Talk:Gandzasar monastery

message: I am fairly certain the Archbishop resides in Shushi.  I would feel more comfortable with the statement to the contrary being removed unless it is referenced.  --RaffiKojian 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archbishop 

message: Tagging Islamic symbols on Christian churches is insulting to Christian religion. I would welcome the Azeri-stub if the image changes. Note that I'm leaving the wp:AZ tag in the talkpage as it is not highly visible. VartanM (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Built by an Armenian prince of Artsakh, Jalal I, and covered with ca. 200 Old-Armenian inscriptions. No need to remove that it was and is an Armenian monastery. --Vacio (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crescent and star

message: "Eight years after the beginning of Armenian migration, in 1836, the czarist government dissolved the Albanian Church district and brought it under the complete control of the Armenian national church." ref here --144.122.135.88 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, stop misinterpreting. Sardur (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, see the references here Kardashians (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian Monastery 

message: According to NPOV we should write both names and both states that pretend to possess the territory where the object is located. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Azerbaijani spelling clearly does not belong here (both for Dadivank and Gandzasar). The issue here is not a matter of presenting a neutral point of view. According to Wiki's rules, the foreign spelling must have some relevance to the article in question. This was a Christian Armenian monastery built by Armenians during a time when no Azerbaijani nationality existed. Just because it is in a land which as you believe temporarily is de jure part of Azerbaijan does not mean we add Azerbaijani to it as well. Thus, there is no meaning in adding this script. Also, remembering the fact that Azerbaijani historians have and continue to distort and erase the history of Armenian churches in not only Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, it seems dangerous to include the Azerbaijani spelling, causing readers to be mislead or to inadvertently misinterpret the facts. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered here.--Quantum666 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've protected the article. Please discuss on the talk page in good faith. I have no clue which version is correct and will revert to a different version after a few days if the side that currently has its version up does not make a good faith attempt to resolve this. --rgpk (comment) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you didn't pay attention, but I clearly put all references and neutral sources in tlak page prior to my edits in the page. The discussion was going on about these facts that I posted in above. I am afraid that deleting all these content from article will make the discussion pointless, as we can not see even a bit compromise from opposite side (you can clearly see from discussion that they have no will no reach consensus). They were just reverting pages contnuously, without bringing any single counter-argument. --Verman1 (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You began to edit on Armenia related articles, you did not use the talk page, and you reverted the valid edits of others. How can you claim that it is the other side which does not want to discuss and reach consensus when you have shown no disposition do truly discuss yourself?--Moosh88 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Armenia-related article, the temple is Caucasian Albanian Monastery (see above), and it is situated in Azerbaijan (not in another country as written on the article) --Verman1 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most of the maps provided by Dighapet, Thomas De Waal just further confirms the opposite. Could you please read the sources before backing up your arguments with them (especially when Vidovler had provided you with that opportunity with reference to the De Waal's book on Google Books)? -- Ashot  (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Says who (especially about occupying Azerbaijan in the medieval times:))? And if Thomas De Waal confirms nothing, why wouldn't you tell that to Verman1, so that he does not refer to De Waal while pushing his own point of view? -- Ashot  (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok, then read carefully what Thomas Dewaal writes on p. 154. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: So does Thomas Dewaal himself tell that that the Church is Caucasian Albanian? -- Ashot  (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Good of you, so hopefully neither you nor Verman1 will refer to Dewaal while pursuing the disputed article changes any more. And if you ever find any reliable source supporting your Albanian-Church-related-point-of-view, you are welcome to discuss it here. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is becoming a worthless discussion, reading that page, we can see that he ridicule Mamedova claiming that she is taking the politicians role rather than the historians. Vidovler (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this has really grown into worthless and time-consuming discussion. Hopefully it is over. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Neftchi, the reason I undid your latest additions to this article is because they do not correspond at all to the more specialist literature on Armenia, Artsakh, and Caucasian Albania. Ronald Grigor Suny, it should be remembered, is not a specialist of this region nor even of Armenia. His area of expertise is the Soviet Union, modern Europe, and modern Georgia (just have a glance at his works, which have nothing to do with the ancient or medieval period). Much of the conclusions he reached in Looking toward Ararat are based on a quick, and somewhat simplified, treatment of Caucasian Albania. He does not seem to understand that Caucasian Albania by the time of the tenth century was nothing but a geographical designation and that the princes who built Gandzasar considered themselves as nothing but Armenians, a fact that has been pointed out by historians like Robert Hewsen.
You are trying to establish a fringe opinion that is at odds with those of other scholars, and it does not matter if the material is "sourced" if the sources are not the state of the art in academic literature. Furthermore, your use of the book Heritage of Armenian Literature does not support the contention that Gandzasar was a "historically Caucasian Albanian" and appears to be a misreading of their own text. 
You have already been exporting these misconstrued views to other Karabakh-related articles, and after a quick glance I regret to say that the same problems that are found with your edits are encountered in those articles, namely tendentious interpretation and forced attempts to insert fringe opinions. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot dismiss a source based on your personal interpretation that the author is not a specialist. Do you have sources to proof anything you say? Marshal, you're not a specialist! Ronald Grigor Suny's source goes above your personal interpretation which is based on original research. Your continues cherry-picking of sources is against Wikipedia regulations. You cannot dismiss one source and approve another, only because it doesnt suit your personal view. So bring forth sources. And your accusations that I try "insert fringe opinions" is ungrounded. Do you have any evidence of this accusation? So I suggest you stop your baseless accusations or I will report your disruptive behavoir to the admins. Mursel (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As editors, it is within our competence to study and judge sources on their reliability and competence to comment on certain areas. As such, Ronald Suny is not a specialist in the medieval period and the best way I can "prove" this is to direct you simply to his biography on the University of Chicago page and to his article here on Wikipedia. It's amusing that you accuse me of cherry-picking when you yourself have tried to shoehorn a single source written by a historian whose area of expertise is the Soviet Union, and not even the medieval Caucasus. I don't have to toss myself across mountains and valleys to prove to you things that are already well-known. Please do not make threats on empty grounds and understand that your failure to adhere to AGF, attempts to insert POV statements, propensity to edit war, willfully distort and misinterpret sources are probably of greater concern for the editing community on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of cherry picking of sources is ungrounded and it seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is your evaluation of sources is not based on the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You have no argument to remove Suny as a source from this article. Mursel (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to repeat myself, but, again, we can evaluate sources and judge which ones to include and which to exclude if there are serious misgivings about their competence to comment on certain issues. Suny's brief treatment of the last two thousand years of Karabakh history in a single paragraph (with no footnotes of any kind) means that we should be seeking out more specialist literature. Again, the cherry-picking is not originating from me; if you'll notice, this article cites several authors who are more qualified to comment on the history of a medieval monument than a historian of Soviet studies. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your being unreasonable and unwilling to provide sources backing your allegations. Ttherefore Im going to ask 3rd party opinion because your cherry picking on sources and its a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mursel (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

text: It should be discussed further, this article is clearly one-sided. Also, local language should be added to the naming. Some users persistently want to remove local language from the article. --Verman1 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

text: non-Armenian name of Gandzasar and Tzitzernavank does not exist. Unless you cite NEUTRAL ACADEMIC SOURCES, this is edit BATTLE. You are over your head on what you do with adding fictitious non-Armenian names for these places. Are you going to add Azerbaijani "names" for Egyptian Pyramids and Eiffel Tower? Zimmarod (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that no one can add Azerbaijani spelling to the Ganja, just because there is no neutral source confirming this? And, by the way, do you have any source that non-Armenian names for the monasteries don't exist? --Verman1 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gandzasar is not an urban center like Ganja but a major Christian shrine built and maintained by Armenians in the last 800 years. Its purported Muslim name is way too controversial an allegation to take at face value. Hence the request to include a neutral source. Am I right User:Zimmarod? Winterbliss (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that it would be very, very useful in these circumstances if an independent third-party source would be produced to verify the alleged Muslim name. WP:V and WP:NPOV are, of course, some of our key policies. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: John Carter, as far as I know, according to WP:NPOV local name (not specifically Muslim name) spelling should be demonstrated in articles. --Verman1 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe/non-specialist opinions 

message: "Should this article mention in the lead that this monastry was historcialy  Caucasian Albanian?". Mursel (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be discussed further, this article is clearly one-sided. Also, local language should be added to the naming. Some users persistently want to remove local language from the article. --Verman1 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

text: non-Armenian name of Gandzasar and Tzitzernavank does not exist. Unless you cite NEUTRAL ACADEMIC SOURCES, this is edit BATTLE. You are over your head on what you do with adding fictitious non-Armenian names for these places. Are you going to add Azerbaijani "names" for Egyptian Pyramids and Eiffel Tower? Zimmarod (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that no one can add Azerbaijani spelling to the Ganja, just because there is no neutral source confirming this? And, by the way, do you have any source that non-Armenian names for the monasteries don't exist? --Verman1 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gandzasar is not an urban center like Ganja but a major Christian shrine built and maintained by Armenians in the last 800 years. Its purported Muslim name is way too controversial an allegation to take at face value. Hence the request to include a neutral source. Am I right User:Zimmarod? Winterbliss (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that it would be very, very useful in these circumstances if an independent third-party source would be produced to verify the alleged Muslim name. WP:V and WP:NPOV are, of course, some of our key policies. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: John Carter, as far as I know, according to WP:NPOV local name (not specifically Muslim name) spelling should be demonstrated in articles. --Verman1 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd party opinions

message: Please check the "clarify" tags I have put in. But these are just small issues. There is no proper description, really. So much on politics & war that the church is almost left out.
Any monastery walls & annexes old enough as to merit mention?
Why is the narthex treated as a separate element?
There should be a description of
*The churchyard with at least the most important khachkars
*The narthex/gavit: where are the "two columns near the eastern wall that support the roof", inside? Freestanding? Anything to be said about the small cupola?
**Tombs: founder & others, inscriptions, reliefs.
*Main cupola: EXTERIOR and INTERIOR - sculpture, architecture. Seems to be the most fascinating part. Is there a giraffe up there, or a goat with an endless "neck" (column)? I see a bull among the EXTERIOR, not the INTERIOR decoration - clarify, then rectify if needed. If the "giraffe" is a weird sheep, then it's even more proof that what's described as INSIDE ("bull and sheep") is actually OUTSIDE and needs to be rectified.
*Nave, side aisles: nothing worth mentioning? Are there side aisles? Separated by columns? Any decoration (columns, capitals)?
*Foundation inscription: where is it? Narthex, nave, side aisles, sacristies?
*Sacristies
I'm not getting an image of the church yet from what we have. Of the Azeri fringe (as in: BS) theory, more than I wished to know :)  Arminden (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description is very poor 

message: I went ahead and linked to the Principality of Khachen, but is it correct? That article doesn't start as early as the 10th c. Also, there's no explanation of the name (a town? A ruler?), and WP only has a town by the name of Khacen much farther south, in Iran. Arminden (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khachen in the 10th century? 

message: This edit removed 3 §. The content was:
:Prior to 15th century, while  Armenian Catholicosate was still based in Cilicia, their wish was Gandzasar, planning to make it the seat for Armenian Catholicosate, but in 1441, they have finally settled in Etchmiadzin / Üç Müəzzin
:
:The statement by Grigor Tatevatsi portrays the ways Armenian Catholicosate tried to subordinate the Alvani Catholicosate 
:
:In 1476, Sultan Yaqub Agh-Qoyunlu  clearly states that he gives the ruling of  Catholicosate of Alvan to Ter-Shmavon, who was the descendant of Hassan Jalal, the prince of Alvan. "In the rule of Yaqoub Bek in the Catholicosate of Shmavon I, 935 of Armenian Calender.."
How bad are the referenced sources? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit: Reliable sources? 

message: Hi! 
I suggest, since Gandzasar is common heritage and since both Azeris & Armenians consider it dear to their history and identity, we should make two separate sections one for Armenian version another for Azerbaijani. 
I have tried to to add some relavent information regarding the monastery, with out adding much, just to see that pointlessly it was being taken down with no particular reason. 
Lets have separate sections starting from the History part, where i hope we can respect mutual interests without taking down any information of the other  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran Shah (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No because of WP:DUE. You can't write a section based on primary and unreliable sources, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Take your revisionist edits out of this article. If you continue to edit-war and reinstate it, you'll be reported. The WP:ONUS is in you to reach a consensus in the first place, but not with such sources, it can't happen per policies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani Version vs Armenian Version