Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 3

message: Summary of what has happened so far:  User:Grandmaster has submitted some statements which he would like to add to the article.  Those statements and their supporting references are presented on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources.
Please read them over. The Transhumanist   17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Those of you who are participating in this discussion, please look over Fadix's reply above.  There are a few points he agrees can be added to the article.  Do you concur?  Right now I just want to find out where we are in agreement, before getting into further debate over the points where there is still disagreement.
Fadix has approved of 1c, 1d, and 1e.  Do the rest of you agree that those are okay to add to the article?  The Transhumanist   17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1c and 1d are fine. 1e is problematic because Strabo's quotes, when out of context make little sense. Because Strabo's information is often contradictory I wouldn't mind if we had a section devoted entirely to Strabo.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what's wrong with quoting Strabo? We can add any other quotes from this source you wish to add. I don't see how it is out of context, you may wish to provide the context as well. Grandmaster 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing necessarily.  We're just determining where the common ground is.  The Transhumanist   21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: If you guys agree not to edit war, I'll request that the page be unprotected.  It'll make it easier to add the bits you guys agree on.  I look forward to your replies.  The Transhumanist   11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Grandmaster 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Grandmaster suggested that the following item be added to the article to replace the first sentence:
1a) Paytakaran (, Persian: to be added) was at various times a province of Medes, Caucasian Albania and the Kingdom of Armenia.
Fadix objected due to period confusion which it might cause.  Istanbul was not the name of Constantinople during Byzantine times, for instance, so it is not a direct synonym for that city in the context of the period in which the city existed as Constantinople.
Generally, throughout this encyclopedia, there's no problem with providing the history before and after in an article on an entity, and/or links to articles on the entity during those other periods.  The important thing is to make sure that the temporal context of the names of the entity is presented correctly.
Therefore, the various alternate names presented above that don't coincide with the period the article covers should be presented later in the article, with an explanation of when they applied, and not in the opening sentence.
Does anyone object to this suggested solution?
If not, then we need date ranges for the various names.  Could someone supply those please?
Sincerely, The Transhumanist   17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead should either list all the states the province was a part of, or mention none, saying that it was an ancient province in the South Caucasus that was part of different states at various times. Grandmaster 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that as mediator, I neither agree nor disagree, but I must point out that the standing consensus favors the present treatment on the page.  Without further community support to change it or the scope of the article, it must remain the same.  The Transhumanist   21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1a - Synonyms for Paytakaran 

message: There was also some concern about the certainty of the alternate names.  That uncertainty should be explained in the presentation of any disputed name.  
Any objections?
The Transhumanist   17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead should either list all the states the province was a part of, or mention none, saying that it was an ancient province in the South Caucasus that was part of different states at various times. Grandmaster 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that as mediator, I neither agree nor disagree, but I must point out that the standing consensus favors the present treatment on the page.  Without further community support to change it or the scope of the article, it must remain the same.  The Transhumanist   21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainty of a name 

message: I added the following to the article, as per the consensus reached above:
1c) The province was located in the area of the lower courses of the rivers of Kura and Araks, adjacent to the Caspian sea. 
However, I wasn't sure how the reference should be applied, so somebody needs to add that to the article:
: reference: Moses of Chorene  
The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1c 

message: This one was already in the article, but lacks a reference:
1d) Today, the area lies within the territory of modern day southeastern Azerbaijan and northeastern Iran.
The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sort of an original research, however none of the parties objects to it. We know that the confluence of Aras and Kura is located in Azerbaijan, at the same time some parts of Caspiane/Paytakaran like Bagawan are now in Iran, see: BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran)lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan .  Grandmaster 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1d 

message: I also added this passage to the article, based on previous discussions:
1e) Caspiane was contested between the regional powers. According to Strabo: "To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared".
The reference provided by Grandmaster was:
: (reference) Strabo, 11.4
Please add the reference to the article in the proper manner.   The Transhumanist   18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Grandmaster 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1e 

message: Could someone please provide a quote from the source a reference to which is made to support the following statement:
According to Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("World Atlas," 7th c. AD), Paytakaran was the 11th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. It consisted of 14 cantons (gavars): Hrakot, Perozh, Vardanakert, Yotnporakyan Bagink, Krekyan, Vovtibagha, Kaghanost, Buros, Pitchanhani, Atshi, Bagavan, Spandaran-perozh, Vormizd-perozh, and Alevan. It was bounded by the Capsian Sea to the east, Araxes river to the north and north-west, Atropatene to the south, and the Armenian province of Vaspurakan to the west.
I would like to see what Shirakatsi actually states about this territory. I have already asked for this, but it's never been supplied. Grandmaster 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source required 

message: Could someone please provide a quote from the source a reference to which is made to support the following statement:
According to Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("World Atlas," 7th c. AD), Paytakaran was the 11th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. It consisted of 14 cantons (gavars): Hrakot, Perozh, Vardanakert, Yotnporakyan Bagink, Krekyan, Vovtibagha, Kaghanost, Buros, Pitchanhani, Atshi, Bagavan, Spandaran-perozh, Vormizd-perozh, and Alevan. It was bounded by the Capsian Sea to the east, Araxes river to the north and north-west, Atropatene to the south, and the Armenian province of Vaspurakan to the west.
I would like to see what Shirakatsi actually states about this territory. I have already asked for this, but it's never been supplied. Grandmaster 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source required 

message: Prior conversations have been archived to the third archive; if you wish to restore a conversation, simply copy the entire thread to this page.
This archiving has been undertaken in order to keep this page readable; I hope this is an acceptable action amongst the disputing editors.
Kind regards,anthony[cfc] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Good afternoon (GMT time) all; The Transhumanist and Grandmaster have gave their blessing on my taking over this case as mediator, pending the former's WikiBreak. Any editors that would like to object to my mediating this case, please immediately drop me a message; the same goes for my actions as a mediator.
Before mediation re-commences, I'd like to start by making a brief introduction of myself. My experience on Wikipedia is not as extensive as The Transhumanist, but I have mediated over fifteen successful cases for the Mediation Cabal/Mediation Committee, as well as several as a Member's Advocate. I operate a strict neutrality policy, which is viewable here; the general outlook I follow in Mediation cases is viewable here.
My duties as Mediator are often restricted to:
# Keeping the talk page tidy and archived;
# Determining consensus in "requested edits";
# Cautioning over civility on rare occasions this is necessary.
Questions concerning this should be directed to me immediately; in the meanwhile, I invite all editors to continue the discussion that was being undertaken during The Transhumanist's time here.
Kind regards,anthony[cfc] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediatior 

message: ::(This is an example - I am not taking any stance in the argument)
I am against the page move because:
* The first title is correct because XYZ (links to sources, etc.., please - not condensed versions of above arguments unless they conform to this criteria)
anthony[cfc] 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Anthony cfc|Anthony cfc]]

message: Though it will take me a day or three before I can find the time to refamiliarize myself with the details.  In the meantime, please refrain from threats, and from escalating any conflicts over the article.  The article is improving, albeit slowly, and we are all dedicated to its further improvement.  Let's do so as mature adults and resolve this here.  Arbcom already has its hands full, and doesn't need any more cases.  Let's do our part to minimize the burden placed on Arbcom.
Note that I moved the article believing that there would be no objections.  Since there were objections, I have no problem with it being reverted back to the original title.  Grandmaster, I ask that you take the same approach.  If you disagree with a revert of an edit you've made, simply take that as an invitation to discuss the edit for consensus building.
I read fast, and so I don't mind poring through "screeds of debate".  I'll be back up to speed soon.   The Transhumanist   
: Thanks, this is what I did from the very beginning and do now. If you check the discussion just above this section, you'll see that I tried to find out what the problem was with my edit, why I was reverted without any edit summary, and did not receive a satisfactory response. This article was one of those that resulted in that arbcom case, so it would good to find a resolution to this dispute. I think that reconciliation of positions is not gonna work in this particular case, as one of the sides simply denies any evidence cited, no matter what it is. I'm actually considering further actions to have this dispute finally resolved. But anyway, thanks for rejoining us, I'm willing to cooperate as usual. Grandmaster 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm back from wikibreak