In Azerbaijani historiography tagging - false balance or too few opinions?[edit]

A rewrite tag was slapped on this section by Creffel, with the edit summary explanation that "Frankly, the entire section just reads like a single big accusation and does not present any productive Azerbaijani historiography. It makes sense if you point out false historiography and present arguments and counterarguments to create balance, but everything below just gives the impression that the authors of the section are trying to completely strip Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history. The entire section goes against WP:IMPARTIAL. Needs balance."

I'm removing the tag, as I have concerns about the rationale and the tag doesn't match the explanation anyway. Template:Cleanup rewrite is for a broad failure "to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on style and content", the justification for the tag is that the section is unbalanced (the appropriate tag would either be Template:POV or Template:Too few opinions). The section's sourcing looks convincing to me, there are a range of credible looking historians and I found results echoing their analysis in The Conversation and The Guardian with a quick internet search. I'm not convinced that reliable sources saying Caucasian Albania isn't subject to a large amount of historical revisionism within Azerbaijan actually exist. If such reliable sources don't exist, Creffel's concern is a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Jr8825 • Talk 18:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect, the analysis above is incorrect. The "rewrite tag" was not "slapped" on the section, I believe I gave an appropriate justification for why I decided to include the tag above the section before adding the tag. Furthermore, problems with "POV" or "Too few opinions" fall broadly under the umbrella of "failure to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on the style on content", so separating one from the other is incorrect. If you believe we must be more specific with the tag above the section I will welcome such a discussion, but regardless of whether the tag reads "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." or reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed.", at the end of the day, the tag is still indicating that the article fails to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on style and content and needs alteration.
Furthermore, you mentioned that the section's sourcing looks convincing to you as a supporting argument as to why you removed the tag – well, that is precisely not the problem. I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE, these are two different issues. You stated that you found sources supporting the content of the section in The Conversation and The Guardian, and that's fine, but I'll mention it once more, I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE.
In addition, you then stated that you are "not convinced that reliable sources saying Caucasian Albania isn't subject to a large amount of historical revisionism within Azerbaijan actually exist" – unless you are an academic/historian that has studied a variety of Azerbaijani sources on Caucasian Albania, with all due respect, your convictions on this issue do not matter. Furthermore, having visited your Wikipedia user profile, I see no indication that you live in Azerbaijan or speak Azerbaijani – either of which would have granted you a significantly greater access to Azerbaijani academic work on Caucasian Albania, and therefore, I can't help but get the impression that your conviction that no reliable sources on Caucasian Albania exist in Azerbaijan is a matter of prejudice rather than a matter of a carefully cultivated, informed opinion, which could indicate that your decision to remove the tag goes against WP:NPOV. Please feel welcome to refute the aforementioned.
Finally, I just wanted to say that that I believe your removal of the tag was done with good intentions, but I think one should give relevant and neutral justifications when editing sensitive content on Wikipedia. – Creffel (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please provide/link to/name RS that dispute the facts as they're presented in the section? I'll look at any sources you provide and we can work together to adjust the section if the sources support change. Also, please remember to comment on content, rather than contributors. I don't have any "convictions" on this issue, I was expressing my scepticism about the availability of such sources as I was unable to find them myself – but, as you're confident such sources exist, please do share them so we can work upwards from the sources, I'm happy to be corrected. Jr8825 • Talk 14:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cleanup/rewrite tag is primarily for WP:MOS issues, rather than exclusively content issues. Jr8825 • Talk 14:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will be happy to work with you to amend the contents of the section, but I believe you misunderstood my main point so I will say it again; I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE. To be even more specific
"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."
My main problem is with "the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized". First of all, the section talks almost exclusively about Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania with reference to the Armenian people. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations allegations.
The entire section therefore must be either rewritten to make it something other than just a lengthy, politically charged accusation, or at the very least change the header so it more accurately reflect what the section contains, i.e "Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania as it relates to Armenia" – because apart from that one paragraph at the end of the section which is about Georgia, this is basically what this section is.
I propose this solution: since you object to using Template:Cleanup rewrite, I suggest including the Template:POV in the section instead and we could cooperate in changing the article in the future if either of us proposes significant changes. – Creffel (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind that much of Azerbaijani historiography (as well as Soviet/post-Soviet historiography in general) has been routinely criticized for its blatant nationalist revisionism, and claiming WP:IMPARTIAL when "the other side" very clearly falls under WP:FRINGE and being non-RS in general is a false comparison. Reliability comes before neutrality on Wikipedia. --Qahramani44 (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will repeat what I said once again and I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to repeat it. I am not discarding criticism. I am opposed to the exclusive presentation of the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography as if it is a single, large, coordinated, political attempt to undermine Armenian historical heritage, and if you read the section, that's clearly the implication there. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations and allegations. – Creffel (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed that there is no justification of the tag. I am opposed to the exclusive presentation of the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography as if it is a single, large, coordinated, political attempt to undermine Armenian historical heritage - but, it is. That's, like, what every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject has argued. No other reason why medieval-era Armenian churches and art objects are all universally and deceptively described as being of Caucasian Albanian origin. It's mighty embarrassing. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"but, it is. That's, like, what every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject has argued." I would like to see how every scholar and journalist who has covered this subject state that "the entirety of Azerbaijani historiography explicitly relates to Armenia and serves no purpose other than to undermine Armenian historical heritage, and there is nothing non-political in Azerbaijani historiography" – If you can find something along these lines, I will not discuss this any further and personally remove the tag.
"No other reason why medieval-era Armenian churches and art objects are all universally and deceptively described as being of Caucasian Albanian origin" – I don't think this is a discussion to be had, Armenian destruction of Azerbaijani towns and cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh during a 30-year period of occupation to make it appear as if Azerbaijanis never lived there is well documented as well, yet I wouldn't go as far as to use this as an argument for why "the entirety of Armenian historiography is political and anti-Azerbaijani".
Now if I were to open a section on the page called "In Armenian Historiography" and load it up with nothing but controversial material and examples of criticism as if that's all there is to Armenian historiography, I am confident the section would be removed very quickly. Once again for perhaps the 5th time, if you want to include criticism of the political historiography on the page that's totally fine, but don't omit non-political historiography along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy" – Creffel (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Creffel. The section doesn't say every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucasian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia as you suggest it does, it says that it's a major topic of Azerbaijani revisionism which has been repeated by academics and statesmen in Azerbaijan, and provides sources for this statement. It also discusses how some aspects are "claims by Armenians" which have been echoed by academics and consequently disputed by Azerbaijan, "Azerbaijan instead contends that the monuments were not of Armenian, but of Caucasian Albanian, origin", albeit in a way that academics have dismissed: "which, per Thomas De Waal, did not protect "the graveyard from an act in the history wars"". It all seems well-sourced and accurate to me. You still haven't provided any reliable sources that dispute the facts as they are presented – I think the relevant part of NPOV is WP:FALSEBALANCE (which I linked above), did you take a look at this? I don't believe the POV tag is valid here unless you can point to reliable sources that demonstrate these claims are in any way disputed. I see two ways forward, either you present the reliable sources I've asked for so we can work together to adjust the section, or, if you're insistent that I and other editors here are missing something, you could take this to Third Opinion for an assessment by an uninvolved editor. Jr8825 • Talk 19:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello,
"it says that it's a major topic of Azerbaijani revisionism which has been repeated by academics and statesmen in Azerbaijan" – Fantastic.
"provides sources for this statement" – That's great.
" It also discusses how some aspects are "claims by Armenians" which have been echoed by academics and consequently disputed by Azerbaijan" – Brilliant.
Except I disputed none of this. I would appreciate it if you could stop mischaracterizing what I am saying. Please stop and address what I am actually saying. Please carefully read my previous statements that I provide below.
"I am not discarding criticism". "I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE". ""Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". "First of all, the section talks almost exclusively about Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania with reference to the Armenian people. Now I am not a historian nor am I a student of history, but it is impossible that every single bit of information that Azerbaijani historiography on Caucaian Albania has to offer is explicitly related to Armenia, therefore the section gives the wrong impression and is therefore impartial. One would expect to see something, anything non-political in the section along the lines of "Azerbaijani historiographers generally agree that what is now known as Caucasian Albania came into existence is xy century and that xy ruler living in the xy territory did xy", except there is absolutely nothing of this sort, the entire section reads like a political mish-mash of quotations allegations". "The entire section therefore must be either rewritten to make it something other than just a lengthy, politically charged accusation, or at the very least change the header so it more accurately reflect what the section contains, i.e "Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania as it relates to Armenia" – because apart from that one paragraph at the end of the section which is about Georgia, this is basically what this section is".
"You still haven't provided any reliable sources that dispute the facts as they are presented" – No I have not, because "I placed the tag above the section due to WP:IMPARTIAL, not WP:REPUTABLE". Did you read WP:IMPARTIAL? "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized"
"I see two ways forward, either you present the reliable sources I've asked for so we can work together to adjust the section" What sources are you talking about? I don't believe one needs a source to see that creating a section titled "Azerbaijani Historiography" and loading it up exclusively with politically charged, Anti-Armenian revisionism, while completely excluding all possible neutral, non-political, non-armenia-related Azerbaijani historiography requires a source? Perhaps I am missing something?
I personally see a very simple solution to this issue: We keep either the "NPOV" or "Rewrite" tag above the section as it was, we work together to reorganize the section and add non-political, non-armenia-related Azerbaijani historiography into the section to make the organization of the section more neutral, and then after we are done we remove the tag and all is good, what do you think? – Creffel (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're projecting. The section isn't damning all Azerbaijani historiography - merely how Azerbaijani historians treat the subject of Caucasian Albania. This is a non-issue, plain and simple. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it surprising that a highly experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself resorts to semi-personal, implicitly snarky remarks instead of addressing anything I have written above, instead preferring to diminish, ignore, and completely dismiss my points, calling them a "a non-issue" instead of trying to respectfully explain why I am wrong. This is just my personal opinion, but I think the reason behind this is that you can't, which is why a highly experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself resorts to semi-personal, implicitly snarky remarks. Please feel welcome to prove me wrong. – Creffel (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: The reason why I insist that the section is particularly careful in its organization is that we are dealing with a touchy topic here, therefore I simply believe one cannot throw together a bunch of highly political mumbo-jumbo and call it a day. The section was clearly not written with a neutral intent in mind, plain and simple. I hope you can understand my position. – Creffel (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind Creffel, I'm sure Azerbaijan is quietly seeking its own personal equivalents of Turkey's Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry - once suitable corrupt academics are located and the caviar and paychecks are sent out soon you will have those "neutral" sources you seemingly crave. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
god, this looks like something from reddit. 46.71.217.192 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Map[edit]

The map is clearly wrong. It contains regions that were not part of caucasian Albania. It never extends to Sevan lake, same with caucasian Iberia.

Nope, this map is based on the work of Hewsen (Armenia: A Historical Atlas). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not. Hewsen's map clearly indicates a difference between actual "Caucasian Albania/Aran" and territory that Persia later annexed from its vassal state Armenia and added to its vassal state Caucasian Albania. As well as using different shading to distinguish the two territories (shading which the map here doesn't have), and different titling (only the original territory is labelled Aran / Albania), Hewsen's map also states: "Classical sources are unanimous in marking the river Cyrus (Kur) the frontier between Albanian and Armenia. Only in the late 4th C AD did the Armenian principalities of Artsakh Utik, Gardman, Sakashen, and Kolt pass under permanent Albanian rule". 78.149.46.96 (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, what era do you think this map is supposed to represent? 3rd-century BC? It is obviously after the 4th-century AD, even the caption says so. The map is a representation of the Albanian kingdom and what it ruled back then, end off. This WP:JDLI is getting too much now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HistoryofIran this map is wrong. Sotk (Sawdk) has never been part of Albania, and on the original map its borders are even highlighted separately. According to Hewsen (or rather Eremyan) Sotk could have been part of the province of Artsakh (or rather, the ruling house of Sotk also ruled Artsakh), but after Artsakh was lost to Albania in 387, Sotk became part of the province of Syunik (pp. 101-102). Hewsen emphasized that there is no evidence for Eremyan's suggestion that Sotk was part of Artsakh (p. 119). On page 85 (map No. 65) you can see the borders of Armenia after the division of 387 until the year 591, where it is clearly seen that all the lands around Lake Sevan remained part of Armenia

(Hewsen, p. 101-102) The exact status of Arc'ax within the Arsacid kingdom is unknown. We hear of no princes of Arc'ax, and Eremyan thought that it must have belonged to the princes of Sawdk' (Cawdk'), a district at the southeast corner of Lake Sevan. In any case, Arc'ax was lost to Albania in 387, while Sawdk' remained as one of the districts of Siwnik'.

In addition, your map contradicts most (all?) other authoritative sources on the borders of Caucasian Albania. --Rs4815 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rs4815: You're right, the map Hewsen shows is different from this one. Also, it's not my map; it's @Golden: --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rs4815 and HistoryofIran: I no longer have access to Hewsen's book. I would appreciate it if one of you could email me Hewsen's map so I can make corrections based on that. — Golden call me maybe? 10:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Golden: The link will expire in 7 days [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the map. --Rs4815 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. I'll take a look at it over the weekend. — Golden call me maybe? 13:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HistoryofIran: The map that Rs4815 sent differs from the Hewsen map on page 41. In addition to the removal of Cawdk, the differences also include changes to the Armenia-Albania border north of Lake Sevan in Tashir and the addition of Lpink to Albania. I'm not too familiar with these changes and would like to know if you think they are accurate enough to make. — Golden call me maybe? 15:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the same map, mine is just of horrible quality, making it hard to see what's what. We should stick to the one posted by Rs4815. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rs4815 and HistoryofIran: I created a new vectorized version of the map based on the one provided by Rs4815. I also made corrections to some city, region names and added the ancient coastline as provided by Hewsen on page 41. Take a look: File:Caucasian Albania in 5th and 6th centurires.svg — Golden call me maybe? 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Golden: I'm not sure about the need to show the ancient coastline. As for Lpink. Until 387, this region was either a vassal of Albania, or part of it, but Albania lost control over it after 387, when this territory was taken from them by the Persians (along with the Armenian Paytakaran). If this map shows the situation after 387, then Lpink should not be part of Albania, but if the map shows the entire period of the existence of the Albanian kingdom, then both Lpink and the lands south of the Kura should be highlighted in different colors or shaded with the corresponding legend, which is — up to 387 Albania controlled Lpink but did not control the lands south of the Kura, and after 387 the lands south of the Kura were transferred to it, but Albanians lost the Lpink.

Hewsen, page 60: It should be noted that the territory that these people inhabited could not have formed a separate kingdom as early as the Arsacid period, for there is no such indication in classical sources, which include all of southeastern Caucasia (north of the River Kur) within Albania. Rather, the emergence of the Lupenian kingdom must have been a consequence of the loss of Albanian control of its easternmost districts after the partition of Armenia in 387, when the Persians gave the Albanians large territories in Eastern Armenia south of the Kur while at the same time depriving them of certain other lands formerly under their control north of the Kur.

--Rs4815 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hewsen shows the ancient coastline on page 41. I think it’s relevant enough to include because it provides context for how close Albania was to the sea at that time. Regarding Lpink and lands south of Kura, feel free to edit the map yourself since it is now vectorized. If not, you may have to wait a week or two for me to edit it since I'm currently busy irl. — Golden call me maybe? 19:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Golden: I waited over a month) Can you at least update this file. It is more widely used than the new one you created. --Rs4815 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created the .svg map so that I wouldn't have to make every little change myself. If you're able to make the change, please go ahead. If not, I'm afraid I won't be able to do it either as it's difficult for me to find the time. As for the .png map, I've updated it using the .svg map. — Golden call me maybe? 14:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armemia?[edit]

What is "Greater" Armenia? If Armenia has no history (as a state), then there is no point in inventing it. Yes, the Armenian people are ancient, and they gave birth on the territory of Caucasian Albania. But no "great" Armenias have ever existed. Thanks for understanding. 5.197.255.228 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It happens to be an alternative name of Kingdom of Armenia mentioned in that article. Swapping it to Kingdom of Armenia per article's title and as a more neutral term looks reasonable. Brandmeistertalk 19:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP is currently on a nonsense spree, writing WP:FORUM ish comments about his dislike of the concept of Armenia as a state/country (currently on phone, so cba adding the diffs, look at their edits). If the IP read a book, they would realize that Armenia does in fact have a rich history as a state. Moreover, WP:RS routinely simply uses “Armenia” when referring to the area. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXing either. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HistoryOfIran, thank you for noticing my review and taking the time to reply. And yet you did not understand me. I have no enmity towards the Armenian people. There are no bad people, there are bad men in ties who impose their opinion on the people.🇦🇿🤝🏼🇦🇲
And the fact is that everyone who is an ally of Armenia accepts her version of history. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, but I am not promoting either. On the contrary, these articles about "great" Armenia propagate the history of the world according to Armenians. I ask you, if you don't even believe, read the history of Azerbaijan, just for experience. To know that if someone says one thing, it doesn't have to be true. Good luck, my Iranian friend. 5.197.255.228 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not your friend and my ethnicity is none of your concern. Take this to a forum. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Greater Armenia" refers to the ancient Kingdom of Armenia and is not an irredentist term. Is "Great Britain" an English invention too? AlenAcemyan (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about a more accurate map?[edit]

File:Кавказская Албания и сопредельные страны в 5-8 веке .н.э.jpg 5.197.255.243 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Caucasian Albanian language?[edit]

'and only if there was any single "Albanian" language in the first place which is doubtful because the population of Albania/Aghvank was described as consisting of as many 26 different tribes).'

Ahem, we already have an article about the Caucasian Albanian/Aghwan language, we have a huge amount of texts in it that have been deciphered, and medieval Armenian sources themselves, as cited there, narrate how Armenian priests made the alphabet for the language and the translations into it (thereby acknowledging that the language existed, and that it was the main language of the area). Now it seems that while Azeri nationalists, as this article explains at length, want to minimise any historical Armenian presence in Azerbaijan by calling it 'Albanian', Armenian nationalists, including editors of this article, are in turn desperately trying to dismiss and minimise any non-Armenian element in the region's history and ideally deny that there was ever anything like a non-Armenian Albania to speak of, and are even willing to ignore their own historical tradition to that end. (And yes, you *can* have many tribes and yet one main language. It's unclear if the source cited contained the conclusion that there was no Albanian language; it may also have contained just the statement about number of the tribes, while the conclusion may be original research by the editor. Even if it does contain the statement, the source seems to be Armenian and can be expected to be no more unbiased on this subject than Azeri sources can.) 87.126.21.225 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories