brill's First Encyclopedia of Islam by M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, 1913-1936, BRILL (1993), ISBN 9004082654, p.444. Partav as sources say, will be placed even as the capital of Armenia, from its South dominion we have part of Khachen, Kingdom of Artsakh, which was, as Hewsen says, a bigger region than present day Artsakh.


 * Throwing various disconnected sources and creating some connections from those won't change the fact that Britannica and all other sources place Khachen as an Armenian principality. Grandmaster removed Armenia from various articles, when it had for the period in question formed semi-autonomous, even autonomous, Kingdoms and principalities. On the other hand, when it suits his POV, he throws us a Caucasian Albania which, unlike what he claims, became some geographic and historic location past the 9th century. And all this regardless of if some distinct Urdi-like (AKA Albanian) language was used by some people.


 * It is also funny that Atabek will be using Minorsky who places Armenians as the majority of the population in a considerable part of current Georgia with autonomous regions, as well as the various villages in the current republic of Azerbaijan.


 * Coming to the 26 tribes, it will be relevant for Picaroon to submit the same warning for misinterpretation to Grandmaster. Even Grandmaster knows he is distorting it. The 26 tribes relates to Strabo's period or even prior to it as he relates to prior history as well. What is the connection with a millennium later, when the only material we have from the native population of the region was written in Armenian. Even the history of Albania was written in Armenian.


 * Atabek, in his reply to Vartan, presents this as if Vartan is opposing Dowsett, and puts some emphasis on Dowsett’s expertise which is Armenian history. This was already addressed here, after Atabek was exposed misquoting and misinterpreting Dowsett. The paper (The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Gos) which Atabek uses starts with the following: The land of the Aluank (note, he is calling it first with its Armenian name) or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence.... then he goes on to talk about Armenian historians who wrote about it. (Any Albanian historian writing anything with any other language than Armenian? NO!)


 * His second paragraph starts with: After the downfall of the Bagratid kingdom of Armenia and the consequent shifting of the principal Armenian literary centre to Cilicia, a group of writers, which might be called the Albanian School of Armenian literature, came into being in the Eastern regions.


 * Hewsen starts his paper about the Kingdoms, covering Khachen etc., by saying that Armenian kingdoms remained and that he will be covering about them. When Minorsky covers Babak, the population he describes were Armenian. The princes’ deportation he relates to, including the one of Khachen, was the deportation of Armenian princes.


 * It is also very intriguing that Atabek is placing the burden of proof on Vartan, when the references provided, including Brtiannica, places the principality as Armenian. In fact, none of the sources provided by Grandmaster and Atabek support that Khachen was an Albanian principality by opposition to Armenian. Artnerses was an Armenian, and all following princes were Armenian. Atabek accuses Vartan of original research. For what? This article is about the principality of Khachen, Hewsen (which Grandmaster likes to quote) places it as Armenian, Britannica places it as Armenian, the various sources provided including the Arabic traveller places it as Armenian. The most the references Grandmaster and Atabek provided do is speak of Arran…and the connection with Khachen is their own original research.


 * Another intriguing thing is that Atabek brought Khachin by opposition to Khachen (so-called Armenian). Both terms are actually Armenian. in and en are Armenian suffixes. Khachen means from the cross, Khachin means of the cross (both suffixes were commonly used for many Armenian villages, and even at times, alternatively). Those terms aren't even pass dated Grabars, Atabek could check any modern and current Armenian/English dictionary. But it would have been more logical with the 'et', which would mean, Khach'n, plain and simply the Cross (Hewsen transcription seems to be that version).


 * The name is Armenian and the principality is Armenian. There was once an Armenia covering parts of current Turkey… what would people say if I visit those articles and write it as a region of Armenia? There was no Caucasian Albania remaining, this could go and put into context in a section about its history, but the introduction of the article could only say that it was an Armenian principality of what is now Nagorno-Karabakh. And I concur with Vartan, that the only reason why this could go on and on is that the region is now disputed and that it appears that some editors would do better by editing apolitically. History should not suffer because the region is now disputed. - Fedayee 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand the logic in accusations of Fedayee. The Arab geographers are not misquoted, they all clearly say that the people of Arran (Albania) spoke their own language in the 10th century. That language was not Armenian, spoken in Armenia around the city of Dabil, but Arranian (i.e. Albanian), which was a distinct language. And Khachen was part of Albania (see Dowsett: In Albania, Khachen …). Grandmaster 05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How many times should this be said? Albania does not relate to an ethnicity nor is it a contradiction with it being Armenian or being in Armenia.


 * Hewsen: Finally, from c. 1000 to 1266, the Princes of Xac'en, the earlier land of Arc'ax, today known as Karabagh (Larabal), also assumed the royal title, forming yer a third 'Kingdom of Albania' or, alternatively, 'Kingdom of Arc'ax', and obviously laying claim to the same Albanian inheritance as the Bagratid Kings at Lori and the Aransahikids of Dizak. To distinguish these Kings of Albania in Arc'ax-Xac'en from the other claimants to the same dignity, I shall refer to them as the 'Kings of Arc'ax,' a unique and more accurate title, which on occasion they themselves used. You would believe from there that Khachen is Albanian and not Armenian, but the author continues: Thus, by the end of the first millennium A.D., no less than seven Armenian Kingdoms were functioning upon the Armenian Plateau. (p. 44, of his The Kingdom of Arc'ax) He calls it an Armenian kingdom in the Armenian Plateau.


 * On the same page he writes: Of the seven Armenian kingdoms only four remained: Lori-Albania, whose king, Gurgen (1046-1081), saved his state only by accepting Turkish sovereignty and giving his daughter to Alp Arslan; southern Siwnik' (Siwnik'-Balk'), Dizak-K't'is, and Xac'en, all of which had accepted Turkish overlordship as well.


 * Check how not only he places Lori-Albania as an Armenian kingdom, but also Khachen, even though he calls it Kingdom of Albania. Hewsen, like the other scholars, presents Albania as a satellite state of Armenia.


 * You have also yet again ignored my answer; Dowsett covers the new Albania as part of Armenian history and the territory as the most eastern side of Armenia. How does he support your argument? - Fedayee 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)