Talk:Tao (historical region)

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Start‑class Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kober, Tao is the same as Tayk, no need for two separate articles, I suggest, that what is written here we remove to the page Tayk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aram-van (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I previously said, Tao and Tayk are not absolutely same. These two entities had their own borders, which fluctuated considerably. The Armenian and Georgian subdivision of Tayk and Tao, respectively, were different; they had different governments and dynasties. So having the two articles separately illustrating the "Armenian" and "Georgian" periods of the regional history and their historical vision of that area is legitimate. This by no means implies that the Tayk entry should not mention the Georgian period/Tao (you version of the article, rather unsurprisingly, ignores that) and the Tao article should omit the Armenian era/Tayk. Furthermore this prevents an easily predictable futile and divisive naming debate. Should your proposed unified article be named after a Georgian or an Armenian name? (I do hope this is not you've being fighting for these days). Both entries are expandable with reliable sources in a NPOV fashion. That's why I think the two articles should be kept, with extensive references to each other. They should describe the two - "Armenian" and "Georgian" - periods of the region, explain the differences in historical geography, but must not be POV forks.--Kober^Talk 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aram-Van, what you are doing now amounts to vandalism. In spite of your seemingly gallant invitation to discuss the issue and the ongoing discussion on the talk page (which you have ignored), you request a speedy deletion and after its failure keep redirecting the article. This means that you have nothing to say about the subject. You just keep following your WP:IDONTLIKE principle. Kober^Talk 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]