Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 2

message: (copied to here from AMA request page --TT)
The dispute is as to whether or not the ancient province Caspiane/Paytakaran was part of Caucasian Albania. Also, it is disputed that the city of Paytakaran, which was the centre of the province of the same name is the same city as Beylegan. Tigran, Eupator and Fadix claim that it never was a province of Albania. Moreover, they revert all of my edits, despite each of them being based on reliable sources. This is my version of the article, which was completely reverted:  Currently the page is protected because of edit wars. User:Fadix also denies that Caspiane is the same province as Paytakaran, despite there being a consensus with other editors that it is. Fadix acknowledges that he reverted my edits even without reading them, which in my opinion is a violation of Wikipedia policies. 
The sources that I quoted support the fact that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania. 
According to Strabo:
To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared.  
Article from Encyclopedia Iranica about the tribe of Caspies. It says, inter alia:
Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn. 
Ancient Albanian historian Moses Kalankatuatsi (source is in Russian):
А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. 
After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians. 
Fadix claims that Caspiane is not the same land as Paytakaran, despite its having its center in the same city of Paytakaran. I cited my sources to demonstrate that it is. For instance, according to professor Robert. H. Hewsen, it is the same land:
BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. 
I have more sources, which are available on the talk page of the article. I would really appreciate any assistance in resolving this dispute.
Grandmaster 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary:

message: Here we come, another disruptive behavior by Grandmaster. The description of the situation by Grandmaster above is simply not accurate, embelishing things and claiming things which I allegdly claim. Not everyone has the time time to waste as he does edit warring and POV pushing on every single articles involving his Azerbaijan in some misterious way. The Land of Kaspiane, has no delimitation, it is the land of the Kasps, the same way as some could say of the Land(aka the continent) of America, is the land of America, when claimed to be found by Americo Vespucci the United States of America? Yes? So what is Canada? Bresil etc. ? Grandmaster has a history of attaching claims on quote, which the author doesn't imply. Just like he attempted to claim there was no Armenian in Paytakaran, and forged a signification for a sentence which used the term alien. Grandmaster is also lying when he claims I even treated about the Abania, it is a total none-issue, as the term Paytakaran is used to refer to the province which borders were invented by Armenia, all his fighting is over this, as usual he want to dissolve an article and place the Albanians in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLES RELATING TO A HISTORIC CITY, PROVINCE, KINGDOM OF ARMENIA. To do this, he will also add some Azeris term in the lead. Grandmaster has no evidence that the term Paytakaran was ever used to refer to a city or a district, the city he is talking about was never called Paytakaran, the Armenian records should 'know best', as the term Paytakaran is Armenian and that there was a reason why that province was called that way. What best evidence there is than quoting the actual scholar who started the rumor that both were called the same way, claiming that he is not sure of this? The only reason why Grandmaster want to equal both terms is to justify his inclusion of the Azerbaijani term.
The quotes he provides have absolutly no value, as the article already mention Albania, indirectly without implicitly saying anything, which is good since such theories are all speculations, one of those speculations Grandmaster is attempting to present as Truth when it is specified on the NPOV policy that this is a not to do. The current article has one mistake, which I have already reported, that Caspiane equals to Paytakaran, Grandmaster is using this mistake to introduce ittelevencies in this article. Fad (ix) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. I presented more than enough sources both in the talk of the article and User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk. And all of your above statements are just your original research, not supported by any sources. Please refer to aforementioned pages for the quotes and more detailed info. Grandmaster 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did no such thing, providing sources is one thing, the source supporting what you want in the article is another. Also, you still don't understand that it is not to someone to show non-existance, but rather to the one claiming existance. It is like accusing someone wanting evidences for the existance of a god to do original research. I clearly said that there was no historic records calling a city Paytakaran, and that the first time the term you equal it was used was after the fall of the province. This is something which is established, no one denies that. Equaling both, can be retraced to one scholar, whom I personally quoted, but that scholar himself answer in a paper that he is not convinced of that, this too I have quoted. So, what you request is actually original research, wanting to include some minority view not only as a position but as a truth, is not only against NPOV, but in your cases is POV pushing. As for civil, not wanting to be considered as a sophist, I will still make a point, those accusations against you were directed not only by me, not only by Armenians(since your decisions are all ethnic based on Wikipedia), but also by Iranians, and probably others. Maybe it is time for you to think a little bit and consider that maybe there must be some truth there. And when I talk about accusations, I am not talking about hard core bad mouthing, but accusations of manipulating or POV pushing, which in this cases, can't be really considered as civil and personal attacks Fad (ix) 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So many words, and no sources whatsoever. How many times are you going to repeat that Caspiane and Paytakaran were not the same province? Just in above section I provided a quote from Iranica article by Hewsen, stating that it was the same province. Still you pretend that you have never seen it. If you think that they were not the same, then cite your sources. I cited mine that they were the same. Also in above section I cited sources that Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania. I have plenty more sources on other talk pages. Deny all that you want, but I’m going to take this issue thru all stages of dispute resolution. And I’m not gonna respond here anymore, because Sir James suggested to continue the discussion at User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk. Interestingly, you abandoned that page as soon as he suggested to submit this case for mediation and get more advocates involved. He still expects you to answer his proposal. Grandmaster 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I see in the above quote is about the land of Kaspiene, which had no defined borders. It is for you to document that both a border of a Kaspiene AND Paytakaran are the same. You never did that, and I doubt you could ever do that, there is no way in the world that two localities distant of few centuries would be identical, when the seconds border were invented. The Kasp does not refer to the province, but the land of the Kaspienes, Paytakaran does. Lastly, I don't know of what abandoned page you are talking about, the only reason I came here was because the guy asked to continue discussing it here. I see that you haven't stopped finding intentions in my actions. Fad (ix) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hewsen clearly states that the land of Caspiene was later called Paytakaran. If you don't want to see it, I will have to refer the dispute to impartial mediators. You cited no sources with regard to borders of Paytakaran, how can you claim that it had different borders? And please comment here: User:Sir james paul/AMA Desk, he made a proposal and expects your answer. He left a message at your talk and asked you to continue discussion there. Grandmaster 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He says the land of, he doesn't say province, a land has no administrative meaning, it has no defined borders. Paytakaran was a province. Impartial mediator? How many times were we there? Was Francis not neutral? How long did you obstinently tried on the Karabakh article and disagreed with him, did it ever end? No, we just left it, I too left it. Because when you have something in your mind, you have no inclination to understand what others are saying. This is why I always opposed to mediation, because mediation supposes that people will discuss, compromise..., while you on the other hand see in mediation a way to sell your sausage, and I always opposed to give you such opportunity. Fad (ix) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which means that you are not sure that you are right and therefore avoid any mediation? Grandmaster 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me one example, just one example of any mediations, unformal OR formal, which both of us were involved and which gave any positive result, in which both of us have made concessions and not just me. One example of mediation, which finally I was not borred because you would not try to understand anything, and that I haven't left? Can you? Fad (ix) 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion:

message: Gm, I want to end the Baylaqan issue once and for all. Be honest now!
You have been claiming all this time that Beylagan is the same as the city of Paytakaran in the province of Paytakaran. Don't deny this you said this at least a dozen times in the last few day alone, justifying the use of Azeri name and a whole bunch of other nonsense.
Here's Hewsen's map of Armenia in the fourth century showing the city of Paytakaran: . Do you see where it is?
I'm not saying you were doing this in purpose or anything no, just admit that you were wrong and in turn we can move on with potential concessions.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is the first time you actually presented any reference at all. I never claim anything that is not supported by sources. I have two quotes (from Bosworth and Chaumont) explicitly stating that Paytakaran is the same as Baylaqan. But Bosworth says that Baylaqan was located at the junction of Araks and Kura, and I also have a number of Armenian sources placing Paytakaran at the same location. This map appears to locate Paytakaran at a different place, but it’s still hard to tell by the map as there’s an additional branch of Araks shown on the map, which does not exist nowadays. I would prefer a written reference to that, but still we can admit that there might be conflicting views on Baylaqan/Paytakaran issue among the scholars. What do you think? Grandmaster 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, this map supports my another point, Kaspiane = Paytakaran. Grandmaster 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When have I claimed anything without referencing something? Anyway, i'll get back to Baylagan shortly but your response is promising. Actually there is no issue regarding Caspiane. The sources do not contradict eachother. There was a province known by Greco-Roman authors as Caspiane. When Artaxias conquered the Medes and added Caspiane to Armenia or re-added it to Armenia it became known as Paytakaran. We don't know whether Paytakaran had the exact same borders as Caspiane. We know that Greco-Roman authors continued calling Paytakaran by the designation of Caspiane. The name Paytakaran is Armenian (wood+land) and it encompassed the Caspiane mentioned by Greco-Roman sources, wholly or not we don't know. The solution is the following, we compare the borders given for Caspiane by Strabo or other Greco-Roman sources with the borders given for Paytakaran by Anania Shirakatsi in Ashkharhatsuits.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we ignore Hewsen? He says that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran. Plus, Strabo says that Caspiane belonged to Albania, and it was after the times of Artaxias. Grandmaster 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Nope.  That's not the case.  "Members" refers to Wikipedians.  And we're all Wikipedians here.  James is on everybody's side.  He just wants the dispute resolved, and resolved in a civil manner.  It keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. --The Transhumanist 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baylaqan

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

message: Grandmaster, please rewrite the statements of fact at Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources to exactly the way you wish them to appear in the article.  In their current form they are either unpolished or unclear.  Let's get everything set up correctly before we resume discussions, to prevent confusion.  For example, in item...
1) the use of "/" is bad form.  The sentence also appears to be two statements of fact in one.  If there is any disagreement amongst the participants of the discussion above that the province was named both Caspiane and Paytakaran, then that needs to be covered in another statement of fact (preferably preceding this one).
2) speaks in the present tense.  Also, no dates or time frame is given.
3) "Population of Paytakaran" isn't a statement at all.  Please complete it.
4) "Islamic times" is vague, as the reader may not know what time period that refers to, or what you mean by it.  I don't.  The religion Islam is very much alive today, so we are living in Islamic times now.  Please rephrase statement #4 to get your idea across clearly.  Also, "/" is bad grammatical form.  Maybe parentheses would work better.
Once everything is set up clearly, and exactly the way you want it to appear in the article, then we can begin discussing the accuracy or appropriateness of each statement based upon its sources.  Setting things up clearly now will hopefully prevent confusion in subsequent discussion.  Thank you for your cooperation.  Sincerely,    The Transhumanist    02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify the statements of fact 

message: Grandmaster, I've posted to the statements subpage the rewrite you posted on my talk page.  I split each paragraph up and numbered each sentence to make them easier to refer to.
I haven't included all of the references from your original posting at the top of that page, as I thought you would be better qualified to organize those within the rewrite.  Would you do that please?
Also, several sentences have no references.  Could you add them?
I've reworded a little.  If you wish to change my rewording of anything, please do so. Once everything is set up in such a way that is completely clear, then debate on each point can begin without confusion.  That's why I've numbered each sentence - to make it easier for participants in the upcoming discussion to refer to and access.
In the upcoming discussion, I intend to remain neutral, and will try to help things move along more smoothly.  Such as focusing on one statement of fact at a time, suggesting when to move on to the next statement, and asking questions to clarify what is being communicated.  
The Transhumanist    02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandmaster, concerning your rewrite: 

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

message: It looks like #2 on your statements list is the only statement of fact presented there.  The rest are all counter arguments.I requested that only statements of fact which are intended to be included in the article, and their supporting references, be placed on the Statements and sources page.  You have included arguments (against Grandmaster's proposed statements) which should be presented in the upcoming debate.  We haven't even started the debate yet, so please, let's not skip ahead.  Please remove them (or use comment delimiters to hide them).  I'm in the process of going over all the statements of fact now, to see if there are any that are not completely understandable.  Please bear with me. The Transhumanist   14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Statements of fact", I specified very clearly to mean passages intended to be included in the article.  Your #1, #3, and #4 don't fit that definition, and appear to just be ammo against Grandmaster's entries.  The "statements of fact" which are being submitted for inclusion in the article shall be the focus of the debate.  The reasons for not adding the submissions to the article, including reasons by way of preclusion, will be part of the content of the debate.  Again, please be cooperative and remove the "preclusion items", or create a new section for evidence at the bottom of the sources page and place them there.  The Transhumanist   13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tigran... 

message: Grandmaster, please finish the rewrite on the sources page.  You posted it incomplete on my talk page and I copied it to the sources page for you to complete.  You need to integrate all the material from your original section into it.  Right now, having two versions is confusing.  When we start the debate, we will be discussing only the final version of your submissions, whatever you want that to be.  So please, edit the rewrite into the version you wish to be discussed.  During the debate we'll be referring to specific statements and sources, so it is important that they are all organized well and numbered so we can refer to them easily.  The Transhumanist   
: Ok, done. I merged point 2 with point 1b, because that’s how it should appear in the article. Regards, Grandmaster 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the statements of fact - Grandmaster 

message: I hope the map I brought from "History of Armenian People", book published in Yerevan, Armenia here , "bible" on Armenian History will help Eupator and TigranTheGreat understand where the exact location of Paytakaran city and region was.  I also regret that, being of Armenian origin and probably aware of this well known book too, they did not refer to this map earlier to end the dispute.  As you can see, Paytakaran is on exact location where Beylagan is today, not in the shores of the Caspian, near Salyan or Neftchala as you (Eupator and Tigran) claim.  I am sure this work is superior to other sources you brought, as both Yeremyan and Voskonyan, who worked on this map are considered to be ace of the subject.  I suggest to keep Paytakaran, but in Beylagan page make reference to Paytakaran and mention that this is the old name of the city and larger region.  References to the meaning of "Paytakaran" also needs to be changed in my opion.  It is not in Armenian, but in Iranian (Pahlavi)and means the capital of Aran/Arran.  "Paytakht", even in modern Iranic languages mean "capital".  Indo-European roots need to be referred, if there is compromise. 
--Ulvi I. 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paytakaran relate to the province, Beylegan to a town, not the same thing. No one is preventing Grandmaster to creat an article about Beylegan. I don't see how this map above answer the relevent critics of mine. They have yet to be addressed. Fad (ix) 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Beylagan is word used for the town, in Armenian, it is an Arabic word, yet used in Armenian manuscripts, I have already quoted two scholars, one wondering why Armenian manuscripts were using Beylagan when Paytakaran existed in Armenian, doubting both are the same, the other scholars correspondance questioning both being the same. Paytakaran was exclusivally the province. True, Beylagan is more modern of a word, translated to Paytakaran by some, it becomes Paytakaran only by its translation, those I have already raised, and sourced at the beginning of the discussion. Also, please do not introduce wrong claims it isen't making the situation any wasier, where are the millions of sources provided by Grandmaster? Did you actually read Tigran sources? Paytakaran is an Armenian word, which was used for the province. I can't understand why it is difficult for Grandmaster to understand that, he is doing an issue out of a none-issue. Fad (ix) 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has Persian etimology too. According to it, the name derived from Paytakht Aran, i.e. capital of Aran (paytakht means capital). Makes perfect sense. Grandmaster 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You never change, do you? Either Albanian, Arabic, Persian, but never Armenian. Fad (ix) 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither do you. Only Armenian and nothing else. Grandmaster 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of really? then you must have sure missed something, maybe you should check articles such as Armenian language, before throwing claims like this. You have yet to answer at NK, remember? Paytakaran AS IS, not in any modified form, is an Armenian combination of word, and is recognized as being such, an Armenian word. Fad (ix) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who recognized it as such? Grandmaster 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two authors I have presented already, not to say all the results on Jstor, all the 4 articles, in short, what one could find on, check ISI also. There is no question that Paytakaran is an Armenian word, the English term Paytakaran is a direct retranscription of the Armenian word. Fad (ix) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Paytakaran was both city and province. Ulvi is absolutely right. Look at this map and see where the city of Paytakaran is located. Exactly at the same place as Beylegan, i.e. in the triangle formed by junction of Kura and Araks. Grandmaster 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They replaced the term Beylagan, which is the true name of that place. Fad (ix) 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who did? Grandmaster 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who made the map. Fad (ix) 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You were explaining to me that we are not here to judge the sources, but to report them, remember? Grandmaster 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Sir, but the fact of the matter is that there is no manuscripts there supporting the map, and I have already provided a source claiming that Armenians were not using the term Payatakaran for that town. That term was never used, it only is used in a translation, a translation which an authority on Paytakaran claimed doubting represent the same thing. Fad (ix) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I provided other sources stating otherwise, you cannot discard them just because you don't like them. Grandmaster 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you did not, to show they are equivalent words, you have to provide evidences that Beylagan was used as the word for the province. Fad (ix) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, let's keep this to an analysis of acceptability of the sources.  When Grandmaster's proposed additions to the article, along with their supporting sources, are ready (including being checked for coherence), the debate as to their acceptability will begin.  Once the debate begins, I will expect all references to sources to be crystal clear.  They should be enumerated on the statements and sources page, so they can be referred to easily, without confusion.  Fadix, it would help if you presented your sources in your section of that page.  The Transhumanist   19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to, Grandmaster made the claim, claiming that Baylaqan is the same thing as Paytakaran. It is to the one making the claim to support his assertions. Grandmaster has yet to provide any single sources using the term Beylaqan for the province. He is turning around and not addressing the center issue. Fad (ix) 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How can you go against Yeremyan, Nersesyan and Voskonyan?

message: Is the rewrite of your section of the page on Talk:Paytakaran/Statements and sources complete?  You stated that it was, but I need to make sure.  If the rewrite is complete, then it is safe for me to remove the original from the page.  Are you ready for that?  When we start, you will have one presentation on the page.  Right now you have two, with the rewrite slated as being the final submission. Does the final submission have everything in it that you want in it from your original submission? (The rewrite doesn't appear to be complete, such as missing statements of fact and sources that appear in the original submission).   I suspect there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the word "rewrite".  Synonyms here would be "new complete version" or "revision" or "new edition".  Please let me know when your final version is ready, then I can begin analyzing each point for clarity.  The Transhumanist   14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rewrite is complete. Nothing is missing. The second paragraph of my version of the article, to which you are apparently refering, was written by Tigran. I left it as it was, but since it was not my contribution, I'm not insisting on it. However, if Tigran insists on it, I would like to see the quote from the source he refers to. Grandmaster 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding, but have moved ahead based on your statement above.  I've removed your original draft, as you have stated that the rewritten draft ("the rewrite") is complete. The rewritten draft (all the text that was below the heading "Rewrite 1"), now takes the place of the original draft. The rewrite does not look complete.  It is missing the statements of facts themselves, and most of the original references.  If you intended for those to be included, please add them back in (in the proper order within the document).  Or if you intended for the material that I've left in place to be removed, please remove it and restore whatever you wish to take its place.  The Transhumanist   18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't quite understand what statements of fact are missing. I would appreciate if you could point out such statements. Thanks. And I added some references in full, so I think it should be OK now. Grandmaster 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read the rewrite more carefully.  I thought #4 from the original was missing, but I see now where you've placed it in the rewrite.  I'll try get to my analysis late this evening.  And hopefully the debate can begin before the weekend is over.  The Transhumanist   16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandmaster, is your rewrite complete? 

message: And just as soon as the discrepancy in 1a is clarified.  Then...
Assuming there are no objections, the basic procedure will be as follows...
First, I will archive all previous discussion, so the debate can start with a clean slate.  Then the participants in the debate will discuss each statement of fact, one at a time, with each side presenting its position on whether it should or should not be added to the article, along with each side's arguments, and supporting evidence.  I will continue to ask questions for clarification, and will do my best to keep things moving forward.  Once it appears that all arguments have been presented, I'll ask for final comments from both sides before declaring that the debate move on to the next statement of fact to be considered.
Discussion will continue until all arguments and counterarguments of substance by each side are presented concerning each statement of fact.  "Yes it is!"  and "No it is not!" are not arguments of substance, for instance.  We're looking for actual reasons, not unsubstantiated opinions.  Another example of an unsubstantiated opinion is "I don't believe that statement should be included in the article."  In that argument no reason is given.  We need to know why each statement of fact should be included or excluded from the article.
Once all of the arguments have been presented from both sides, I will then place notices for feedback everywhere (appropriate) on Wikipedia I can think of, to bring here as many people as possible to interpret the arguments and evidence presented in the debate - if you are still in disagreement as to what should go in the article.  These people will be asked to examine the debate, and will determine which position is the most sound.  With wide enough participation, a fair and accurate consensus should be reached.
If no consensus is reached by the community, then the article will remain as it is.
Is this procedure acceptable to all of you?
Are there any questions, suggestions, or comments before we begin?
The Transhumanist   19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is acceptable to me. Grandmaster 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As soon as the proofreading corrections above are added to the draft, the debate can begin