This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Doktor Gonzo, I fail to see why this category is not good for Ani. It is an ancient Armenian city where Armenians once thrived with 200 000 living there. The name itself Ani is Armenian. What is your point in saying that category is not suitable? Fedayee 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that can advance a point of view:
Dubious use:
Acceptable use:
I used the second one. Khoi khoi 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Microsoft example refers to a legal claim. It's a technical term. As is a land claim. The Wikipedia:Words to avoid explains that. This text comes directly above the Microsoft example:
Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.
"Pledge" wasn't bad (I initially wrote it), but in the most technical sense that is almost like taking an oath or at least making a very formal promise. In the interest of favouring people on neither side of the border, I changed it to the most neutral language available (say/said) rather than simply reverting Khoi.
I want to make the point here that it seems Khoi is trying to find the most POV word allowable rather than following the spirit of NPOV. Case in point: what objection can be made for using "says" rather than "claims"? House of Scandal 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with using the term "Zakarid-Mxargrzeli" rather than "Mkhargrdzeli" is that we have a reference for the later term, for the former we do not. House of Scandal 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this image of The church of St Gregory of Tigran Honents, The church of St Gregory of the Abughamrents, or King Gagik's church of St Gregory? Khoi khoi 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Or John-Smbat? As I said on the rv, Hovhannes-Smbat was his name. English Wikipedia doesn't generally change the proper names of people or places to their English equivalent unless they are household names. If there is a rule that says it must, then let me know (because someone once told me the exact opposite). Mark Whittows use of foreign names is not consistant. He converts Hovhannes to John, yet leaves Grigor as it is and does not change it to Gregory. He also seems to leave all Arabic names completely in their native form. What about all the other "foreign" names in this article. Do we change Nikolai to Nicolas? Meowy 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I am taking this article off my watch list. I am even taking it out of the catalog of DYK’s I created so that what appears here is never mistaken for the standards of scholarship I maintain. Now people can do whatever they want with this article so that it becomes another example of the terrible scholarship that characterizes Project Armenia. Congratulations, Meowy ( talk · contribs). Congratulations, Khoikhoi ( talk · contribs). As long as Armenians throw out good scholarship in place of bad, people who unjustly deny the realities of Armenian history will have as loud voice, and that is not a good thing. House of Scandal 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're not hostile or self-righteous. And I'm not sarcastic. House of Scandal 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to standardize the refs and citations using the citation templates. Please use these templates located here Wikipedia:Citation templates for any future reliable sources that you may add for the sake of consistency. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
HoS did not add that reference in Turkish as the history of the page shows. It was a non-useful reference and I removed it. That part of the article is cited from the The Economist, a major international publication from the UK that has been in continuous publication since September 1843. Shaundakulbara 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The information The Economist provides to this article is basically "Turks said A, Armenians said B, Turks said C, Turks said D". What exactly in this secion is being disputed? Is an editor claiming someone didn't say something The Economist says they said? Shaundakulbara 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say the quarry was shut down. The article doesn't say it is still in operation. It says that The Economist reports that "Turks retort that Ani's remains have been shaken by blasts from a quarry on the Armenian side of the border." Does anyone refute the fact that the The Economist SAID that the Turks SAID this? An encyclopedia is not a court, nor an area, nor a battlefield. It is the systematic organization of source material. Do you have the opinion that the article is wrong? That opinion is irrelevant. Did you go to Ani and see something you didn't like? That is irrelevant. Is there anyone still involved with this article with a clue of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't? Shaundakulbara 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have photograph Ani and will upload soon. New paragraphs added to article are over large and not easy to read like rest of article. English is not my prime language so I ask that someone else fix. Fotografico 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not located at Arpaçay, but it is located at Akhurian River. If you would like to rename the page, make a proposal at Talk:Akhurian River. However, Arpaçay is a redirect and we shouldn't link there, and per WP:UE, it doesn't matter what the official name is, it matters which name is most common in English. Khoi khoi 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Article? Ani is located beside the Arpaçay. The use of "Akhurian" is restricted mostly to Soviet-period or later Armenian books. Most articles in English call it by the name "Arpaçay", the name the river has been known by in the modern period, starting at least as far back as the 18th century. Meowy 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to be discussing the title of that article. You should be making these comments at Talk:Akhurian River. I believe the argument for originally moving the page was that "Akhurian" got more Google hits. Until that page is renamed, we have to reflect the current title of that article. Again, try making a proposal on that talk page or use WP:RM. <samp :::::e about locations within Turkey. He's an example: the intro of the Bačka Palanka article says, "Bačka Palanka (Бачка Паланка) is a city located in Serbia, on left bank of the Danube, at 45.15° North, 19.24° East." However, since the sity is in Serbia, shouldn't it say "left bank of the Dunav"? Khoi khoi 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
- At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).
OK - let's examine Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and see how it supports my position.
"When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it".
No widely accepted English name exists for the river. Both Arpaçay and Akhurian are foreign language names However, Arpaçay appears to be the most common name used in English-language travel books.
"If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used."
The place (the river) does exist. The section of the entry that mentions the river deals with the current location of Ani, and not Ani in a time-period when the river was called something different.
"If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively."
The modern official name of the river is the Arpaçay.
"Relevant foreign language names ... are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names..."
The section in bold (my emphasis) makes my case. Based on the above, Arpaçay should be used before Akhurian, or any other alternative names.
"If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."
The local offical name of the river is the Arpaçay. Meowy 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's rephrase the following sentence :
We don't need to mention the name there, lets just say "the river", "this river" or "it". This will solve the problem for now. Also, I think we should change the second reference -- deniz 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
removed Editprotected Please change the following two sentences at the end of the first paragraph:
to
Thanks deniz 19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Vartanm 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
deniz T C 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I can and will find more references on the status of visitors to Ani to satisfy you, but I can tell you for a fact that permission is no longer needed and photography is legal. How? Because I have been to Ani several times in the last 2 years. So, if you want to keep an out-and-out falsity on the page, especially when the only source is Anatolia Travel Information, then go ahead. It's just not the truth. Just because the site says it was last updated in 2007, doesn't mean every single part of the site was.-- Optimussven 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Georgian roads aren't the best! Best Georgia itself is lovely.-- Optimussven 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude highlights one of the most important points of Wikipedia "dogma". To keep people with an axe to grind from using this encyclopedia as their whetstone. House of Scandal 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not have an axe to grind, but I do have a problem with what I know to be out-of-date information. If Wikipedia is really about creating the most acurate articles possible, then that is what we should aim to do. The fact is that the reliability of "Anatolia Travel Guide" is not irreproachable. If I were a traveler, I would take the word of multiple guide books published published in the last 3 years over a website, even if it has supposedly been updated in 2007. I understand that this article is not supposed to be a travel guide, however, someone deemed it fit to put up information about the status of Ani today as a visitor destination. I know that the information is innacurate, so I have chosen to try and update. I have only been met with hostility. Perhaps the real question is, does information about Ani's status as a travel destination warrant inclusion in the article? If the answer is yes, then it should be the right information.-- Optimussven 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, I have no personal connection to Ani or the people who have held it. I have, however, encountered hostility on Wikipedia from peoples on both sides of a idealogical border who have mistaken me for a foe since I was neither friend nor foe. I changed some wording in the article to suggest that the travel info may be past its expiration date. But the onus still lays in finding citable references to contradict it, not in convincing anyone one way or another. House of Scandal 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report]
on the ending of the photography ban -
Meowy
02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So to settle thıs once and for all I decıded to go straıght to the source. I emailed the Kars Province office to ask if permission was still needed and if Photography was still OK. Here is what they had to say. It's in Turkish, sorry.
Emniyeten izin almanıza gerek yok..
2005 yılında çıkan bir yönetmelikle artık tarihi ve turistik alanlarda gezi amacı güdülen ziyaretlerde Emniyet Müdürlüğünden izin alınması ve bazı koşullara uyulduğu takdirde fotograf çekilmesinde herhangi bir sakınca yoktur...
İyi çalışmalar dileklerimizlee..
Anı harabeleri ve diğer tarihi ve turistik yerler hakkında gerekli broşür ve tanıtım kitapları İlimizi ziyaretlerinizde Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğümüzden temin edebilirsiniz...
Kars Valiliği
Bilgi İşlem Merkezi
The quick translation is that after a change of policy in 2005, there is no need anymore to obtain permission and photography is no problem. Now I realize that the problem is that this is not really citable, since it is an email exchange, and theoretically I could be making this all up, but I assure you that is a real response from the Kars Valiliği. While this can not be cited, I think it should dispell any weariness about citing VirtualAni, Lonley Planet (2005) and TurkeyTravelPlanner.-- Optimussven 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report]
" is actually a posting on a message board. The
ArmiInfo cite it links to no longer has the article. I searched for certain keywords in the article and it doesn't seem to be online. I would have included the first part of it as a blockquote, but unfortunately message bord postings are not citable (I discovered this the hard way). The letter from Kars Valiliği likewise isn't citable. All I was able to use was the info at VirtualAni which, although it doesn't explicitedly state the current conditions under which Ani may be visited, I don't expect any objections to the inference I made based on what is said there and changed the article accordingly.
Optimussven, as you're new to Wikipedia, I'll mention that frustratingly nothing here is ever settled permanently -- it's always a process, and the process is often a pain in the neck. Also, for what it worth, I'll say again it was never a matter of convining. I, for one, never disbelieved you. It's a matter of showing.
House of Scandal
20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Tom Brosnahan material? The reference to that should have never been removed from the article. It is now included as a block quote which makes Ani's status as open to visitors crystal clear. I hope all are pleased. House of Scandal 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know, I visited Ani two days ago (17 April 2007) and took pictures. No problem. They are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezand_rani/sets/72157600094539462/ 81.213.140.26 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat
It's currently written in the article that
“ | In 1064 a large Seljuk Turkish army, headed by Sultan Alp Arslan, with the help of the Caucasian Georgians headed by King Bagrat, attacked Ani and after a siege of 25 days they captured the city and slaughtered its population. | ” |
In the article about Bagrat IV who reigned in Georgia at this time there is some (referenced) information about his conflicts with Seljuks but almost nothing about his cooperation with them. So either that article misses some crucial information or there are unverified claims in this article. Alæxis ¿question? 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggest move to Ani (Turkey). It's in Turkey, not much more to say. -- A.Garnet 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Obviously it is within Turkey, nomatter its history. The current name is simply misleading. Bertilvidet 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Bertilvidet 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
@ Hakob Do you know that Wikipedia and Greeks are trying to wipe out every trace of Ottoman history in Greece(also other Balkan states, mostly Christian ones)? Both Wikipedia and tourist guide books in Greece mention Ottoman existence in Greece for a few lines, but they mention Ancient Greece for pages. I went to Kos island and I saw an historical mosque.( Closed of course) There was no sign or no information about it, and even the Ottoman scripts on the mosque was removed. Who is changing the history? Stop your and Wikipedia's anti-Turkish propagandas, you and your fascist president can never gain anything from my land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the removal of the text "the dynamite blasts at a nearby stone quarry in Armenia, as well as" from the sentence about the ruins being threatened. This might have been an error correction, if the quarry is no longer operating or if that was never true in the first place. It looks more like whitewashing to me so I reverted. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will correct it. Isomorphic 06:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reference: http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.uk/quarry/-- Eupator 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok this is a history stub and not political stub, Ani's history is armenian so it should be refered to as that and is only a tourist and Archaelogical attraction that had very little significance in modern Turkey, but a lot of significants for Armenia. Also Turkey and Armenia must come to terms with History and modern reallity, wich they are trying but are finding it hard too. Enlil Ninlil 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This section separates the footnoted references cited by users in the talk page from the rest of the talk page text. Ketone16 ( talk) 15:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The article's lede currently states that "At its height, Ani had a population of 100,000–200,000 people and was the rival of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus." I believe that the cited sources are insufficient to support this claim, so unless someone else can find more definitive sources for these claims, I propose replacing this sentence with "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people." My rationale is as follows.
The currently-cited sources are an archived website by the Landmarks Foundation, which has the "100,000 to 200,000 people" figure, but without references, and I am not sure that I accept this website as a reliable source. The website also does not say anything about the comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus. The second source is a
1974 article by K. Ghafadaryan (in Armenian) in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. That source simply says that the city had a population of 100,000. It also does not include a comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus.
Also,
Chapter 5 of H.A. Manandian's 1946 book The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade (1965 English translation by N.G. Garsoian) discusses the population of Ani. Manandian cites a population figure of 100,000 from
I. Orbeli's 1911 book Развалины Ани (in Russian), who in turn cites unnamed historians as saying that the city had "more than 100,000 inhabitants, 10,000 homes . . . and 1001 churches." Manandian himself finds some of the historical figures to be "highly disputable and unreliable" (potentially including the 100,000 population figure for Ani), but presumes that such large cities had populations of "considerably more than ten or twenty thousand" and later cites archaeological evidence to support his opinion that "a figure of fifty or one hundred thousand for the population of Ani is possible and entirely acceptable." Additionally, Chapter 3 of
Simon Payaslian's 2007 book The History of Armenia from the Origins to the Present states that in Ani (and also in Kars and Dvin) "the population exceeded 100,000". His sources are a
1956 book article by B. Arakelyan (in Armenian) and a
1963 journal article by V.M. Harutyunyan (in Armenian). Arakelyan says something like "up to 100,000" for the population of Ani and Harutyunyan puts Ani in the class of shahastan (large/principal) cities, in the range of 20,000 to 125,000 people.
According to these sources, it seems that Ani had a population of about 100,000 at its peak: maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, but probably not 200,000. I am also skeptical of the claim in the article that follows the population estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 people: namely that Ani "was the rival" of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus. I have seen this claim elsewhere on the internet (never accompanied by a citation to a reliable source), variously phrased as Ani as "a rival of", having a "beauty rivaling the slendor of", having a "population rivaling that of", or being a "cultural center once on par with" those cities. I cannot say whether Ani was a rival of those cities in terms of its culture or beauty (if it was, the article still needs to cite a reliable source like a historian for that), but it seems unlikely population-wise, which is what the current sentence in the article seems to imply. For example, the English-language Wikipedia's
List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history has a source that estimates Baghdad's population in 1000 A.D. (around Ani's peak) as 1.2 or 1.5 million people.
It seems safer simply to say that "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people" and leave out the comparison to other cities, unless some good sources can be found to back up the claims that are currently in the article.
Ketone16 (
talk)
15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ani. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello ,
First of all,someone please correct the headline of this article....Ani is enough..no need for Armenia...
thanks for reading
I have just added a new section listing most of the monuments at Ani individually, plus a completely rewritten text for the History section. I have used most of the previous material as a basis for what it should contain, but have excluded some of that material because it was inaccurate. For example; Ani was not on a crossroads of trade routes, Ashot III was not alive when Trdat was practicing as an architect, Armenian was not devastated by the Seljuks in 922, the cathedral is not a cruciform church, Ani was not captured by the Byzantines to serve as a buffer state agaisnt the Muslim world, there is actually no record of an earthquake in 1319 (it is a later myth). I haven't yet added any references for the new stuff, will get on it asap. Meowy 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
While I respect the policy regarding improvement versus reverting, you did a complete rewrite of a meticulously referenced article and left an unreferenced article in its place. I can't provide references for material with origin unknown to me. Therefore, I was justified in reverting. House of Scandal 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)
You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. House of Scandal 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Meowy, you state above "to be honest, I don't give a damn about "original research" dogma in this case. 90% of what has been written about Ani falls under these categories: mistakes, misinformation, propaganda, or lies. I will not allow anything like that to continue to circulate about Ani where it is possible to stop it." Translation: you don't follow Wikipedia guidelines, you don't verify articles, and you seek out the 10% of sources that agree with your POV. Shaundakulbara 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I see he changed that fact when a source was given. And then you replaced most of a good article with your own original research. It is you who feel entitled to throw away Wikipedia rules and for that reason you are no asset to this encyclopedia. Obviously sensible people can talk to you until we are blue in the face. It doesn't make a difference. Shaundakulbara 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is he changed it after you commented on it as soon as references are provided. He follows the rules and I have seen him admit he's wrong in the past. Looking at what you are doing to the article, I'll ammend what I said about earlier and change it to "you could easily be an asset to this encyclopedia". Your writing is good. Also, from what I see, you are using most of the same sources as HoS was using (VirtualANI etc.). Your mistake was in not providing citations with your changes and also in making statements like I quoted above. I am very familiar with HoS's work from DYK and calling him "amateurish" is simply false...he is one of five editors I can think of whose work is amazing. It looks like this whole arguement started when he told you to cite your sources and work in your sandbox until your work was ready. I don't know why that escalated into such a mess. I can't say for certain, but I am pretty sure you have less experience on Wikipedia than some of the people you are arguing with. It probably would help you reach your potential if you'd make an effort to learn lessons that people are trying to teach about proceedure rather than take everything as a challenge. I made the same mistake when I was new. Anyways, have a good night, bye. Shaundakulbara 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
There is another site in Turkey with '1001 churches', near modern day Karaman, an old late-antique Byzantine cultural centre, see Binbirkilise. I added a note to prevent possible confusion.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Doktor Gonzo, I fail to see why this category is not good for Ani. It is an ancient Armenian city where Armenians once thrived with 200 000 living there. The name itself Ani is Armenian. What is your point in saying that category is not suitable? Fedayee 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that can advance a point of view:
Dubious use:
Acceptable use:
I used the second one. Khoi khoi 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Microsoft example refers to a legal claim. It's a technical term. As is a land claim. The Wikipedia:Words to avoid explains that. This text comes directly above the Microsoft example:
Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.
"Pledge" wasn't bad (I initially wrote it), but in the most technical sense that is almost like taking an oath or at least making a very formal promise. In the interest of favouring people on neither side of the border, I changed it to the most neutral language available (say/said) rather than simply reverting Khoi.
I want to make the point here that it seems Khoi is trying to find the most POV word allowable rather than following the spirit of NPOV. Case in point: what objection can be made for using "says" rather than "claims"? House of Scandal 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with using the term "Zakarid-Mxargrzeli" rather than "Mkhargrdzeli" is that we have a reference for the later term, for the former we do not. House of Scandal 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this image of The church of St Gregory of Tigran Honents, The church of St Gregory of the Abughamrents, or King Gagik's church of St Gregory? Khoi khoi 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Or John-Smbat? As I said on the rv, Hovhannes-Smbat was his name. English Wikipedia doesn't generally change the proper names of people or places to their English equivalent unless they are household names. If there is a rule that says it must, then let me know (because someone once told me the exact opposite). Mark Whittows use of foreign names is not consistant. He converts Hovhannes to John, yet leaves Grigor as it is and does not change it to Gregory. He also seems to leave all Arabic names completely in their native form. What about all the other "foreign" names in this article. Do we change Nikolai to Nicolas? Meowy 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I am taking this article off my watch list. I am even taking it out of the catalog of DYK’s I created so that what appears here is never mistaken for the standards of scholarship I maintain. Now people can do whatever they want with this article so that it becomes another example of the terrible scholarship that characterizes Project Armenia. Congratulations, Meowy ( talk · contribs). Congratulations, Khoikhoi ( talk · contribs). As long as Armenians throw out good scholarship in place of bad, people who unjustly deny the realities of Armenian history will have as loud voice, and that is not a good thing. House of Scandal 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're not hostile or self-righteous. And I'm not sarcastic. House of Scandal 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to standardize the refs and citations using the citation templates. Please use these templates located here Wikipedia:Citation templates for any future reliable sources that you may add for the sake of consistency. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
HoS did not add that reference in Turkish as the history of the page shows. It was a non-useful reference and I removed it. That part of the article is cited from the The Economist, a major international publication from the UK that has been in continuous publication since September 1843. Shaundakulbara 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The information The Economist provides to this article is basically "Turks said A, Armenians said B, Turks said C, Turks said D". What exactly in this secion is being disputed? Is an editor claiming someone didn't say something The Economist says they said? Shaundakulbara 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say the quarry was shut down. The article doesn't say it is still in operation. It says that The Economist reports that "Turks retort that Ani's remains have been shaken by blasts from a quarry on the Armenian side of the border." Does anyone refute the fact that the The Economist SAID that the Turks SAID this? An encyclopedia is not a court, nor an area, nor a battlefield. It is the systematic organization of source material. Do you have the opinion that the article is wrong? That opinion is irrelevant. Did you go to Ani and see something you didn't like? That is irrelevant. Is there anyone still involved with this article with a clue of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't? Shaundakulbara 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have photograph Ani and will upload soon. New paragraphs added to article are over large and not easy to read like rest of article. English is not my prime language so I ask that someone else fix. Fotografico 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not located at Arpaçay, but it is located at Akhurian River. If you would like to rename the page, make a proposal at Talk:Akhurian River. However, Arpaçay is a redirect and we shouldn't link there, and per WP:UE, it doesn't matter what the official name is, it matters which name is most common in English. Khoi khoi 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Article? Ani is located beside the Arpaçay. The use of "Akhurian" is restricted mostly to Soviet-period or later Armenian books. Most articles in English call it by the name "Arpaçay", the name the river has been known by in the modern period, starting at least as far back as the 18th century. Meowy 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to be discussing the title of that article. You should be making these comments at Talk:Akhurian River. I believe the argument for originally moving the page was that "Akhurian" got more Google hits. Until that page is renamed, we have to reflect the current title of that article. Again, try making a proposal on that talk page or use WP:RM. <samp :::::e about locations within Turkey. He's an example: the intro of the Bačka Palanka article says, "Bačka Palanka (Бачка Паланка) is a city located in Serbia, on left bank of the Danube, at 45.15° North, 19.24° East." However, since the sity is in Serbia, shouldn't it say "left bank of the Dunav"? Khoi khoi 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
- At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).
OK - let's examine Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and see how it supports my position.
"When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it".
No widely accepted English name exists for the river. Both Arpaçay and Akhurian are foreign language names However, Arpaçay appears to be the most common name used in English-language travel books.
"If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used."
The place (the river) does exist. The section of the entry that mentions the river deals with the current location of Ani, and not Ani in a time-period when the river was called something different.
"If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively."
The modern official name of the river is the Arpaçay.
"Relevant foreign language names ... are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names..."
The section in bold (my emphasis) makes my case. Based on the above, Arpaçay should be used before Akhurian, or any other alternative names.
"If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."
The local offical name of the river is the Arpaçay. Meowy 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's rephrase the following sentence :
We don't need to mention the name there, lets just say "the river", "this river" or "it". This will solve the problem for now. Also, I think we should change the second reference -- deniz 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
removed Editprotected Please change the following two sentences at the end of the first paragraph:
to
Thanks deniz 19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Vartanm 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
deniz T C 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I can and will find more references on the status of visitors to Ani to satisfy you, but I can tell you for a fact that permission is no longer needed and photography is legal. How? Because I have been to Ani several times in the last 2 years. So, if you want to keep an out-and-out falsity on the page, especially when the only source is Anatolia Travel Information, then go ahead. It's just not the truth. Just because the site says it was last updated in 2007, doesn't mean every single part of the site was.-- Optimussven 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Georgian roads aren't the best! Best Georgia itself is lovely.-- Optimussven 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude highlights one of the most important points of Wikipedia "dogma". To keep people with an axe to grind from using this encyclopedia as their whetstone. House of Scandal 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not have an axe to grind, but I do have a problem with what I know to be out-of-date information. If Wikipedia is really about creating the most acurate articles possible, then that is what we should aim to do. The fact is that the reliability of "Anatolia Travel Guide" is not irreproachable. If I were a traveler, I would take the word of multiple guide books published published in the last 3 years over a website, even if it has supposedly been updated in 2007. I understand that this article is not supposed to be a travel guide, however, someone deemed it fit to put up information about the status of Ani today as a visitor destination. I know that the information is innacurate, so I have chosen to try and update. I have only been met with hostility. Perhaps the real question is, does information about Ani's status as a travel destination warrant inclusion in the article? If the answer is yes, then it should be the right information.-- Optimussven 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, I have no personal connection to Ani or the people who have held it. I have, however, encountered hostility on Wikipedia from peoples on both sides of a idealogical border who have mistaken me for a foe since I was neither friend nor foe. I changed some wording in the article to suggest that the travel info may be past its expiration date. But the onus still lays in finding citable references to contradict it, not in convincing anyone one way or another. House of Scandal 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report]
on the ending of the photography ban -
Meowy
02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So to settle thıs once and for all I decıded to go straıght to the source. I emailed the Kars Province office to ask if permission was still needed and if Photography was still OK. Here is what they had to say. It's in Turkish, sorry.
Emniyeten izin almanıza gerek yok..
2005 yılında çıkan bir yönetmelikle artık tarihi ve turistik alanlarda gezi amacı güdülen ziyaretlerde Emniyet Müdürlüğünden izin alınması ve bazı koşullara uyulduğu takdirde fotograf çekilmesinde herhangi bir sakınca yoktur...
İyi çalışmalar dileklerimizlee..
Anı harabeleri ve diğer tarihi ve turistik yerler hakkında gerekli broşür ve tanıtım kitapları İlimizi ziyaretlerinizde Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğümüzden temin edebilirsiniz...
Kars Valiliği
Bilgi İşlem Merkezi
The quick translation is that after a change of policy in 2005, there is no need anymore to obtain permission and photography is no problem. Now I realize that the problem is that this is not really citable, since it is an email exchange, and theoretically I could be making this all up, but I assure you that is a real response from the Kars Valiliği. While this can not be cited, I think it should dispell any weariness about citing VirtualAni, Lonley Planet (2005) and TurkeyTravelPlanner.-- Optimussven 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.network54.com/Forum/146256/message/1074291346/ news report]
" is actually a posting on a message board. The
ArmiInfo cite it links to no longer has the article. I searched for certain keywords in the article and it doesn't seem to be online. I would have included the first part of it as a blockquote, but unfortunately message bord postings are not citable (I discovered this the hard way). The letter from Kars Valiliği likewise isn't citable. All I was able to use was the info at VirtualAni which, although it doesn't explicitedly state the current conditions under which Ani may be visited, I don't expect any objections to the inference I made based on what is said there and changed the article accordingly.
Optimussven, as you're new to Wikipedia, I'll mention that frustratingly nothing here is ever settled permanently -- it's always a process, and the process is often a pain in the neck. Also, for what it worth, I'll say again it was never a matter of convining. I, for one, never disbelieved you. It's a matter of showing.
House of Scandal
20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Tom Brosnahan material? The reference to that should have never been removed from the article. It is now included as a block quote which makes Ani's status as open to visitors crystal clear. I hope all are pleased. House of Scandal 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know, I visited Ani two days ago (17 April 2007) and took pictures. No problem. They are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezand_rani/sets/72157600094539462/ 81.213.140.26 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Lemongoat
It's currently written in the article that
“ | In 1064 a large Seljuk Turkish army, headed by Sultan Alp Arslan, with the help of the Caucasian Georgians headed by King Bagrat, attacked Ani and after a siege of 25 days they captured the city and slaughtered its population. | ” |
In the article about Bagrat IV who reigned in Georgia at this time there is some (referenced) information about his conflicts with Seljuks but almost nothing about his cooperation with them. So either that article misses some crucial information or there are unverified claims in this article. Alæxis ¿question? 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggest move to Ani (Turkey). It's in Turkey, not much more to say. -- A.Garnet 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. Obviously it is within Turkey, nomatter its history. The current name is simply misleading. Bertilvidet 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Bertilvidet 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
@ Hakob Do you know that Wikipedia and Greeks are trying to wipe out every trace of Ottoman history in Greece(also other Balkan states, mostly Christian ones)? Both Wikipedia and tourist guide books in Greece mention Ottoman existence in Greece for a few lines, but they mention Ancient Greece for pages. I went to Kos island and I saw an historical mosque.( Closed of course) There was no sign or no information about it, and even the Ottoman scripts on the mosque was removed. Who is changing the history? Stop your and Wikipedia's anti-Turkish propagandas, you and your fascist president can never gain anything from my land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted the removal of the text "the dynamite blasts at a nearby stone quarry in Armenia, as well as" from the sentence about the ruins being threatened. This might have been an error correction, if the quarry is no longer operating or if that was never true in the first place. It looks more like whitewashing to me so I reverted. If I'm wrong, eventually someone will correct it. Isomorphic 06:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reference: http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.uk/quarry/-- Eupator 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok this is a history stub and not political stub, Ani's history is armenian so it should be refered to as that and is only a tourist and Archaelogical attraction that had very little significance in modern Turkey, but a lot of significants for Armenia. Also Turkey and Armenia must come to terms with History and modern reallity, wich they are trying but are finding it hard too. Enlil Ninlil 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This section separates the footnoted references cited by users in the talk page from the rest of the talk page text. Ketone16 ( talk) 15:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The article's lede currently states that "At its height, Ani had a population of 100,000–200,000 people and was the rival of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus." I believe that the cited sources are insufficient to support this claim, so unless someone else can find more definitive sources for these claims, I propose replacing this sentence with "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people." My rationale is as follows.
The currently-cited sources are an archived website by the Landmarks Foundation, which has the "100,000 to 200,000 people" figure, but without references, and I am not sure that I accept this website as a reliable source. The website also does not say anything about the comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus. The second source is a
1974 article by K. Ghafadaryan (in Armenian) in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. That source simply says that the city had a population of 100,000. It also does not include a comparison to Constantinople, Baghdad, or Damascus.
Also,
Chapter 5 of H.A. Manandian's 1946 book The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade (1965 English translation by N.G. Garsoian) discusses the population of Ani. Manandian cites a population figure of 100,000 from
I. Orbeli's 1911 book Развалины Ани (in Russian), who in turn cites unnamed historians as saying that the city had "more than 100,000 inhabitants, 10,000 homes . . . and 1001 churches." Manandian himself finds some of the historical figures to be "highly disputable and unreliable" (potentially including the 100,000 population figure for Ani), but presumes that such large cities had populations of "considerably more than ten or twenty thousand" and later cites archaeological evidence to support his opinion that "a figure of fifty or one hundred thousand for the population of Ani is possible and entirely acceptable." Additionally, Chapter 3 of
Simon Payaslian's 2007 book The History of Armenia from the Origins to the Present states that in Ani (and also in Kars and Dvin) "the population exceeded 100,000". His sources are a
1956 book article by B. Arakelyan (in Armenian) and a
1963 journal article by V.M. Harutyunyan (in Armenian). Arakelyan says something like "up to 100,000" for the population of Ani and Harutyunyan puts Ani in the class of shahastan (large/principal) cities, in the range of 20,000 to 125,000 people.
According to these sources, it seems that Ani had a population of about 100,000 at its peak: maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, but probably not 200,000. I am also skeptical of the claim in the article that follows the population estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 people: namely that Ani "was the rival" of Constantinople, Baghdad and Damascus. I have seen this claim elsewhere on the internet (never accompanied by a citation to a reliable source), variously phrased as Ani as "a rival of", having a "beauty rivaling the slendor of", having a "population rivaling that of", or being a "cultural center once on par with" those cities. I cannot say whether Ani was a rival of those cities in terms of its culture or beauty (if it was, the article still needs to cite a reliable source like a historian for that), but it seems unlikely population-wise, which is what the current sentence in the article seems to imply. For example, the English-language Wikipedia's
List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history has a source that estimates Baghdad's population in 1000 A.D. (around Ani's peak) as 1.2 or 1.5 million people.
It seems safer simply to say that "At its height, Ani had a population of as many as 100,000 people" and leave out the comparison to other cities, unless some good sources can be found to back up the claims that are currently in the article.
Ketone16 (
talk)
15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ani. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello ,
First of all,someone please correct the headline of this article....Ani is enough..no need for Armenia...
thanks for reading
I have just added a new section listing most of the monuments at Ani individually, plus a completely rewritten text for the History section. I have used most of the previous material as a basis for what it should contain, but have excluded some of that material because it was inaccurate. For example; Ani was not on a crossroads of trade routes, Ashot III was not alive when Trdat was practicing as an architect, Armenian was not devastated by the Seljuks in 922, the cathedral is not a cruciform church, Ani was not captured by the Byzantines to serve as a buffer state agaisnt the Muslim world, there is actually no record of an earthquake in 1319 (it is a later myth). I haven't yet added any references for the new stuff, will get on it asap. Meowy 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
While I respect the policy regarding improvement versus reverting, you did a complete rewrite of a meticulously referenced article and left an unreferenced article in its place. I can't provide references for material with origin unknown to me. Therefore, I was justified in reverting. House of Scandal 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)
You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. House of Scandal 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Meowy, you state above "to be honest, I don't give a damn about "original research" dogma in this case. 90% of what has been written about Ani falls under these categories: mistakes, misinformation, propaganda, or lies. I will not allow anything like that to continue to circulate about Ani where it is possible to stop it." Translation: you don't follow Wikipedia guidelines, you don't verify articles, and you seek out the 10% of sources that agree with your POV. Shaundakulbara 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I see he changed that fact when a source was given. And then you replaced most of a good article with your own original research. It is you who feel entitled to throw away Wikipedia rules and for that reason you are no asset to this encyclopedia. Obviously sensible people can talk to you until we are blue in the face. It doesn't make a difference. Shaundakulbara 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is he changed it after you commented on it as soon as references are provided. He follows the rules and I have seen him admit he's wrong in the past. Looking at what you are doing to the article, I'll ammend what I said about earlier and change it to "you could easily be an asset to this encyclopedia". Your writing is good. Also, from what I see, you are using most of the same sources as HoS was using (VirtualANI etc.). Your mistake was in not providing citations with your changes and also in making statements like I quoted above. I am very familiar with HoS's work from DYK and calling him "amateurish" is simply false...he is one of five editors I can think of whose work is amazing. It looks like this whole arguement started when he told you to cite your sources and work in your sandbox until your work was ready. I don't know why that escalated into such a mess. I can't say for certain, but I am pretty sure you have less experience on Wikipedia than some of the people you are arguing with. It probably would help you reach your potential if you'd make an effort to learn lessons that people are trying to teach about proceedure rather than take everything as a challenge. I made the same mistake when I was new. Anyways, have a good night, bye. Shaundakulbara 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
There is another site in Turkey with '1001 churches', near modern day Karaman, an old late-antique Byzantine cultural centre, see Binbirkilise. I added a note to prevent possible confusion.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)