Talk:Ghazanchetsots Cathedral

message: The designers of the coat of arms named it the "coat of arms of Shushi", NOT the "coat of arms of Shusha". Its designers can call it by whatever name they want, and that name is the name that should be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors cannot just rename the artistic/creative works of others to suit their personal politics. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I'm sure it should be easy to get an authorative decision on this. There might well even be a pre-existing policy, depends on how common on Wikipedia attempts to rename the artistic works of others  has been.  93.97.143.19 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I changed the name to the correct one -  Shusha, only where it refers to the city, not the names of the churches or pieces of art. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that difficult for you to understand? We are talking here about the name of an object. The angels on this building are used as images in a graphical work titled the "coat of arms of Shusha". It is not the coat of arms of Shusha! Following your reasoning, I suppose if some Armenian artist painted a painting about his opinion of the post-WW1 events at Shusha and titled it "Genocide in Shushi", you would want the title of that painting to appear on Wikipedia as "Armenian allegations of a so-called genocide in Shusha"? 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This situation seems to me to be similar to the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, but one in which those most fanatically opposed to seeing the word "Londonderry" anywhere would even seek to rename the Marquess of Londonderry the "Marquess of Derry". Hewever, and regardless of any arguments for or against the use of either "Derry" or "Londonderry", there is no such thing as the "Marquess of Derry" and so an attempt to rename Wikipedia's Marquess of Londonderry article to "Marquess of Derry" would be met with both opposition and ridicule. Similarly invalid would be an attempt to rename the "Londonderry Air" article to "Derry Air". The situation here is exactly the same. Regardless of any arguments for or against the use of "Shusha" or "Shushi" for the name of the Wikipedia article about the town, the image of the town's symbol is called the "Coat of Arms of Shushi" - it is not called the "Coat of Arms of Shusha". Actually, the situation here is even more clear cut. "Londonderry Air" got its title by chance, the composition is traditional, and outwith any copyright. The Coat of arms of Shushi is a modern creation, has been given a name by its creators and by the de-facto civic authority of Shusha/Shushi , and both the image and its title is covered by copyright laws. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast. The line Replica angel statues were made to replace the destroyed originals; an image of one forms part of the coat-of-arms of Shusha implies the coat of arms of the city, i.e. Shusha. It is not referring to the graphical work titled the "coat of arms of Shusha" per se. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is referring to the graphical work titled the "coat of arms of Shushi". What else do you think it could be referring to? What source have you that states that that particular graphical work is being used as the "coat of arms of Shusha"? Every source I've seen describes it as "Coat of arms of Shoushi". 93.97.143.19 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my statement above again. Where do you see me saying the graphical work is being named otherwise. The sentence I mentioned above clearly implies to the name of the city, not the name of the graphical work. I think you speak perfect English to see what it implies or doesn't. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the work into which an image of the angel on the belltower has been placed is called the "coat of arms of Shushi" - it is not called the "coat of arms of Shusha". There is no "coat of arms of shusha" that contains the angel image. The coat of arms used by the city is called the "coat of arms of Shushi" (quote from the source I linked to earlier: "The guardian angel will be impressed on the coat of arms of Shoushi".) 93.97.143.19 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ, are you even looking at what I write? The statement from the article implies the name of the city which is Shusha. As per your argument, the statement talks about the graphical work. So, if it implies a graphical work called coat of arms of Shoushi, the statement should reflect just that implying it's the graphical work it is referring to, not the city itself. So, please propose a rewording and we'll go from there. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the "Coat of Arms"

message: Beware of possible Trojan horses. There is no visible, intrinsic restriction in this category to Armenian churches in Azerbaijan, but as a matter of fact, it appears to be specifically created for such: the category only contains 3 items, two of them corresponding to this definition. I would claim that it is a stealthy attempt at POV pushing, which is a) non-scientific and b) forbidden on Wiki.
What stands behind it: read it in the Asia Times, it puts it across better than I can (Simon Maghakyan, Cultural erasure may spark next Nagorno-Karabakh war: If Azerbaijan truly wants peace in Artsakh it should allow Armenians to keep five sacred Christian monuments, Asia Times, 16 Nov. 2020):
Since the 1950s, in order to challenge Armenian antiquity and to create a myth of indigenousness, Azerbaijan has "Albanized" medieval Armenian Christianity by proclaiming it the stolen heritage of "Caucasian Albania," a kingdom.....that existed until the 7th century.
The modus operandi of Azerbaijan in its territories with an Armenian historical background:
[1] First, it will destroy the numerous medieval statuesque khachkars that are nearly impossible to "Albanize" given their rich Armenian inscriptions.
[2] Second, Azerbaijan is likely to swiftly destroy all lesser-known medieval Armenian churches, as well as medieval inscriptions on secular structures..... In fact, video evidence suggests that Azerbaijani soldiers are already desecrating sacred sites. 
[3] Third, the best-known Cathedrals will likely be "Albanized" and preserved in the short-term....
[4] Again, in light of what happened in Nakhichevan, Albanization of major sites is an unlikely hope for long-term preservation. [i.e.: later destruction, as in the case of the "Azerbaijani military's destruction of the medieval Djulfa cemetery in December 2005", well over a decade after Azerbaijan taking legal control over the area.]
[5] Finally, for public relations and to underscore the myth that Armenians are not the indigenous peoples of Artsakh, Azerbaijan will likely restore the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral of Shushi it air bombed twice on October 8. ..... [T]he 19th century structure's age fits Azerbaijan's anti-Armenian historical narrative perfectly; a church of similar age has been similarly preserved in Azerbaijan's capital of Baku for that very purpose.
Unless there's a good encyclopedic reason for keeping the category, I strongly suggest it to be removed, or at least calling a spade a spade and renaming it "Armenian congregations established in 19th century Azerbaijan" or alike. We have no other category of "Oriental Orthodox congregations established in the Xth century", with X being the 18th, 17th, 16th etc. It's a VERY transparent POV-driven move and should be dealt with. The context can be seen in the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article, which quotes Azerbaijan's (very democratically elected) President, Ilham Aliyev, who's taken over from his father, the (very democratically elected) Comrade President Heydar Aliyev, both coming straight from the benches of various (very democratically elected) Supreme Soviets. Together they've ruled Azerbaijan uninterruptedly since 1993; 27 years of keeping business within the family (this was for context):
:President Ilham Aliyev:
:The capital of Armenia Yerevan "was a gift to the Armenians in 1918. This was a great mistake. The Iravan khanate was Azerbaijani land, the Armenians were guests here."
:"Armenia as a country is of no value. It is actually a colony, an outpost run from abroad, a territory artificially created on ancient Azerbaijani lands."
I find it very relevant to see the pictures of two Azerbaijani-restored churches, the ancient Church of Kish (built by Georgians, later used by Armenians or Albanians) and the 18th-century Armenian Church, Baku: the masonry and roof shingles are like new, but there's no cross on the churches. This is old Soviet and Eastern European practice, of allowing churches as "historical and cultural monuments" underpinning nationalist agendas, but denying their religious character (!), ridiculous as that might sound. In pre-1990 times existing crossed were "cropped out" by photographers and TV camera operators; in Azerbaijan they're being physically removed.
 I wish to call on a couple of experienced editors I know as arbiters on Wiki contentious topics. There are some Wiki lingo terms for such colleagues with special prerogatives, but I don't remember them. Please do add those you know. The more, the better. Arminden (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Oriental Orthodox congregations established in the 19th century" - agenda? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ghazanchetsots Cathedral.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: During Armenian control, Armenian names were added to Azerbaijani mosques. For example Yukhari Govhar Aga mosque. Ghazanchetsots is located in Shusha, Azerbaijan. I respect churches which are located in Karabakh. This church is located in Azerbaijan so there have to be Azerbaijani name in this page. Sincerely (If I have mistakes sorry. I try to improve my english xD) IskandarRoCkEt [MESSAGE] 18:10, 5 April 2021
:, first of all Wikipedia has rules about these naming issues, and there is also the need of reaching consensus, it's not "Armenians did that, so we do this" or any kind of tit-for-tat revenges. Per policy the article should stay as it is until consensus is reached that the Azerbaijani name is relevant and should be included in the article, the burden of proving this falls on you. Please refrain from blindly and repeatedly reverting as it is considered edit warring. (We all make mistakes don't worry about them) - Kevo327 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani name 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral#/media/File:Choucha._L'Eglise_Armenienne.jpg
- this is not a photography of cathedral, so it should be stated explicitly that it is a drawing by unknown author and made on unknown date (I didn't find whom it belong, neither the date of drawing), taking into acount plenty of photos of cathedral dated by 19-th - beginning of 20-th centuries, it may be that this drawing is a product of imagination of its author, since cathedral neither has such flat roof, nor has some attached to the church building, which are shown on that drawing. Headgo (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image as I could find no evidence it was this church. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021 

message: There an undefined refname in the Renovation under Azerbaijani control section of the article. It was removed in this edit but it was still in use elsewhere.
The following:

should be replaced with:
Azerbaijan begins controversial renovation of Armenian church
Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm entirely disinterested in this subject area, if there are issues with this source then replace it with  instead. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: --Ferien (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite error 

message: I've removed a link to the 2018 GA review, as it was breaking the page. Everything after the link was being included in the GA review table. Someone with a better understanding of tables then me might be able to fix it and add it back. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to 2018 GA review