Talk:Moses of Chorene/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thomson

I hope no one objects if I quote Robert Thomson's opinion about Moses Khorenatsi's dating. Since so much space is dedicated to his criticism, it would be only fair to represent this scholar's opinion alongside with those who disagree with him. Grandmaster 06:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask which quote you mean? Gazifikator (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure:

According to Robert Thomson, Moses of Chorene uses sources not available in Armenian at that time, and refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. Also, Moses of Chorene "alters many of his Armenian sources in a tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family, who gained preeminence in the eighth century".

Grandmaster 06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)1

"Moses of Chorene "alters many of his Armenian sources in a tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family, who gained preeminence in the eighth century"." is already in the article, isn't it? As for your first sentence, that's ok with me. Sardur (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree per Sardur. Gazifikator (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that. I think the positions in support of both datings should be arranged in a more easily readable format. I think we need to create one section in support of 5th century dating, and another one for its criticism. Grandmaster 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the current structure of section 3.2., which reproduces the debates as they are : critics, counter-critics, counter-counter-critics, ... At least, this is how it is presented in synthesis I read. Sardur (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor suggestion: could we not replace "According to Robert Thomson" with "According to him"? Three times Thomson in three sentences is a bit heavy, I think. Sardur (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I revised this line:

Despite these studies, these critical points were revived in the second half of the 20th century and many Western scholars continue to maintain the arguments raised by earlier scholars.

as follows:

However, the dating of Movses still remains disputed, and many Western scholars continue to question the traditional 5th century dating.

Because the criticism of 5th century dating was not revived, it existed throughout the 20th century and is still valid. I hope this does not cause any objections. Grandmaster 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We should also mention that Moses of Choren's work was mentioned for the first time in the 10th century, according to Thomson, Sarkissian and others. According to Thomson:

But despite the fact that Movses Khorenatsi is not known or quoted by sources before the tenth century, he became revered in tradition as the "father of history, patmahayr," and elaborate legends about his life, his other writings, and his association with Mashtots's other pupils gained credence after the year 1000.

Grandmaster 10:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to do something like this in section 2, around "only first mentioned in John's History of Armenia, written in the tenth century". Sardur (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Topchyan is not a good source on this. His claim that the criticism was "revived" contradicts common logic. I quoted the sources from 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and so on, and one can see that criticism never ceased to exist. So the claim about revival is not accurate. Grandmaster 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a good source according to who? the point is that the hypercritical phase criticism has been answered. The next phase is not exactly the same one. Sardur (talk)

He himself is criticized for misusing the sources. Why his opinion should be quoted as a fact? You can attribute the claim to Topchyan, but not claim it as a fact. As I said before criticism never ceased to exist to be revived. Grandmaster 10:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And the claim that the criticism was revived in the second half of the 20th century shows the level of competence of Topchyan. Sarkissian's work was published in 1940. That is not the second half of the 20th century. Grandmaster 10:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get the point he makes about different phases. Btw, Mahé's review of his book is quite a good one. Sardur (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim about the revival is clearly not accurate. It contradicts Sarkissian's work of 1940, where Sarkissian says that the dating remains disputed. If it was disputed in 1940, how criticism could be revived in the second half of 20th century? If you wish, we can ask a third party opinion about this. Grandmaster 10:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to (I have the feeling we are saying two different things). If you don't mind, I will come with a proposal this evening (I need to check my source for the nuances). Sardur (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Sarkissian:

Such was, and to a large extent still is, the traditional view about the life and the work of Moses of Khoren which was accepted by the Armenians. It is this traditional and unquestioned view that has been subjected to much severe criticism during the course of the past hundred years.

He quotes in his work the criticism from 1920s and 1930s. How does this support the claim of Topchyan that criticism was revived in the second half of the 20th century? Grandmaster 10:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We should also mention that most of those who defend the 5th century dating are scholars from Armenia, such as Topchyan. See Lang, for instance:

The reassignment of Moses Khorenats'i from the fifth to the eighth century was mooted as early as the 1890's by A. Carriere; Professor C. Toumanoff summarizes the evidence in the journal Handes Amsorya, Vol. 75, 1961, cols. 467-76. Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia continue to defend the old fifth century dating, though in Erevan the venerable chronicler's discredited account of himself is still upheld with patriotic zeal.

Suny, Panossian and a number of others say the same. We should not probably mention patriotic zeal, but mention who are the main proponents of traditional dating. Grandmaster 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is the latest one to say so? my problem with Lang is that it dates from 1979. As shown above, there have been since then scholars outside Armenia defending the 5th c. dating. Sardur (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Razmik Panossian, 2006: [1] [2] That is quite recent. Grandmaster 10:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent, sure, but he doesn't say anything about "Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia". Sardur (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (and correct me if I'm wrong, but in any case he's not an historian) Sardur (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Panossian writes:

However, Robert Thomson presents what seems to be convincing arguments that Khorenatsi belongs to the middle of the eighth century. This is not generally accepted by Armenians, particularly historians in Armenia, who take Khorenatsi's word at face value and place him in the 410 to 490 period.

Panossian is a politologist. One does not have to be a historian to assess what a majority view in the scholarly community of Armenia is. Plus, other authors say the same. Lang says the same, and so does Suny, a professional historian. --Grandmaster 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the claim that Thomson's book was met with criticism upon its release is ridiculous. All the reviews outside of Armenia are positive, I did not see any negative review from a non-Armenian source. So that claim should go. We should write that when the book came out, it was met with criticism in Armenia, and received favorable reviews in the international scholarly press. --Grandmaster 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article claimed that Thomson's work was criticized when it came out in 1978, and Lang provides info on who exactly were the critics back then. So Lang is quite appropriate in the context. Grandmaster 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Panossian is not a reliable source on this topic, whatever he says (and he doesn't say what you say, you're distorting what he says). Lang and Suny (publishing) are old. What you said about criticism of Thomson is not true, see above; I would not like to believe you're blind. Limiting the criticism to what Lang said about it is ridiculous. This issue is an evolving one. Unless you want to write a 1970-1980-style article on it? Sardur (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Suny is from 2002. How is he old? He says the same as Lang. And stop deleting sourced info. If the dispute is not resolved by peaceful means, it will have to go back to arbcom. Grandmaster 05:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Suny doesn't say anything about "Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia", stop distorting sources. Sardur (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sune says that Thomson was attacked by nationalist Armenian historians.

The nationalist thrust of Soviet Armenian historiography extended into a fierce critique of foreign historians who attempted to question sacred assumptions in the canonical version of Armenian history. The holder of the chair in Armenian studies at Harvard University, Robert Thomson, had the temerity to assert that Movses Khorenatsi, whom Armenian historians had claimed as a fifth-century author, was actually an eighth-century writer with a clear political agenda that served his dynastic master. He went on to call him "an audacious, and mendacious, faker." "A mystifier of the first order," Movses "quotes sources at second hand as if he had read the original; he invents archives to lend the credence of the written word to oral tradition or to his own inventions; he rewrites Armenian history in a completely fictitious manner, as in his adaptations of Josephus.... Whoever Mo[v]ses was, he was not only learned but clever. His protestations of strict methodology were intended to deceive, to divert critical attention, and to encourage acceptance of his own tendentious narrative." Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi and his characterization of the author. In a sense, a foreigner had tampered with the soul of the nation.

According to Suny, Thomson was criticized by Armenian authors. If you disagree, please quote at least one non-Armenian criticism of Thomson's book. Grandmaster 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I should (and that would be easy): Suny doesn't address this point. Sardur (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is easy, then you should have no problems. What do you think of asking an outside opinion on this? --Grandmaster 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat what I said: Suny doesn't say anything about "Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia", you're distorting what he said. Sardur (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's quote exactly what Suny says. "Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi and his characterization of the author." Is that Ok? The article says that when Thomson's book was published in 1978, it was criticized, but dies not say by whom. We need to explain who the critics were. Grandmaster 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I quoted both Lang and Suny exactly as written. I hope this resolves the problem. --Grandmaster 15:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the claim of revival is not in line with what Thomson writes in his book. He says:

Yet for nearly a century — from the 1890s to the present day — there has been no general agreement among Armenian and non-Armenian scholars on the date of this History. [3]

So we cannot take Topchyan's opinion as a fact, and ignore the opinions of other people. I suggest we remove the claim about revival. Alternatively, we can ask for a third opinion again. --Grandmaster 15:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomson is just a criticized minority here. Gazifikator (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support that claim? Grandmaster 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"it was criticized, but dies not say by whom." If it's not said, we cannot do it ourselves, that would be OR. And Suny doesn't say a word about criticism outside of Armenia.

I don't see how the last quote would contradict Topchyan, it doesn't say anything on continuity. Sardur (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Read again: Yet for nearly a century — from the 1890s to the present day — there has been no general agreement among Armenian and non-Armenian scholars on the date of this History. See? No agreement from 1890 till 1978. Grandmaster 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Read again as well: where does it say that the debate went on via publishings between 1940 and 1961? Sardur (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is 1940 - 1961 not between 1890 - 1978? Grandmaster 16:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you decide to omit "via publishings" in my question? Sardur (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean? Did the scholars argue about dating of Moses of Chorene in pubs? Of course they did so via the publications in the scholarly literature. --Grandmaster 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So you will have no problem with mentioning publishings from specialists on the issue from 1940 to 1961, I guess. And to explain why Mahé, one of them, doesn't list any such publishing for that period. Sardur (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need such sources. We have Thomson, who says that the dating has been disputed from 1890 till present. However Thomson is ignored, and Topchyan's opinion is quoted as a fact. Why? Grandmaster 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? because Thomson, who's not talking about continuity, does not contradict Topchyan. Actually you've provided no source so far contradicting Topchyan on this. Sardur (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We have one source stating that the criticism of the 19th century was revived in the second half of the 20th century, and the other one, saying that the dating was disputed from 1890 till present. So in your opinion, these 2 statements do not contradict each other? Grandmaster 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction, that's what I tried to explain in the next section some days ago. Sardur (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide the quote from Topchyan, so that we could see what he actually says? Grandmaster 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I already gave the quote (see next section). Sardur (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the full context of the quote. Grandmaster 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That will be for later tonight, I don't have the book here. Sardur (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the left:

Plus tard, en 1940, le même Malkhasiants publia une monographie en arménien dans laquelle il apportait de nouveaux arguments en faveur de la datation au Ve siècle, critiquant deux autres études [Akinian and Manandian] qui adoptaient des datations plus tardives. La critique de Malkhasiants contre ses deux théories paraissant convaincante, la publication de son livre régla la question pour environ deux décennies. En 1961, le problème fut repris par Cyril Toumanoff, qui fit une nouvelle tentative pour repousser la datation, cette fois à la fin du VIIIe siècle.

Later in 1940, the same Malkhasiants published a monograph in armenian, in which he put forward new arguments in favor of the 5th c. dating, and criticizing two other studies [Akinian and Manandian] supporting latter datings. Malkhasiants' criticism of these two theories seeming to be convincing, the publishing of his book settled the issue for approximately two decades. In 1961, the issue was revived by Cyril Toumanoff, who made a new attempt for a latter dating, end of VIIIth c. this time.

Sardur (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is just personal opinion of Topchyan. In the same 1940 Sarkissian published his article stating that the issue is disputed, and Thomson also says that the issue remained disputed from 1890 till present. So we must attribute this claim to Topchyan, and not assert it as a fact. Grandmaster 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Already answered: Sarkissian published just before, and Thomson doesn't contradict. Sardur (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

revived / remains

So:

1. What Toptchyan wrote is that after Malkhasyants (1940, and Sarkissian's article is from March 1940, so just before it) and untill Toumanoff (1961), thus "second half of the 20th century", there has been no serious scholarship opposing the 5th c. dating. You (Grandmaster) mentioned earlier Joseph P. Smith (1952) but (i) his book has an extremely thin link with the debate on the dating, (ii) he's not specialised in this area, and most of all (iii) he didn't take side in his very few lines on Moses. Topchyan not being contradicted on this, it is clear that there's a break of 21 years between Malkhasyants' book and the next serious scholar contesting the 5th c. dating (according to Topchyan, "la publication de son livre régla la question pour environ deux décennies" or in English "the publishing of his book settled the issue for approximately two decades"). Therefore, during these two decades, the issue didn't "remain" disputed (i.e. no serious scholarship published), and Toumanoff' s publishing "revived" the critical points in 1961.
2. Where you perhaps have a point (with "remains") is that Toumanoff's main point, the "Bagratids argument", had already been raised before by Adontz and Manandian. It had been addressed by Malkhasyants though (i.e. Moses wrote that Bagratids were tagadir ev aspet, two titles from the Arsacid period which were forgotten in latter centuries).
3. I think the article should represent both the historiographical break and the historiographical link, and I think the current sentence do so ("revived... continue to maintain"). I tried to reword it, but in fact, the more I think about the issue and the more I read the sentence, the less I see the problem with it.

Sardur (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, btw, no need to attack Toptchyan: Mahé for instance gives absolutely no reference between 1940 and 1961. Sardur (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read Sarkissian's article? He quotes authors from 1920s and 1930s, and says:

Such was, and to a large extent still is, the traditional view about the life and the work of Moses of Khoren which was accepted by the Armenians. It is this traditional and unquestioned view that has been subjected to much severe criticism during the course of the past hundred years. The object of this paper is to summarize and evaluate such criticism.

So according to Sarkissian, during the 100 years before 1940 the 5th century dating was constantly in dispute. Thus, Topchyan contradicts other sources. Criticism was not revived, it always existed. If you insist on revived claim, it must be presented only as Topchyan's personal opinion, and not as a fact, because it is not true. Grandmaster 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I attributed the revival claim to Topchyan, as it is just his opinion, and not a fact. Grandmaster 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? the break is between 1940-1961, whatever happened before. Your point about what Sarkissian said is ridiculous, as it was published before Malkhasyants. Sardur (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What break? I cited a source from 1952 as well. And Topchyan's opinion is just his opinion, and not a fact. Stop deleting sources from the article, it is disruption. If you have sources saying something different, add them, but do not delete reliable source from the article. --Grandmaster 05:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Lang is too old and Panossian is not a specialist. Sardur (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lang is not old, the article says that Thomson's book was criticized when it came out in 1978, and Lang is from 1979, exactly the time when the book came out. Do you want to try dispute resolution? How about an RFC? Let's ask the wiki community and see what it says. Grandmaster 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, make a consensus at first. The minority view supported by you was a reason of two editwarrings, no need for the third one! Gazifikator (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And on top, the 1952 source has been addressed in this section. Sardur (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not. 1952 source is valid, plus, if criticism existed in 1940, the criticism of the 19th century could not be revived in the second half of the 20th century. Btw, 1952 is also second half of the 29th century. Looks like this is gonna need an interference from outside. --Grandmaster 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there is hardly anyone or few to challenge Thomson other than Armenian scholars. And all three references for criticism of Thomson's translation point to Armenian authors. That should be handled somehow in my opinion. Brandt 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what you noticed? The article should not reflect what you noticed, but what is the current state of knowledge on Moses. Sardur (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and western scholarship for the most part believes that Moses of Chorene lived later than the 5th century. --Grandmaster 14:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suny and Lang

Grandmaster, this is your third editwarring here! Stop and discuss your dubious edits. The majority of experts support 5th century dating:

Sources in support of 5t ct dating	Sources that say the issue is disputed/uncertain/author not explicit	Sources in support of later dating
Adam T. Smith	Robert H. Hewsen (Armenia: A Historical Atlas, 2001, p. 7)	Anne Elizabeth Redgate
Stepan Malkhasyants	James R. Russell	Cyril Toumanoff
Agop Jack Hacikyan, et al	Robert W. Thomson	Robert W. Thomson
Aram Topchyan	Britannica (anonymous author)	David M. Lang
Gagik Sarkisyan	C. J. F. Dowsett	The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History
Boris Piotrovsky	Nina G. Garsoian
Levon Ter-Petrosyan	Michael E. Stone
Vrej Nersessian
Petros Hovhannisyan
Edward Gulbekian ("The Attitude to War in 'The Epic of Sasoun'", Folklore, Vol. 95, No. 1 (1984), p. 105.)
Thomas J. Samuelian
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Krugosvet cyclopedia
Christopher J. Walker, Alla Ter-Sarkisiants, I. G. Semenov, Zufar Zaĭnievich Miftakhov, A. N. Khuziakhmetov, International Committee of Historical Sciences, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Reader's encyclopedia of Eastern European literature, Gerhard Doerfer

Thomson and Co are only a minority here. So your edits are going against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gazifikator (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, to avoid having this article protected yet again, could we stick with discussion before making any attempt toward major content revision? If need be, I could arrange a sandbox for editors to work out their disagreements over the article's content. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator again removed the quotes from 2 Western professors. Note that I was not reverting this article, I only added direct quotes from 2 reliable sources, which previously were not included in the article. Removal of sourced info is nothing but disruption, and is against the rules. As for claims of majority opinion, the table above is an original research. According to the rules, and claims of consensus must be sourced. The rule say:

The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. [4]

So if you have a source that the 5th century dating is a majority opinion, you can use that to support your claim. Otherwise, any claims that the 5th century dating is a majority view is just your personal opinion and OR. So far we only have sources stating that the 5th century dating does not have any significant support in the scholarly community outside of Armenia. My question is to Nishkid, not as an admin, but as an editor. Are David Marshall Lang and Ronald Grigor Suny reliable sources, according to the rules? Grandmaster 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your so-called quotes were used in a distorting way, you can at least not ignore that there's a discussion going on, so inserting them is also disruptive. As I said earlier, Lang's opinion dates from 1979, and Suny doesn't say what you claim he does. And actualilly, the majority view is "the debate is still open". Sardur (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How quoting a reliable source is disruptive? I clearly mentioned there the date of Lang's publication. The article claims that Thomson's book was met with criticism when it came out, i.e. in 1978. Therefore the review from 1979 is quite relevant, as it contradicts the claim. Grandmaster 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You exactly know this if you have read what is written above.

"contradicts"? how can it contradict the claim when it recognises that there were criticism, wherever it came from?

On top, I'm completely against inserting Suny, who's neither an historian nor a philologist, who's not a specialist on Moses, and whose paper is not on Moses. Sardur (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lang does not criticize the dating of Moses by Thomson, he says that only scholars in Armenia did so. He was a professional historian and knew what he was talking about. Suny is a professional historian, and an expert on nationalist Armenian historiography. He is quite appropriate here. --Grandmaster 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote too quickly, my points 1 and 2 on Suny are linked. In any case, it's clear from there that he's not a specialist on Moses.

On Lang: once again, my problem is not so much with what he says, but when he said it. And with how you want to use it here. Sardur (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance:

Le livre de Thomson (1978), avec son image négative de MX, a longtemps contribué à éloigner les savants non-arménisants de ce texte.

Thomson's book (1978), with his negative representation of MX, has for a long time contributed to driving away (?) non-armenising (?) scholars from this text. (very quick translation, sorry)

Giusto Traina (2007)

That's already a first sign that Lang's conclusion is not relevant anymore. Sardur (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the issue at face appears to be predicated on reliability, I believe the underlying problems stems from the way in which the sources are presented. Thomson argues that Moses of Chorene was actually an 8th, not 5th, century figure, a fact that Nersessian vehemently denies. I think these two points should be placed right next to one another in the article for comparison. Lang and Suny appear to indicate that the only ones still supporting the 5th century figure are Armenian scholars, which in itself is a relevant and item of merit. The fact that they might not be scholars on Moses of Chorene (i.e. they have not published lengthy material on the subject) should not be an issue here IMO – both are well-respected historians who have written at length on materials pertaining to Armenia and the South Caucasus. If there are any other established historians who present arguments regarding the dating of Moses of Chorene, I'm all for having them in the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Suny is not saying "that the only ones still supporting the 5th century figure are Armenian scholars", he's saying that "Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi and his characterization of the author", which is of course not the same (he doesn't say that they are the only ones). And if he says so, that's within an article with a very specific and different subject which is not Moses. Sardur (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
2. And Lang is clearly not reliable already several months after the publishing of his review, with Nersessian's answer to Thomson (Nersessian, curator of the British Library). Others have been added later to that list since then. Sardur (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May be it is possible to outline the Armenian criticism because it is clear what Nersessian and company would say on behalf of Moses. Brandt 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Christopher J. Walker, the well-known co-author of Lang, also supports 5th century dationg, as well as prominent historians like Boris Piotrovsky and Adam T. Smith. Gazifikator (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And on top, it's too easy to categorise Nersessian as Armenian criticism: may I remind you that he's curator of the British Library? Sardur (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Nishkid. Lang is a specialist on ancient history, and Suny is a specialist on nationalist historiography. Both are quite relevant on the subject in question. Thomson himself writes:

Yet for nearly a century — from the 1890s to the present day — there has been no general agreement among Armenian and non-Armenian scholars on the date of this History.

So the 5th century dating is supported mostly by Armenian sources, both in Armenia and diaspora. This is what the sources say. How many third opinion do you need? If you need another one, I can file another request for third opinion. But the sourced info should be restored back to the article. Grandmaster 05:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no source on the diaspora, you're distorting sources again. Sardur (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's quote the above line from Thomson exactly as it is. I quoted Suny verbatim, and it was reverted for no reason. Suny said: "Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi and his characterization of the author". Why this was removed? It is sourced info, and was quoted without any distortions or interpretations. And you saw Nishkid's opinion, which he kindly provided after my request. If it is not convincing to you, we can ask another person. Grandmaster 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I already answered this, but let's be clearer: because he wrote this in "Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations." (which makes a lot of sense there), and not in something on Moses (which also makes a lot of sense as he is not a specialist on Moses).

Plus the way you put it after Lang gives the feeling that the 5th c. dating is only supported in Armenia by scholars because they are Armenian. Which is of course PoV and OR. Sardur (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The work of Suny is a study of nationalistic historiography in some countries, including Armenia, and dispute over Moses of Chorene's dating is mentioned there. Thus, it is quite appropriate here. Suny mentions only Armenian scholars, and no one else bitterly attacking Thomson. If you think that the place of the quote was not appropriate, why did not you move it where you thought it was more appropriate? Plus, Lang was removed too. You saw Nishkid's opinion. Do you agree with it? Grandmaster 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"and no one else bitterly attacking Thomson" who said so? Sardur (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did. I said that Suny only mentions Armenians bitterly attacking Thomson. You still haven't answered my question. Again, do you agree with Nishkid's opinion or not? Grandmaster 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You did, so (nothing personal) that has no value.

I already replied to Nishkid. Sardur (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So you again are saying neither yes or no. Ok, if you disagree with Nishkid's opinion, let's ask someone else. Do you mind if I ask for another third opinion? Grandmaster 11:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can discuss this issue with anybody, that's always a pleasure. Sardur (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I was reading on third opinion, and it's several times repeated "only two editors". Not sure it will work then. Sardur (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although, it isn't explicitly stated, I reason that Suny's criticism is trying to show that the dating dispute is partially based on nationalist grounds. Anyway, that's here nor there. I believe all major viewpoints should be presented in the article. This matter has two sides: those that believe in the 8th century dating and those who believe in the 5th century dating. Both should be presented to their fullest of abilities – clearly explaining the arguments for and against each side. Lang and Suny's comments are noteworthy, as they are both unique scholarly characterizations of the Moses of Chorene dating dispute. You might disagree with these characterizations and could argue against them using WP:UNDUE, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should be disputing the reliability of these sources. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong: the dating issue extends from the Vth till the IXth c., which, and I regret it, shows how poor the discussion has been so far.

Suny's comments? which Suny's comments? he's even not entering the debate on the dating but is making a comment on why Armenian scholars attacked Thomson, i.e. for reasons relating to historiographical agenda (according to him, "In a sense, a foreigner had tampered with the soul of the nation."). Suny does not say anything on the dating issue itself. The quote would be relevant in an article about Armenian historiography, for sure, but here? Sardur (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does Suny need to participate in the dating dispute to make a simple characterization of what he believes is going on? I find your reasoning to be a poor argument against inclusion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he needs to, but I did say earlier he couldn't (and he doesn't), because he's not a specialist on Moses. Would you use, say, Yves Ternon as a source about Van in the Xth c. ? Clearly not, because it's not his speciality. Same for Suny. Sardur (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think any well-respected historian would make a judgment without considering all the facts? As part of the historian's mantra, there's no reason not to believe Suny has a respected opinion on the matter. Suny has proved himself competent in various lines of Armenian historiography; his opinion on this particular is of qualified interest. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Caucasus? Yes I do. The best proof of it is that Suny has a single source for this, which has been abundantly commented above. Sardur (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He is not the only one. Lang says pretty much the same, and so does politologist Panossian. [5] Grandmaster 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the best: none of them say the same thing. Stop distorting. Sardur (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The dating is within the range of 5th - 9th centuries, because some scholars date Moses of Chorene as late as the 9th century. [6] There are those that argue for the 5th century (mostly scholars in Armenia and diaspora), and those who argue for a later date (7/8/9th century, mostly western scholars). However I don't see that this has anything to do with the point of discussion. I was saying for 2 months now that both points of view should be fairly and equally presented. The comments of Lang and Suny are important, because they concern one of the sides of the dispute, the one that argues for the 5th century date. They are mostly scholars in Armenia. I agree with Nishkid that we should present the arguments in support of each position, so that a person reading this article could understand what the point of contention in this scholarly dispute is. So far this has not been done, and any attempt at inclusion the info that contradicts the 5th century dating gets reverted. We need to get this article out of the deadlock somehow. Grandmaster 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Suny doesn't even support "They are mostly scholars in Armenia", stop distorting it. Sardur (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I don't say he does, he says that the Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson. I want to include that into the article, as it is a sourced info. Also, if Suny mentions that the scholars in Armenia bitterly attacked Thomson, and writes that in the context of nationalist historiography in Armenia, that is supposed to mean something, doesn't it? Grandmaster 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, but in Armenian Historiography. Sardur (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but the info concerning Moses of Chorene must be included in this article. Grandmaster 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Must? why? most of all when he's the only one to say so, and on the basis of one single author. Sardur (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You used a single author Topchyan to support the claim of revival. It was not a problem then. However Suny is not a single source, he is supported by Lang and Panossian. Grandmaster 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Topchyan is not contradicted by facts (and is supported by Mahé's biography), while Suny is (excepting one author, nobody bitterly criticized Thomson); Lang does not say the same as Suny and can't therefore support him. And I have more than doubts about Panossian. Sardur (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a poor argument, Grandmaster. WP:UNDUE. Of course, if the info in question is reputable and of encyclopedic merit, then it should be mentioned in the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Suny is a reliable source, then his opinion is notable. And his info about the criticism of Thomson has direct relevance to this article. Therefore he needs to be quoted in the article. That's what I mean. Grandmaster 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Suny is clearly not reliable with only one source supporting his claim. Sardur (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of it:

• Lang : Few if any scholars outside Soviet Armenia continue to defend the old fifth century dating, though in Erevan the venerable chronicler's discredited account of himself is still upheld with patriotic zeal.
• Suny: Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi and his characterization of the author. In a sense, a foreigner had tampered with the soul of the nation.
• Panossian: This is not generally accepted by Armenians, particularly historians in Armenia, who take Khorenatsi's word at face value and place him in the 410 to 490 period.

As anyone can see, none of them say the same. Sardur (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Brandmeister, Suny and Panossian shouldn't be used as sources anyway because they have Armenian heritage. Lang has been in contact with Armenians for a while and has published a book called "Armenia: The Cradle of Civilization", perhaps that makes him suspect as well. I'm not sure though, Brandmeister has yet to reveal the charts he uses to determine how Armenian someone is or how compromised one is as a result of prolonged contact with Armenians.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sardur, you're clearly not understanding what reliability means on Wikipedia. Since Suny's work is published in a well-respected scholarly journal, it is by definition a reliable source. See WP:RS#Scholarship. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A scholar saying something on the basis of only one source and that can be easily contradicted is reliable? Grandmaster will like this. Sardur (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid, the context under which Grandmaster is using Suny is unencyclopedic. What Grandmaster wants to insert is: Soviet Armenian scholars bitterly attacked Thomson's dating of Khorenatsi. Thomson has been criticized unanimously for his characterization of Khorenatsi, in fact the paper from Lang which Grandmaster is quoting, as demonstrated earlier by another user, is almost entirely dedicated to criticizing Thomson's characterization of Khorenatsi. It is unacceptable to single out a few lines of critique and throw the rest out of the window. This is cherry picking at its worst. Also note that Suny is not exactly the best source (I don't dispute that he's a reliable source):([Suny] is not primarily a specialist on Armenia,... by Nora Dudwick, reviewed work(s): Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. by Ronald Grigor Suny, Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), p. 970). But even if he was, what is the point of that quotation. It says Soviet Armenian scholars criticised Thomson, without mentioning his own stance... Quotations, one after the other thrown here and there about Soviet Armenian scholars when just one line stating that Soviet Armenian scholars have strongly criticised that position would have sufficed. That's undue weight.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No one outside of Armenia and diaspora criticized Thomson's dating of Moses of Chorene. I did not see such a review. Lang fully agrees with Thomson on dating issue. His criticism only concerns the choice of words by Thomson, but he does not dispute any assertions with regard to dating, authenticity, etc. So you cannot equate that with the position of scholars in Armenia, who generally reject the opinion of Thomson on anything concerning Moses of Chorene. And Suny does not have to be a expert on Moses of Chorene to be able to assess the nature of criticism by Armenian historians. Suny is a professional historian, and is able to conduct a research on this, considering that he specializes on nationalistic historiography. Grandmaster 06:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypercritical phase

Can I see the quotes from the sources, using this term with regard to the studies on Moses of Chorene? Thanks. Grandmaster 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several, but I have this one here:

Cette enquête minutieuse et attentive [i.e. Topchyan's book from 2006] invite à reconsidérer les positions hypercritiques des philologues des XIXe-XXe siècles. (This meticulous and careful investigation invites to reconsider hypercritical positions of XIXe-XXe c. philologists.) Jean-Pierre Mahé's review of Aram Topchyan's The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movsēs Xorenac‘i's History of Armenia, in Revue des études arméniennes, no 30, 2005-2007, p. 505.

Sardur (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So he refers to the same Topchyan? And what does Topchyan himself say? Grandmaster 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He (as well as Traina and others) does not refer to Topchyan about "hypercritical"; I hope you know that this word refers to the "hypercritical school" of history.

Topchyan by the way uses "blanket criticism". You can check yourself in his 2006 book. Sardur (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked for the quote. When I refer to someone, I always provide the relevant quote at talk, in accordance with the rules. So should everyone else. Grandmaster 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As you want; and that allows me to correct myself: Topchyan uses "hypercriticism" in footnote 21: Xorenac‘i was not the only victim of the nineteenth-early twentieth centuries hypercriticism; even the greatest classical authors shared a similar fate.

Sardur (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ok, so that is 3 authors using this term. Is it enough to claim it as a generally accepted term to characterize the 19th century studies on Moses of Chorene? Grandmaster 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I do not see Traina using the term "hypercriticism". Does he? Grandmaster 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Once again: I hope you know that this word refers to the "hypercritical school" of history. Sardur (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I do not see Traina using the term "hypercriticism". Does he? Grandmaster 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to establish, if the criticism in the 19th century is indeed generally characterized to follow this particular method. Grandmaster 11:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he does (p. 158) :

Sur Moïse, déjà considéré comme "Père de l'Histoire" (Patmahayr) par la tradition arménienne, pèsent pourtant de nombreux doutes, introduits par la philologie hypercritique du XIXe... (On Moses, already considered as "Father of History" (Patmahayr) by the Armenian tradition, there are several doubts, introduced by the XIXth c. hypercritical philology...).

See also footnote 8 for "positivist approach". Sardur (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments

I propose to include the following arguments by Thomson in support of later dating:

• Moses is the first Armenian writer to equate Siunik' and Sisakan. The latter term is first found in Syriac in the sixth century; in the seventh-century Armenian Ashkharhats'oyts' it refers to a canton, not the whole province.

• Moses knows of four Armenias. These four Byzantine provinces were not so organized until 536 A.D. (By Justinian).

• Moses refers to the territory east of Lake Van as Vaspurakan, a term used only after the partition of Armenia in 591. Not until the early eighth century Narratio de Rebus Armeniae is Vaspurakan used to designate a province in the same sense as Moses uses it.
• Moses refers to the Khazars, not mentioned in other Armenian sources before the seventh-century Ashkharhats'oyts'.

• Moses knows of an Iranian advance into Bithynia. Only in the 604-629 war did the Iranians advance so far west.

• Moses refers to two positions, Presiding Prince and Comes, in Byzantine Armenia; this reflects the position after Heraclius' victory over Iran in 629.

Grandmaster 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To place Sisakan as your first point is amazing. Or not, whatever. In any case, if I could certainly agree about their inclusion, I also need more time to check the way you formulated every point. But I know they have all been addressed by other scholars.

I suppose that will be included in the section "Modern studies", but how do you see the structure of this section?

Sardur (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And I also suppose you will reference all of this with Thomson 1978, won't you? Sardur (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that after all this time Grandmaster still hasn't read the article. At least two of those points have been prominently featured in the article for months now. Ditto about Sisakan.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that they are, but I want to rewrite that. I want to present the arguments in support of later dating in a more orderly fashion. Plus, we should also include that the first reference to Moses was made in the 10th century. This was removed more than once from the article. I do not understand your claims about Sisakan. I just copied these points from Thomson's book, in the same order they were listed there. And this is not all. We may need to add more arguments in support of the later dating. But if the above points raise no objection, then I will go ahead and include them. Grandmaster 04:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should first have an idea about the structure of the section. And I have things to say about the 10th c. first reference. Sardur (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just include these points in the modern criticism section and attribute them to Thomson. Btw, all the criticism of Thomson included in the article is very superficial and does not respond to any of the above issues. Just that Sargsyan "also admonished Thomson for anachronistic hypercriticism and for stubbornly rehashing and "even exaggerating the statements once put forward" by the late 19th and early 20th century scholars, and in particular, those of Grigor Khalatyants (1858-1912), or that someone disagrees with Thomson's opinion on Moses failure to mention his sources. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are of course more detailed answers, and my question about the structure is also about them: do we list Thomson's arguments in one part and then the answers in a second one, or do we present argument 1 + answer 1, argument 2 + answer 2, ... ? and then what about answers to answers? I wonder what is the clearest solution. Sardur (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to split them into 2 sections, one for each point of view. Grandmaster 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what do we do about this info? I think it should be included in the article. Grandmaster 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a proposal, as was done below? Sardur (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. See below:

Robert W. Thomson, the former holder of the chair in Armenian Studies at Harvard University and the translator of several classical Armenian works, noted that Moses of Chorene uses sources not available in Armenian at that time, and refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. He summarized the arguments against the 5th century dating as follows:

• Moses is the first Armenian writer to equate Siunik' and Sisakan. The latter term is first found in Syriac in the sixth century; in the seventh-century Armenian Ashkharhats'oyts' it refers to a canton, not the whole province.

• Moses knows of four Armenias. These four Byzantine provinces were not so organized until 536 A.D. (By Justinian).

• Moses refers to the territory east of Lake Van as Vaspurakan, a term used only after the partition of Armenia in 591. Not until the early eighth century Narratio de Rebus Armeniae is Vaspurakan used to designate a province in the same sense as Moses uses it.
• Moses refers to the Khazars, not mentioned in other Armenian sources before the seventh-century Ashkharhats'oyts'.

• Moses knows of an Iranian advance into Bithynia. Only in the 604-629 war did the Iranians advance so far west.

• Moses refers to two positions, Presiding Prince and Comes, in Byzantine Armenia; this reflects the position after Heraclius' victory over Iran in 629.

Thomson also believes that Movses "alters many of his Armenian sources in a tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family, who gained preeminence in the eighth century", while never mentioning their rivals, the Mamikonian family, who played a prominent role in the history of Armenia.

There's something very strange here, about the Mamikonian: a whole paragraph of Book 2 (§81 in Mahé's translation) is devoted to their origins. Could you provide Thomson's quote? Sardur (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's not accurate. Should be: Thomson also believes that Movses "alters many of his Armenian sources in a tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family, who gained preeminence in the eighth century", while showing bias towards their rivals, the Mamikonian family, who played a prominent role in the history of Armenia. Grandmaster 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Better, though the first question I have now is "what bias". I mean, I know the answer, but reader lambda won't... Sardur (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The above information can be summarized within a single paragraph. We don't need a bullet list.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Sardur (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We can include it without bullets, but I think bullets make it more readable, as they separate one point from another clearly. But we can do without them too, if it is a problem. As for bias, Thomson says that Moses "consistently negates" the role of Mamikoneans in the history of Armenia. We can include that too, like: "while consistently negating the role of their rivals, the Mamikonian family, in the history of Armenia". Grandmaster 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mamikonian: better. Sardur (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, I was away on vacation. I included the above info into the article. Grandmaster 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As Eupator suggested, we do not need so much detailed bullets on a minority view. Many other scholars criticize his views, so a paragraph is for sure enough! Per WP:WEIGHT. Gazifikator (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether with or without bullets, no one objected to inclusion of this info in general. Plus, it comes from a reliable source. So stop reverting sourced info. Grandmaster 09:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I object! Eupator seems too. So do not start a new editwarring! Gazifikator (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you object to? Please explain. Grandmaster 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomson represents a minority view (we discussed it earlier here and you made three unsuccessful editwarrings on that before this). Many other scholars criticize this view, so a paragraph is for sure enough: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". See WP:WEIGHT. This article is about Khorenatsi, not about a translator's detailed 'views'. Gazifikator (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomson does not represent a minority point of view. That is your personal opinion. You have no source to support your claim that Thomson is a minority. In fact, the opinion of Thomson is supported by western scholarship in general, and rejected mostly by Armenian authors. If so much space is dedicated to criticism of Thomson, it would be fair to dedicate the adequate space to explain what Thomson actually says. Attempts to suppress sourced info are not acceptable. --Grandmaster 13:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're just continuing the same discussion you 'lost' during your 3 previous editwarrings. To not repeat myself and other users, I can just suggest to look into table I provided above. Gazifikator (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are being extremely uncooperative and disruptive! Please cease this behaviour immediately. Not only did you post the bullet points when multiple users clearly told you that it would be unacceptable you went ahead and did it anyway and had the audacity to type in the edit summary "per talk". You duplicated the information about Bithynia and Justinian's reorganization of Armenia and failed to incorporate the remaining points within the existing paragraph as it should have been done. You were amade aware of this. It's all in this page!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with bullets? They help to separate one point from another and make the text easier to read. Any previous instances of mentioning Bithynia and Justinian could be removed later, that's not a reason to delete sourced info. It is better to have all the critical points in one place, rather than to scatter them around the article. I think we should try dispute resolution one last time. Do you mind mediation? If you agree, I will file a request right away. Grandmaster 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just plain absurd to use the bullet points: the article is about Movses Khorenatsi, not the views of Thomson. You clearly , and obviously are failing to adhere to WP:SYNTH by listing all the disagreements Thomson had. After all this time, you have become the sole obstacle of any progress on the article by pushing all the resources about the entry by dragging every single editor into debate about Thomson criticism. Barely a day back after your vacation and youjumped in the article by making an edit without achieving consensus (a broken record) and furthermore misleadingly everyone by claiming it was done so "per talk." This article is not about the criticism of the book (which would be a FORK). You keep claiming "removal of sourced info," perhaps it's time you quaint yourself with WP:SYNTH.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Any previous instances of mentioning Bithynia and Justinian could be removed later..." What a load of crap. "It is better to have all the critical points in one place, rather than to scatter them around the article." That's exactly what I have been saying all along. Yet you continued on your usual path of disruption, left that paragraph untouched and created a bullet list all the while applying undue weight to a single position INSTEAD of incorporating the extra points into the existing paragraph as already discussed earlier.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. If article is not about criticism of Thomson, then why a large portion of it is dedicated to criticism of this particular person? Why the position of Thomson should not be fairly presented in the article, if so much space is dedicated to obscure Armenian authors criticizing him? And none of you said anything about my proposal for mediation. Do you agree to mediation or not? --Grandmaster 04:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Obscure"? This kind of post only displays one thing: your ignorance of scholarship on Moses. Whatever. Sardur (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation? Yes or no? Grandmaster 05:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you in such a rush after your holiday? Funny for such an old historian as Moses. Let's wait for an answer to "Third opinion 2" below. Sardur (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's get back to inclusion of Thomson's opinion in the article. Eupator said that this info was repetitive. That is easy to fix. The only other place that contained this info was this paragraph:

Scholars asserted that Movses used sources that were not available at that time, and referred to persons and places (such as the division of Armenia by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in 536 and the Persian advance into Bithynia in the early 600s) attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries.

I suggest we remove the above paragraph, and add the paragraph with Thomson's summary of critical points as follows. If bullets are such a serious issue, let's do without them:

Robert W. Thomson, the former holder of the chair in Armenian Studies at Harvard University and the translator of several classical Armenian works, noted that Moses of Chorene uses sources not available in Armenian at that time, and refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. He summarized the arguments against the 5th century dating as follows:

Moses is the first Armenian writer to equate Siunik' and Sisakan. The latter term is first found in Syriac in the sixth century; in the seventh-century Armenian Ashkharhats'oyts' it refers to a canton, not the whole province. Moses knows of four Armenias. These four Byzantine provinces were not so organized until 536 A.D. (By Justinian). Moses refers to the territory east of Lake Van as Vaspurakan, a term used only after the partition of Armenia in 591. Not until the early eighth century Narratio de Rebus Armeniae is Vaspurakan used to designate a province in the same sense as Moses uses it. Moses refers to the Khazars, not mentioned in other Armenian sources before the seventh-century Ashkharhats'oyts'. Moses knows of an Iranian advance into Bithynia. Only in the 604-629 war did the Iranians advance so far west. Moses refers to two positions, Presiding Prince and Comes, in Byzantine Armenia; this reflects the position after Heraclius' victory over Iran in 629.

What do you say? Grandmaster 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that this would present these arguments as first raised by Thomson, though several of them were raised by other scholars before him. That would be quite problematic... Sardur (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. My version says: He summarized the arguments against the 5th century dating as follows. Thomson summarized the arguments, it does not mean that he was the first who raised these critical points. Further clarification could be made, if needed. Grandmaster 05:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, because I didn't understand it the way you do. Sardur (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So, no objection to my proposal? Grandmaster 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My "indeed" was relating to your "Further clarification could be made, if needed". I unfortunately have no time right now for a proposal. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is simple. Why not writing something like: He summarized the arguments against the 5th century dating, which were made since the 19th century to present times, as follows. What do you think? Grandmaster 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to add something: He summarized the main arguments against the 5th century dating, which, for some of them, were made since the 19th century to present times, as follows:

• "main": there are other arguments. I'm not sure about "main", though: for instance an argument is linked to what sources were available to Moses, and in my opinion, this (complex) argument is certainly more important than any argument you mentioned.
• "for some of them": I'm not sure that all the mentioned arguments were also made before Thomson.

Sardur (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not sound like good English, though. Therefore I think my version is better. If the arguments were made from 19th century to present, then they include the arguments by the modern scholars as well, including Thomson. We can add the word "main", though, it makes sense. Grandmaster 06:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Thomson wrote :

"There are also various historical clues scattered in his History that enable us to reject a fifth-century date. These have been noted by various scholars, and in recent times conveniently rehearsed by Toumanoff, so a brief recapitulation is all that is necessary here."

So here is what I would suggest:

"Robert W. Thomson, the former holder of the chair in Armenian Studies at Harvard University and the translator of several classical Armenian works, noted that Moses of Chorene uses sources not available in Armenian at that time, and refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. He recapitulated the various historical clues scattered in the History that enable him to reject the 5th century dating as follows:

Moses is the first Armenian writer to equate Siunik' and Sisakan. The latter term is first found in Syriac in the sixth century; in the seventh-century Armenian Ashkharhats'oyts' it refers to a canton, not the whole province. Moses knows of four Armenias. These four Byzantine provinces were not so organized until 536 A.D. (By Justinian). Moses refers to the territory east of Lake Van as Vaspurakan, a term used only after the partition of Armenia in 591. Not until the early eighth century Narratio de Rebus Armeniae is Vaspurakan used to designate a province in the same sense as Moses uses it. Moses refers to the Khazars, not mentioned in other Armenian sources before the seventh-century Ashkharhats'oyts'. Moses knows of an Iranian advance into Bithynia. Only in the 604-629 war did the Iranians advance so far west. Moses refers to two positions, Presiding Prince and Comes, in Byzantine Armenia; this reflects the position after Heraclius' victory over Iran in 629."

Also, Grandmaster, you copied Thomson exactly. I'm concerned about copyright as the quote is not that short. Sardur (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is good. And copyright will not be an issue, since the text is properly attributed to Thomson. Grandmaster 05:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was raising the issue, because I know that on wk:fr, it would be probably too long. But wk:fr and wk:en seem to have different standards.

So, do we agree on the text? Sardur (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think we need to add per your previous point that some of those points were noted by other scholars:

He recapitulated as follows the historical clues scattered in the History, some of which were previously noted by various scholars and which in his opinion enable to reject the 5th century dating:

Grandmaster 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the agreed text to the article. But we need to separate various points from each other for the ease of reading. If you don't like bullets, how about numbers? We can number each point, while keeping it all within the same paragraph. Grandmaster 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Since were are in English Wikipedia, I offer exclusion of untranslated sources in the Further reading. Six out of eleven titles are foreign (5 in Armenian and 1 in Russian, but also written by Armenian author). Suitable for pasting into Armenian version if needed. Brandt 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of what policy? Sardur (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather English Wikipedia :) See WP:NOT. Brandt 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about "untranslated source" in there. Sardur (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field. Brandt 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What's not clear for you Brandmeister? I'm sure we can help you understand a given sentence or a paragraph, feel free to ask.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not worthy of quarrel, but you guys may check WP:NONENG, could be a good consensus. Brandt 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet you continue soapboxing and wikilawyering with the pretense of removing items from further reading, not even inline citations but items from further reading. Most specialists on MK and Classical Armenian are obviously Armenian and the majority live(d) and do their research in Armenia at the Matenadaran. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind an RfC. Btw, I'm not sure the majority of Wikipedians can read Armenian, so indeed it's better to tweak the section. Brandt 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect. However, for those that are interested in the topic, it's an extremely useful piece of info even if it only lets them know that such works exist regardless of the language.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. But why on earth did Brandmeister post this in this section? The right one is below. Sardur (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First appearence

Current section 2 "Literary influence" is of course dealing with the literary influence of Moses, but also about his first appearence in other medieval texts. It already mentions that some consider a first reference to Moses in the 10th c., so Grandmaster's claim that it "was removed more than once from the article" is baseless.
I think it could be improved on the basis of what Mahé said, with all the necessary quotes:

• doubtful hypothesis: Ghazar Parpetsi, Book of Letters, and Athanase of Taron
• exact references: Tovma Artsruni, Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi

Sardur (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This section needs rewriting:

The first reference to Movses by an Armenian historian was in Ghazar Parpetsi’s History of Armenia, where the author details the persecution of several notable Armenian individuals, including the “blessed Movses the philosopher,” identified by some scholars as Movses Khorenatsi. The information by Movses and traces of his writing style was later identified in the works by Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Tovma Artsruni, John V the Historian (some scholars assert that Movses' History was only first mentioned in John's History of Armenia, written in the tenth century) and later medieval Armenian authors.

Now let's compare it with what Thomson wrote:

The only possible reference to Moses Khorenats'i in the early literature is in a letter attributed to Lazar P'arpets'i, writing about 500 A.D. He mentions a "philosopher" Moses, dead by then, whose words "dispelled ignorance." This Moses had incurred the enmity of the monks and had suffered expulsion like Lazar himself. But there is no suggestion in Lazar that this Moses had composed any historical works.

A historian Moses is unknown to Armenian literature before the tenth century. John Catholicos (c. 850-c. 931) has only one specific reference to the "History of Moses Khorenats'i," but he clearly knew it well and quotes it elsewhere without acknowledgment. Thomas Artsruni, writing about the same time as John Catholicos, has numerous explicit references to Moses. In his own version of the ancient history of the world after Noah, he cites Moses Khorenats'i, or Moses Kert'ol several times; but he also refers to the fourth dprutiwn ("book" or "chapter") of Moses in which figure Ninos, Semiramis, Abraham, and the sixteenth dynasty of Egypt. Thomas also notes Moses' description of the death of Trdat at the end of book II.

Grandmaster 06:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposed wording:

The only possible early reference to Movses in other sources was in Ghazar Parpetsi’s History of Armenia (about 500 A.D.), where the author details the persecution of several notable Armenian individuals, including the “blessed Movses the philosopher,” identified by some scholars as Movses Khorenatsi. But there is no indication in Parpetsi that this Moses had composed any historical works.

A historian by the name of Moses was unknown to Armenian literature before the tenth century. The references to Moses and the use of information from his book can be found in the works by Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Tovma Artsruni, John V the Historian and later medieval Armenian authors.

Grandmaster 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can almost agree: Book of Letters and Athanase of Taron have to be integrated in the first paragraph. The idea would however basically be the same. I will make a proposal tonight as I don't have Mahé's book here. Sardur (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

Three possible early references to Movses in other sources are usually identified. The first one is in Ghazar Parpetsi’s History of Armenia (about 500 A.D.), where the author details the persecution of several notable Armenian individuals, including the “blessed Movses the philosopher,” identified by some scholars as Movses Khorenatsi. But there is no indication in Parpetsi that this Moses had composed any historical works. The second one is the Book of Letters (VIth century), which contains a short theological treatise by "Movses Khorenatsi". However, this treatise, not being an historical work, cannot be convincingly attributed to the historian Moses of Chorene. The third possible early reference is in a Xth-XIth centuries manuscript containing a list of dates attributed to Athanasius of Taron (VIth century): under the year 474, the list has "Moses of Chorene, philosopher and writer". This mention is however considered as too uncertain.

A historian by the name of Moses was unknown to Armenian literature before the tenth century. The references to Moses and the use of information from his book can be found in the works by Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Tovma Artsruni, John V the Historian and later medieval Armenian authors.

Sardur (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we see the quotes from the two sources that you added? --Grandmaster 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your problem again? Sardur (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part of ref 5 can be read there (second page of the pdf). Sardur (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be in the idea of pushing minority view as a majority one, and removal of any mentions of majority view. Gazifikator (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, do you have a source about what's majority and minority view in this issue? If not, then there's no point in claiming that a certain view is majority. I have a source on majority. Britannica:

His claims to have been the disciple of Isaac the Great (Sahak) and Mesrop Mashtots, to have studied in Edessa and Alexandria after the Council of Edessa (431), and to have been commissioned to write his History by the governor Sahak Bagratuni, have been rejected by most serious scholars, in large part because of anachronisms in his text. [7]

Most serious scholars reject the claims that he lived in the fifth century. Grandmaster 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But leaving that aside, the reason why I enquire is that Thomson writes:

The only possible reference to Moses Khorenats'i in the early literature is in a letter attributed to Lazar P'arpets'i, writing about 500 A.D. He mentions a "philosopher" Moses, dead by then, whose words "dispelled ignorance." This Moses had incurred the enmity of the monks and had suffered expulsion like Lazar himself. But there is no suggestion in Lazar that this Moses had composed any historical works.

Isn't this the same letter, as the one in the Book of letters? Grandmaster 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't: Mahé mentions three early doubtfull references : Parpetsi, the Book of Letters (more particularly a treatise of that "book") and Athanasius' list. Sardur (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine, let's include this into the article until we have more info on this matter. Grandmaster 11:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I just changed VIth to sixth (and the same for other centuries). Sardur (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Grandmaster 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)