Talk:Caucasian Albania

As I've noted in the edit history, "Caucasian Albania" gets 643 Google hits, Aghbania gets 137 and Alwania gets only 15. Nikola 07:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the statement about the Kish church. It was originally thought to be very ancient, but after further study the current church was dated to the twelfth century. The site has been in use since 3000 B.C., but that doesn't make it an ancient church, just a medieval church on an ancient site. Isomorphic 18:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 About invention of Albanian Alphabet 2 Artsakh and Albania 3 What Albanians have in Artsakh? - There are no traces of their presence! 4 Rovoam’s provocative vandalism and POV pushing 5 NPOV vs Azeri POV 6 Protected 7 Tabib's POV is not a NPOV 8 Sources

About invention of Albanian Alphabet

I have added a refference to Moses Kalankaytuk about invention of Albanian alphabet by Mesrob Mashtots:

According to Moses Kalankaytuk, the Albanian alphabet was invented by Mesrob Mashdots, an Armenian monk, theologian and linguist (see Moses Kalankaytuk, "The History of Aluank", I, 27 and III, 24).

I also added the external link to the book "The History of Aluank" by Moses Kalankaytuk: Movses Kalankatuatsi. "The History of Aluank" (http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/index.html). Translated from old Armenian (Grabar) by Sh.V.Smbatian, Yerevan, 1984 (In Russian).

All known facts should be mentioned, if you affraid...

Regards, Rovoam 05:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Artsakh and Albania

Yes, it is true - Artsakh was part of Albania! But it is also true that before it was part of Armenia and before - even Urartu.

Other editors: Please, see this post from Nagorno-Karabakh talkpage in which I give succint info and also bring maps of ancient Urartu to prove falseness of Rovoam's allegations. Also look at this post for background info on Rovoam's intentions. This user's recent actions are currently investigated by ArbCom, for details, please see here--Tabib 09:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, one of the map of Urartu actually covers the area of Karabakh during VIII c. BC, isn't it? It seems to me it covers even much bigger area... Take your glasses and see for yourself:

And please remember - you published this map, not me!

And another thought. Do you think all these maps of Urartu are correct? Don't you know or assume, that those maps are just a reconstruction and very rough estimate? Have you ever asked yourself when people invented the first map? Do we have any Urartian or Assyrian ancient maps? Think about all of these issues! Then you'll understand, how weak your arguments are!

Rovoam 00:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Albanians have in Artsakh? - There are no traces of their presence!

Tabib! I have a question for you. There are a lot of Christians churches and other monuments in Artsakh, and those monuments are VERY old (V c, X c, etc). And there are just few Muslim monuments, and all of them are much younger (the oldest was built on XVIII century). How do you explain this?

You may say, perhaps, that those ancient Christians monuments were built by Albanians, not by Armenians. But how you explain Armenian inscriptions on ALL of these ancient monuments? Most of these inscriptions were done at the time, when those monuments were first built. For example, in Gandzasar monastery there are Armenian inscriptions, which were made by the founder of the place (by the prince Hasan Jalalyan), i.e. they are dated XIII century. If builders were Albanians, why don't we see some Albanians inscriptions (in addition or instead of Armenians)? - However, there are thousands of Armenians inscriptions everywhere in Karabakh and none of Albanians. Why? How would you expalin this?! At least to yourself? Or you don't care about actual facts, do you?! Rovoam 00:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam’s provocative vandalism and POV pushing

Dear fellow editors,

Rovoam deliberately attempts to remove a paragraph in the page which goes as follows: “…Another historical part of Albania, Artsakh (present-day Nagorno-Karabakh), is presently occupied by Armenian military forces. Armenian historians claim that Artsakh has always been a part of Armenia...”. This paragraph was written long ago by third party editors not involved in present dispute and simply states a commonly known historical fact that Artsakh was part of ancient state of Caucasus Albania. Whereas I can agree to a different formulation of the paragraph, I cannot close my eyes to Rovoam’s flagrant POV pushing aimed at erasing from this page of the mentioning of Artsakh being part of Caucasus Albania.

Rovoam first started his disruptive actions and aggressive POV pushing in Nagorno-Karabakh page. His edits are characterized by extreme degree of maliciousness, blatant and repeated manipulation with the facts and intentional confusion of public opinion. His case is being currently considered by ArbCom and I am confident that this person will definitely be banned for his personal attacks and dishonest behavior.

During our month-long and more than 200 page-long discussions (or disputes, to be more precise) within the Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh the question of Artsakh and its relationship to Caucasus Albania has been extensively discussed and addressed. For detailed info please see primarily, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Artsakh_province_of_Caucasian_Albania; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Albanian_province_of_Artsakh_and_Armenian_claims; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Devil.92s_advocacy_and_the_irrefutable_facts Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Maps_comment as well as the rest of the discussion.

Also, please see the map of Urartu with Rovoams “arguments” posted above. Rovoam, acting once again in his blatant and malicious style of arguing (softest terming I could find to depict what he’s doing now), intentionally LIES to you all, alleging that this map shows present-day Karabakh area within the borders of Urartu. The above mentioned map of Urartu, originally posted by me (see, [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Blocked_User:Rovoam_and_his_anon_sock_puppet_64.136.27.228)) and now reposted by Rovoam actually disproves his allegations and clearly shows that even in its widest borders, Urartu (which btw was not an Armenian state at all) did not comprise the territory of present day Karabakh. The territory of present-day Karabakh is situated farther to the east from the borders shown in the map. Rovoam knows well that most of you are not aware of the geographical location of Karabakh and therefore he can say even the most nonsense thing and still hope that he will not be exposed. This is an outrageous and unprecedented conduct, when someone denies the facts at hand, trying to confuse other less informed editors and shamelessly calls his opponent to “take [his] glasses and see for [himself]”, instead of following his own advice!…

Rovoam also touched upon Armenian inscriptions on Albanian monuments to substantiate his senseless and already disproved allegations that “there is no traces of their presence”. In this regard I would also call other editors to look at earlier discussions regarding the subjugation of Albanian church to Armenian church following the Arab invasion in VIII c. and subsequent assimilation of the Caucasus Albanians by Armenians on the one hand and Turks (present-day Azeris) on the other. Here are the relevant posts from earlier discussions which touched upon this issue: Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Historical_fact:_subjugation_of_Albanian_church_to_the_Armenian_under_Arabs; [[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#On_details_of_subjugation_of_Albanian_church_to_Armenian:_excerpts)] as well as previous post on Artsakh and Albania and the rest of the discussion.

If Rovoam thinks he will get along with his tricks, he is deeply mistaken because, as in previous Nagorno-Karabakh page discussions I will continue to expose his malicious tricks and lies one by one and will eventually get him expelled from Wikipedia for his previous insults on me and dishonest editing and arguing behaviour. --Tabib 19:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV vs Azeri POV

I have edited the article, providing the following text:

According to Azeri-Turkic point of view, Artsakh (present-day Nagorno-Karabakh) was a historical part of Albania. However Armenian historians claim that Artsakh has been a part of Armenia for more them millenia. This opinion is supported by most of non-Armenian historians as well, and it is based on ancient sources (Strabo, Plinius Secundos, Clavdius Ptolemeus).

And I would like to understand, what's wrong with the above statement?

Tabib, please avoid personal attacks in your answer. I usually don't read your answer when you start accusing me of something... (I am not a crimanial and I am not an Armenian - and I can prove this!).

Rovoam 19:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors,

After User:Rovoam's numerous personal attacks, his public insults on my address calling me "Turkish vandal", "sick" "uneducated and uncivilized person" etc., I see no point of arguing with him. Therefore, I will direct my efforts at preventing Rovoam to confuse you by his deceptive posts and edits.

Rovoam's edit above is an extreme example of bias. The question of Artsakh being part of historical Caucasus Albania has been discussed in detail in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. I have proved bringing lots of authoritative sources, even Armenian sources, that Artsakh's historical belonging to Caucasus Albania is not an "Azeri POV", as Rovoam claims, but is a well-established and commonly accepted historical fact. Please, see the following posts, in which I have already addressed Rovoams nationalistic claims: Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Artsakh_province_of_Caucasian_Albania; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Albanian_province_of_Artsakh_and_Armenian_claims; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Devil.92s_advocacy_and_the_irrefutable_facts; also Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#Historical_fact:_subjugation_of_Albanian_church_to_the_Armenian_under_Arabs; Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive1#On_details_of_subjugation_of_Albanian_church_to_Armenian:_excerpts and also, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Rovoam.92s_proposition_to_solve_the_conflict (last post where Rovoam, who previously stated "Karabakh was never part of Albania", suddently accepts the facts, but now, as part of his strategy, prefers to deny again.)

The previous discussion during which we extensively discussed Artsakh, Caucasus Albania and borders of "Greater Armenia" took more than 200 pages and is still ongoing. Rovoam by vandalizing and introducing biased edits into this page, tries to confuse public opinion, discredit me (he knows that he himself is already discredited) and eventually, push his bias to Wikipedia. I call you not to be deceived by Rovoam! --Tabib 19:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dear User:Tabib! Would it be so difficult for you to repeat your argumentrs here once again? Just copy/paste your previus posts here, because I cannot find your answers. I really don't understand why you removing references to well known historical facts. If I missed something from your previous messages and haven't answer, it does not mean that I agreed with you. I am still trying to understand your Turkic POV, as you can see! Rovoam 22:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADante_Alighieri&diff=13502855&oldid=13485426). Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Since article is protected, can you make these 2 changes:

1.Post the map of Caucasian Albania:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasus03.jpg

2. Create a link to article about Udi language (if there is such).

Thanks. User:PANONIAN

---

I disagree with that map. It is not an academic map and it is not correct. Even if accepted conditionally, it reflects only a certain historical period when parts of Albania were occupied by Greater Armenian kingdom in II-I cc. BC. Moreover, this map also has incorrect borders for Iberia, which controls Albanian province of Utik (i.e. the part of land in that "map" which lies in between the territory of "Greater Armenia" and "Albania"). Historically, Albania consisted of what is mostly the present-day Azerbaijan, including such provinces as Utik (shown as part of Iberia in that "map"), Artsakh, Siunik, Paytakaran (shown as part of Armenia (or Greater Armenian kingdom, to be more precise).

The issue of borders of Caucasian Albania, and especially most controversial issue of Artsakh's belonging to either Albania or Armenia was discussed extensively in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. You can see the links to these previous messages in my postings above.

Unfortunately, in historiography (particular the Western historiography), Caucasian Albania was much less studied than the Greater Armenian kingdom. That's why there are many historical maps of the ancient Caucasus which show (sometimes overexagerrated) borders of this ancient empire, but there is virtually no Western maps showing the original borders of Caucasian Albania, as well as the borders of this state in subsequent centuries (I c. AD and esp. IV-VIII cc.) when Caucasian Albania did return most of its lands occupied previously by the outside powers. I will try to find some alternative maps to suggest to you, so I believe we can discuss this issue further.--Tabib 14:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib's POV is not a NPOV

Tabib is pushing Azeri-Turkish propaganda, calling it NPOV. All his opponents are taged with a "vandal" label. This person just cannot accept other opinions, which are different with his own. He is not able and not willing to compromise or nagotiate anything. (posted by User:64.136.2.254 01:50, Jun 15, 2005 (a anon IP used by vandal Rovoam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.136.2.254#Regular_disclaimer_on_vandal_User:Rovoam) text attribution by --Tabib 13:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

• The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranci, trans. from old Armenian by C. J. F. Dowsett, London: Oxford University Press, 1961.