Talk:Church of Kish/Archive 1

message: Problems with sources.
Orthodox in Azerbaijan – This is not a center of udi culture. You lie and falsely misinterpret facts. Sentence says – restoration of church possible after registration of udi community. Whats this mean? It is a center of udi culture? Are there udis here? The Azerbaijan magazine says it will be a museum. 
Baku Branch is also not free to speak because of religious danger and thread to them. Also, recent expansion of diocese might make it conflicting interest to call a place Armenian. Also, are they experts on architecture and history of the region? They sure as hell do not cite sources. Are they monks or reasearchers on the topic?
Also, no sources for dating of church in Norwegian article. They tested stuff buried in the church yard from 4500 years!!! All below church, no definite conclusion on date!!!! Also how can church from 13th century be Caucasian Albanian when they had disappeared from face of history by then.
Also, Norwegians not impartial, even they say themselves. This article cites info accurately, and takes care of Albanian construction fairy tales. Enjoy  
Hetoum I 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no reliable source to support the claim that church was Armenian. Stop inserting unreliable info. Grandmaster 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Check the rules again and use third party sources that have no conflict of interest in this issue. Grandmaster 10:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote - heavily sourced 

message: This is from Moses of Kalankatuyk:
Греческие полководцы подстрекали его [Кюриона] потребовать верховенства над Алуанком, с чем алуанцы не согласились, выдвинув одного из учеников Господа по имени Елиша, рукоположенного святым Иаковом, братом Господним, прибывшего в Алуанк, проповедовавшего и построившего там церковь раньше, чем в Армении, первую церковь, мать церквей Восточного края, а именно – церковь в Гисе, основанную им, которой и посвятили себя [алуанцы]. 
Grandmaster 10:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you keep citing this section from Movses K. - but the name of the location is not the same. The title of the article is Kish, and the location of Movses' discussion is Gis.
I do not understand how Gis=Kish. This does not make sense, and is wrong in light of Ulubabian's evidence.
Also, I do not understand how you are interpreting this to be Albanian while pleading the 5th (verifiability). The page states:
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
Hence the burden is on you. My sources are non-governmental and do not operate in Azerbaijan. The sources you cite operate or bear strong connection to Azerbaijan's government. The websites you refer to challenge commonly held view of this location's Armenian identity with questionable academic credibility and lack of citation of sources on the topic. So it is up to you to bring credible, neutral and reliable sources to disprove the Armenian identity of the location- hence the exceptional claim and a requirement of exceptional sources on your part.Hetoum I 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We have no sources that support your idea about "Armenian identity" of this church. Ulubabian, etc do not count, they are not third party. As for Gis/Kish, this info is verifiable from Russian orthodox church website. Grandmaster 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not following you. I did cite several sources reflecting Armenian identity of the church. A report of a Georgian priest from 1310 A.D. published in scholarly treatise from the 1970's. I also cited periodicals from 19th century and so forth. I am not sure what you mean by "Ulubabian, etc do not count," - he is a credible scholar on the topic from the Soviet Union. He has no connection to Azerbaijani government, and his work is peer reviewed and verifiable. Meanwhile, the source you suggest of the Russian church is a diocese of the Russian church in Azerbaijan. It bears strong relations to the government of Azerbaijan. It is not clear to me how the Russian Orthodox church has expertise on topography of Albania. It is neither a credible source on the topic, nor is it's content verifiable. It is material written on a church website without an author, without verifiable citation or explanation, while Ulubabian is. Since Ulubabian's writing is generally accepted and verifiable, preceding this anonymous website writing, it is up to you to bring an exceptional source to prove Gis=Kish.Hetoum I 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ulubabian promotes certain ethnic POV, as is evident from his works. He is not peer reviewed or anything. And I did not see you citing any source other than that Armenian website. Whatever is published there cannot be taken any seriously. You have not read Ulubabian either, you just took it from that website. So just forget about that website and find some reliable third party source. And Russian Orthodox church has no connections with Azerbaijani government whatsoever. It is a diocene of the Russian church and is subordinated to Moscow only. The articles on their websites are quite scholarly, they cite their sources, and the name of the author is also known. Grandmaster 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How so? I don't see a single reason for your revert. VartanM 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, Hetoum and Vartan, stop POV editing. You cited no sources other than that Armenian website, which is not reliable. The Georgian priest is taken from the same source, if you really think such a source actually exists quote the original. Nothing published on that website can be taken any seriously. Grandmaster 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hetoum I, you should find reliable third party sources instead of Armenian websites. Zondi 05:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm refering you to the rules, that is not turning wikipedia in a battleground based on ethnic lines. The rules require that we use reliable third party sources. If the church was indeed Armenian, that should be mentioned somewhere other than that Armenian website you push so hard. Grandmaster 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You adding three Armenian users to an Arbcom case that has nothing to do with Armenians is turning wikipedia into a battleground. You still haven't proved that Kish=Gis. Regards. VartanM 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We cannot use an Armenian website entitled "Research on Armenian Architecture" as a source for the history of this church, it's just not logical. If we were to use Azerbaijani sources on Armenia-related articles, they would look a lot different. Parishan 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because there are no reliable sources to support the claim that the church is Armenian, simple as that. The Armenian website that you are using is not a third party reliable source. And Parishan is right, you would not be happy if I edited the article about Yerevan using Azerbaijani websites as my only source. Sources should have no conflict of interest. Grandmaster 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  
[p]Look. It is simple, I waited for a response for 2 days and got none, so I changed article to my version. I did this. So, before you try to revert anything please finish discussion here.
If Azerbaijani editors will persist on finding 3rd party sources every time they see something they do not like they will get nowhere. See Polish-Soviet war article and millions of others. (Literally!) And if you follow your twisted interpretation of this wiki policy why are you using Azerbaijani sources for Azerbaijani articles. Hypocrites! 
What is meant on Azeri sources on Yerevan article? Is it a threat? If you want to use reliable and credible Azerbaijani sources on articles as Yerevan you are more than welcome, no one is stopping you! 
RAA is a NON-Governmental organization, located outside of Azerbaijan, with no connections to Azerbaijani or any other, including Armenian government connection. They have nothing to gain or lose from any government - no money, no publishing rights, NOTHING. 
This organization has published numerous works on Armenian architecture. This organization's participants are foremost experts in the field of Armenian architecture. This includes author of this article, Karapetion. See interview of him here.
All the sources you have provided are either connected to the government of Azerbaijan very strongly or are not credible or verifiable on their content. The Azerbaijani goverment is of course known for its vandalism and destruction of Armenian sites, including removing of Armenian inscriptions of various places(including this one!), demolishing them, and/or calling them Albanian. Such actions have been supported or ignored by both Russian church and Norwegians 
These are more than allegations and are evidence backed by photographic evidence.
So to prove your exceptional allegations, bring in exceptional sources.
[/p]
Hetoum I 11:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Church of Kish is a monument of Albanian architecture located on Azerbaijani territory. Movses of Kalankatuyk is Albanian author for a simple reason, he is from Kalankatuyk which was in Caucasian Albania. So I don't see a basis here for POV pushing using .am extension websites to establish a basis for non-existing Armenian links. Atabek 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am simply going to ignore disruptive comment by Atabek as he repeats what was already stated 1 week ago and answered. I wish Azeri editors would give same courtesy and try to work resolution as Armenians are. Unfortunately ... Hetoum I 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see either you or Vartan working toward the resolution. All you do is edit war to have the article your way. That's not acceptable. Grandmaster 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses of Kalankatuyk 

message: Hi, I see that this article has become an object of edit warring, so it seems that here are also some socks. i filled a case for checkuser, I hope that after some socks being discovered, it will take some toll from you.Ateshi-Baghavan 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I want to tell you that i am not Aslanturk, but User:Elsanaturk, and it comes from Sanatruk(it links to another page) of Caucasian Albania, so do not make any hypothetical statements about my username. And secondly, I have not used my revert parole yet on that page, so i needn't make sock accounts to make reverts or edits. thirdly, what you call vandalism, is simply neutral version, and everything started from some editors to insert armenian sources to that article, and then another editors reverted them, and when limits of first some users ran out, there appeared some new account and Ip which resemble to socks, and also appeared some other accounts that resemble to socks from opposite direction, so if you want you can file another chekuser. BTW, i can't see any Qarapapaq there, and Aramgutan appeared after I filed case. Dr Alban and Zhirtibay I do not believe are either you or VartanM, so that is why I filed only those above. Hope, this clears all. Ateshi-Baghavan 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi to all 

message: To briefly answer what Francis said. I am currently busy and will add in more detail to talk tommorow.
Re:There is none. We can not dismiss sources only on ethnic ground, which in this page Atabek, Dacy69 and Grandmaster have done. It borders racism. We do not have much if any other contemporary scholars saying anything about the Church of Kish and as long as we cite the sources there should be no problem. Moeow did just that. And I don't think you nor anyone should support Grandmaster blatant dismissal of sources by hammering us authors ethnicity. It is unacceptable.
Grandmaster is just reverting and wonders what is Heyerdahl theory doing here. The number of persons who have written about it are in the few, so insignificant positions on something with insignificant coverage does not become as insignificant anymore, as from the same token we should request the articles deletion. Heyerdahl theories about the church those for become relevant. Also given that Heyerdahl was from Grandmasters standard the closest he could come up with a third source.
Just a reminder, that most of what has been said about the church were fabrication along the ethnic line recycled by Grandmaster. Claims such as it being the oldest church in the Caucasus, build first in the 70s. It would have made of it the oldest church on Earth, since older of two centuries from the Church of Megiddo in the middle east http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3164437,00.html which of course is ridiculous.
Hetoum I 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, just a quick point, "it borders on racism", then they are racist towards themselves? They don't want to only exclude Armenian sources, but all sources of Azerbaijanis and Armenians. A sensible proposal in my opinion. We've done it on other pages and get good results. - Francis Tyers · 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Kalankatuatsi says that church in Gis was the first church in the Caucasus, built by St. Eliseus. You can agree or disagree with the fact, but this is what he says. We are only messengers here. Grandmaster 07:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Armenian scholars have reputation for bias and nationalism. I can quote plenty of sources with regard to that. In fact, I did it on other pages. I can even quote famous Russian academician Piotrovsky, the director of Hermitage, who was enraged by one Armenian scholar, who tried to read Arabic inscriptions in Urartian language to claim that Armenian people always lived in a certain area. But all that is irrelevant. There's a conflict that involves two sides, and both sides are involved in a propaganda war. Armenian authors like Ulubabian and Karapetian go as far as denying the mere fact of existence of Caucasian Albanians. It is very unscholarly and contradicts what real authorities on the subject say. That’s why I proposed to refrain from using sources that have a conflict of interest on this issue. It applies to both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources. If you noticed, so far I refrained from using any Azerbaijani source, but if Armenian sources are to be used, so are Azerbaijani ones. They have equal value. As for the Russian church, there’s a reason why it makes its own researches on the history of Caucasian Albania. Udi people, ho are the only direct descendants of Albanians, are orthodox, and they are parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church. And they are interested in the history of Christianity in Azerbaijan. I don’t see why it cannot be considered a reliable source. Grandmaster 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You provided no peer reviewed Armenian scholar with regard to Kish either. Karapetian is not a scholar. I don’t mind using Suny and Bournatian, with certain caution, of course. As for Piotrovski, he was a scholar with the world fame, and he was qualified enough to know the difference between the writings in Arabic and other scripts, unlike some Armenian scholars. And Russian church was discussed many times, it is a neutral and independent source. Grandmaster 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, you do admit that neither Russian church website material is peer reviewed or verifiable with citation of where they get their information. So, no proof of Gis=Kish.
Next, as a matter of fact, Karapetian is an expert, surveying Armenian churches for 25 years, since soviet times. His works are reviewed by other members of RAA (as Dr. Haghnazarian) and published by them. He is a historian and recognized as a foremost expert on Armenian architecture. If you do not like what he writes it simply too bad, because wikipedia rules are not calibrated by the Grandmaster standart.
Further, as I cited Ulubabian is a peer reviewed soviet scholar who disproved Gis=Kish. his work is published in Works of the Yerevan university, with clear explanation and proof of information.Hetoum I 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ulubabian disproved nothing, it is his personal opinion, which cannot be taken over the opinions of others, especially considering strong bias of this person. As I said before, cite third party sources, that have no interest in this issue. I'm going to include the opinions of Azerbaijani scholars as well. As for Karapetian, he is not a historian. Enough said. Grandmaster 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess, I don't really understand how the article full of Armenian resources (including Karapetian who is not a historian) makes it fully acceptable against neutral ones. Hence, the revert. Seriously gentlemen... One more thing, Hetoum I, about your comment in your edit summary: I don't know and don't want to know who Adil is and/or is not. I don't know what makes you sure I am Adil, AdilBagirov, Adil's sock, or whatever related to Adil, and I don't really want to know. I am rather new to Wikipedia and here to help bring neutrality. You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. You may just keep reasserting yourself with that idea, but that won't make me another person. If admins could pay closer attention to these allegations from Hetoum and/or others I would really appreciate it. I also propose to lock the article for editing (with neutral sources cited only) until the issues are resolved. Ehud 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, seriously Hetoum I. You really need to make up your mind now and decide whether you think I am "Adil" or as you put it, "a puppet for one of the "opposing" editors". You're doing nothing but embarass yourself. Instead of concentrating on the article and coming to a neutral resolution so that both sides agree, you're obsessed with finding out whether a particular user is AdilBagirov/any other "opposing" user or not. Well sit tight and keep watching me then. For all I care, I am who I am and I do what I do, regardless what Armenian or Azerbaijani users think of me. However, you do need to keep the following in mind:
* I do not and never did harass any users on Wikipedia, let alone Armenian ones. What I edit and/or create is simply based on common sense;
* Despite your loud words like "Vandalism", there is none on my part. All my reverts were due to POV's based on Armenian sources;
* I do not have any kind of "fake" identity. I am a Jew and am proud of it. Whatever I contribute to Jewish WikiProject or Azeri WikiProject or any other WikiProject is completely none of your business. 
Ehud 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again we see that racist attitudes are the norm when it comes to controversial Wikipedia articles. Ehud and Grandmaster seek to dismiss every Armenian source for no other reason than it is Armenian. Meowy 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you noted, we treat Armenian and Azerbaijani sources equal. Both are not acceptable because of the conflict of interest. How's that racist? Francis also said that third party sources are preferable. You base your claims on one extremely racist author, whose objectivity is highly questionable. Find a third party source. Grandmaster 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis Answer 

message: The article also says the church is considered to be one of the centres of Albanian-Udi Christian. This is rather untrue, as the source it cited said(according to Dacy if I am not wrong) In 2003, the Albanian-Udi Christian community, led by Robert Mobili was registered by the state. It became possible after the restoration of church at Kish. However, this does not call it a center of Udi culture. The reference is rather vague and unclear - no sense to me. How is it a center of their culture? It is not an active church and is currently used as a secular museum according to the Human enterprise site. This reference should be removed as it is untrue.Hetoum I 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of Udi Culture? 

message: The Voslit link is not valid, and should be removed with it's content unless you can get another source for replacement. Hetoum I 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is temporary. It will be back online soon. They probably forgot to pay for their domain or something. But Kalankatuatsi is available at vehi.net as well. If vostlit does not work in near future, I will replace it with vehi. --Grandmaster 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can requote the stuff, then please do. I looked at the book on the vehi site, and I am having trouble matching quotes - I am not sure, some quotes by book and chapter and conctent may be dubious. Anyhow, I am removing bad link/quotes from them.Hetoum I 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, leave it there. The site will be back online in a couple of days. Grandmaster 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Parishan fixed it.Hetoum I 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voslit link not Valid