Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery

message: Someone, apparently by accident, created an article called Tsitsernavank. So we can probably move the content from this article to that one and simply make this page a redirect.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Acoording to the map created by United Nations, Nagorno Karabakh region is a part of Azerbaijan. Please, stop unhealthy nationalism and letting misinformation! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious: could you just tell me how to access the site once you're in Azerbaijan? Sardur (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an occupied region by Armenian and Russian troops. --Quzeyli 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the word "inhabited" (on their ancestral homeland). Serouj (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: When will Azeris accept that the homeland of the Caucasian Albanians (their CHRISTIAN ancestors) was EAST of the Kura river?  That is to say, it was NOT the mountainous region of Armenia!?! Open a historical atlas for crying out loud! Serouj (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Please, check references.--144.122.135.88 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No link with the monastery. The article should represent the current knowledge and the current situation, and give the most useful informations. It should not be transformed into an irredentist article; do I have to remind you that your "Lachin Rayon" only exists on paper? Sardur (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: They are about monasteries. Keep your point to the NKR article and stop your disruptive behaviour. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I proved and edited just formal location of monasteries, not historical and architectural info of these monasteries. Stop separatist propaganda! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsitsernavank is not mentionned in any of your links. Sardur (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *They are about the location of monasteries which has been occupied. The monasteries are in the borders of Azerbaijan. --Hay-siken (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial Country 

message: I've moved this here from my talk page as it involved this process as a whole
Kurkri, could you please tell me what do you, as a neutral editor, think of these edits taking into consideration that they were made without prior discussion. -- Ashot  (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Khukri :) any edit maybe construed as WP:BOLD and is in fact one of the first steps in WP:BRD which is a good tool for unblocking a situation. Now nowhere in the talk page is there any form of consensus what so ever, and there hasn't been since I saved the article from deletion. Now to discuss the edit itself it was changing unsourced information from one set of information to another and is the crux of this geopolitical debate. As I alluded to in the message above this debate shouldn't be happening on an article about a monastery. The question I would ask in return was the information about Monastery being in NKR discussed and consensus achieved prior to be included, as this was the primary reason someone put it up for speedy deletion I believe. I would hope reading through the talk pages that you would agree this maybe wasn't the case. I appreciate you are not happy with the version that is there but as I said to Marshal, for a short amount of uncomfortable, we maybe able to put the article in a better position. Khukri 15:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that this church is "Caucasian Albanian" is based on absolutely no evidence, no reliable source other than a random Azeri hate-propaganda website. On the other hand, there are numerous reliable sources attesting to the Armenian origin of the building.  Indeed, Caucasian Albania has always been in the PLAINS of what is now Azerbaijan, and has had little to do with the mountainous region of Armenia where this church is situated. So until evidence from the OTHER side is shown, I see little reason why this article should maintain that this monastery is "Caucasian Albanian."  (We've got MORE than one university in the U.S. claiming that it is Armenian, and I'm not even talking about the Armenian universities in Armenia... And on the other side we've got an unofficial Azeri website written in Azeri...  At best, the article can mention that AZERI sources claim X and Y [that is, that the church is Caucasian Albanian, and that Armenian, American, and all other sources refute this]).  I have reverted to my previous version which is amply sourced.  Serouj (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit war is getting ridiculous.  Khukri, you, as an admin, should realize that the California State University Fresno website's page on Armenian architecture is a reliable source, and that an obscure website (Medenivvet.az which is not even online anymore) is not.  I don't understand your logic behind accepting Vermin's version of the article which REMOVES the above-noted reliable source. Dig deeper. It's not always that the other side has a valid argument.  Vermin has not provided even ONE reliable source, and the debate on the geography of Caucasian Albania and how it pertains to Tsitsernavank is ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Serouj (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the website that Vermin quotes is inaccessible: Medenivvet.az! Serouj (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Comment. As of now I believe that you, Khukri, are neutral, but I find it unacceptable that you hold the status quo on alterations of Verman (ones that at least were a misconduct in terms of not being preliminary discussed in the talkpage). -- Ashot  (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wrong Version

message: As we know through the historical accounts that the territory of Caucasian Albania was located to the North of Kura River, bordering the Armenian historical territories of Utik and Artsakh the map of Caucasian Albania. Tsitsernavank Monastery is located within the Armenian historical territory of Syunik (not to be confused with the current province of Syunik of RA) the map of Syunik and Artsakh.--Kevorkmail (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps that you have cited are made by Robert Hewsen, an american scholar with armenian origins. I don't think that this could be used as neutral source. Regards,--Verman1 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevorkmail has made the effort to provide sources for some of the questions I have asked above. Questioning the providence of the source by all means is acceptable, but one should normally do it with sources of similar calibre that is contrary to what has already been said, consider it a game of source Top Trumps. Cheers Khukri 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been asked on my talk page to give an opinion about the above comment by Verman1. It is not acceptable to criticise sources on the basis of the alleged (see WP:BLP!) ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. I am warning Verman1 that more comments in this vein may result in sanctions per WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement.  Sandstein  20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was my mistake from my side, as I am not fully familirized of all Wikipedia rules. Thank you for informing me. I would like to draw your attention to here, as I have been encountered with such claims before too. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Return back to the origins of the history, this is the map of Armenia (Major and Minor) in 387 AD according to Ashkharatsuyts composed by historian Anania Shirakatsi of the 7th century (during which Azerbaijan never existed). Here, we can clearly find that the state of the Aluans (Caucasian Albania with its capital Kapalak or Gabala) has a shared border with the Armenian Kingdom, separated by Kura river. Hope this can put an end to the discussion regarding the geographical territory of Caucasian Albania.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Map for year 387 AD, composed in 7th century? I see very big time interval between them. I suppose we cannot take it as reliable source. On the other hand, this church was built 5-6th centuries, not in 4th century. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Vermin, I have a simple question for you: what is your reliable source that posits that this monastery is Caucasian Albanian?  There's a California State University publication that establishes the Armenian origin of this church AND itself has a bibliography of over 15 sources. Do you have a more reliable source than a California university publication? Serouj (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry Vermin I think it's a false assumption to declare that a source that is created centuries after the event as unacceptable. Most historical analysis is carried out years, decades or centuries after the event. One only needs to look at Bede, Claudius, Plutarch, Aristotle and many many more to see historical works and treatises that are accepted as sources nowadays that were written hundreds of years after the events. One should examine the providence of the source itself, not using sweeping generalisations to rule them out. Khukri 07:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I kindly ask you to address me as Verman :) Talking about this issue, I see other side having no patience against territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Moreover, editors like Serouj posting more and more racist comments about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan-related sources that I am not going to show tolerance against. There are enough maps posted in here showing that during construction period of the temple this area belonged to Caucasian Albania. The fact about forceful annexation of Caucasian Albanian church is widely ignored in the discussion (unfortunately, this is very important point). One more important question for Serouj, who claims that all California State University publications are reliable sources. Then why we are ignoring internationally accepted political map of World countries, where Lachin is shown inside Azerbaijan? (not even inside disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region) I really appreciate Khukri's attempts to mediate, but I think some questions like territorial sovereignty of any country cannot be discussed here, as it will lead to political discussion (which will take us to question of protesting or supporting occupation policy of Armenia) --Verman1 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Seems like Mr. Verman does not recognize the importance of the historic accounts and manuscripts! For your information, "Ashkharatsuyts" is the oldest geographical book-manuscript shown in Matenadaran museum.--Kevorkmail (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The geographical location of Caucasian Albania

message: I think discussion over initial affiliation of this temple is over, as opposite side has no evidence to show against this above mentioned references. I am sure some users would want to add some POV and they are more than welcome to do that in discussion page. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not talk as an arbitrator as your version of this article is not supported with sources.--Kevorkmail (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Discussion 

message: I ask that all parties who have edited this recently to calm down, and to please avoid reverting edits more than twice per day. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid editing 

message: I've protected this article as well. Please confine your remarks to the talk page for the time being. BTW, I've never heard of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic but the New York Times tells me that this is genuine semi-independent disputed territory (see ). However this is just FYI and I hope you all can work it out. --rgpk (comment) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you could see from the article, this territory is separatist region and was occupied by armenian army. Putting armenian names in this article is totally unacceptable. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said it is unacceptable, please re-read what I wrote above. Khukri 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: What is unacceptable is when you systematically write the word Armenian without capitilizing the first letter, while you do it, for any other language and ethnic group. Vidovler (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too noticed that he did not capitalize 'Armenian'.  This is not the 1st time either.--Moosh88 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Nagorno-Karabakh is a real place near Armenia, and which may or may not have been part of Armenia, but no, we can't have edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Could anyone please explain why should Azerbaijani (thus de jure local) naming can not be demonstrated in the article? --Verman1 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because such name is your own or someone else's nationalist fantasy. That's why. It never existed in history. Winterbliss (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

text: How local name could become a "nationalist fantasy"? --Verman1 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "local name" requires some locals that actually use it! However, a "fake nationalist fantasy that never existed in history" can still be inserted if sources are found that demonstrate its usage in propaganda statements. The propaganda statements are not RS so can't be used. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding naming of monastery 

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:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion