![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right Khukri! This is a really significant topic and surely must be represented at Wiki. And Im agree to check its content and expand it! Andranikpasha ( talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No Atabek it is under control of Karabakh forces! Current Kashatagh is not an Armenian district, but that of NK. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) And pls dop not remove the sourced word of native! Its important to represent the history how it was, without falsifications. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Its out of our topic the history of NKAO, the history of Armenian Artsakh, we just marked that this land is officially recognized as a part of Azerbaijan and that de facto an Armenian (also Armenian populated) district exists there right now! F.e. if anyone wants to see this church, the only way to receive visa of NK officials, not that of Azerbaijan. We have a discussed refirect for Kashatagh, so whats the problem. And lets to not make propagand here: native Armenian is surely related to the style of building (as about the land its discussed between Armenia and Azerbaijan and also out of this topic). Lets assume good faith, anyways its an article on culture not politics. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I only have this article watchlisted as I saved it from deletion though I'm not an expert on the subject. But please may I remind all editors that wikipedia requires verification of information and that while sometimes contentious from a local point view the article must represent names, countries etc recognised by the international community. Also as has been already written, it's a building and to be honest a very interesting one reading the history here, together make the article a good one please. Khu kri 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Im sure on neutrality of Khukri so I had to agree with what he wrote. Grandmaster represented his view. Now Im representing mine. Lets leave to Khukri as a neutral person to decide how to write the part related to district: it can be a consensus.
As I said I'm not an expert on the subject though if you wish my input I will read up on the matter over the next couple of days. But first of all using phrases like ethnically cleansed is a sure fire way of not calming a discussion, no matter what the truth of the matter is. Also I find it unusual that Kashatagh is redirected straight to Lachin (rayon). I will read up on the issue and see if I can see some middle ground. Cheers Khu kri 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, lets to not comment each others views with the words like occupation and ethnic cleansing but just leave our opinions as Khukri says he will try to find a consensus! I also think this is the best way for all of us. Andranikpasha ( talk) 14:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an international mediator and never will be but I've had a look at the article from the perspective of the building itself, and trying to create a base for a decent article. Having originally looked through the material I was originally inclined to remove the NK reference completely, as it is not internationally recognised..... but I then stumbled upon this comment "In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people." which I think summed up the situation. So I've left the NK references in the article though tried to re-word it so as to appear neutral from both sides, it references the NK page but doesn't cast judgment on it using words like control, etc.
Now in my honest opinion, I believe that's it location within a politically controversial location should remain at one line, and that alot more information should be added to this article. There are plenty of articles that describe to locations situation and this one doesn't need to be another. So I set a challenge to all those who have discussed this article to turn this article into at least a good article or get a did you know? out of it. Who made it, why, what were their motivations, how has the building fared during wars, and the changing face of Europe, Asia and the Causasus, what prompted the restoration, what else is notable about the building, why was it built so early, how has it lasted all these years? It's a pretty unique building in my opinion and I'd like those who know about the area to add to this article. I have this article watchlisted so I can help all you wish. Cheers Khu kri 08:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, who to not read Italian sources of article at first? Andranikpasha ( talk) 12:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Focus on the article not the editor please. OK lets turn these points around, instead of saying what we can't do, lets find out what can be done. Lets not be negative, please try and be positive and find information that can be put in. It's easier to find reasons why not to do something than to do it, hence the reason it's called hard work ;) Khu kri 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it an OR? Anyways thanks for the interesting research:) Andranikpasha ( talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, please stop refering to admin state or intervention as your rationale for reverting in edit summaries. My role as an adminstrator is irrelevant in regards to this article all I did was removed a CSD tag, the rest is as a normal editor. Regards. Khu kri 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Parishan, Ağoğlan qəsri, yields 2 actual results on google, one from an Azeri wikipedia contributor, and the other from an unofficial Azeri site.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding right? See the first source (the only one thats in English) you provided, the river Agoglan. It say also Monastery on river Agoglan. It also conveniently places it as Albanian, like every other Armenian monument. Interesting and credible site indeed. We have here the Agoglan tower [7], Agoglan temple [8], Agoglan castle [9] but most hits refer to the river Agoglan. There is no official Azerbaijani name for the place. VartanM ( talk) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lachin corridor connects occupied NK with Armenia, it was fought by Armenian forces in order to have this corridor to Armenia. If there really was "so called de-facto independent Karabakh" there would be no necessity to open a corridor to Armenia, would it? So VartanM, Andranikpasha, and other folks, please, adjust your POV and use the wording reflected in the relevant UN, PACE, and other documents. Atabek ( talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a POV too! The difference is that Im not putting that POV to the article, like Atabek done. And pls, do not change consensused variant with your preffered one as CIA is not the only source. Pls be civil and discuss it! Andranikpasha ( talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Tzitzernavank Monastery - "vank" means monastery, so really there is no need to use the word monastery in the article's title. Nobody, including English speakers, would call it "Tzitzernavank Monastery" they would call it "Tzitzernavank". In addition, the use of the word "monastery" in such a position suggests that the church was built as a monastic church (which is not certain) or that it is still used as a monastery (which it is not). Meowy 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I brought some clarification to situation of Lachin region, where it's located, controlled and renamed by who. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule saying we have to abide by Thomas de Waal's label of Samvel Karapetyan being a nationalist. He is an expert on the architecture of the region and what some journalist's opinion of him (or yours, for that matter) is does not in any way negate the facts of the information on the church. Can you please direct us to which Wikipedia rule that specifies that only third-party sources must be used?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For such controversial issues we should use neutral sources.-- Dacy69 ( talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, okay, so can you please pinpoint exactly where in Karapetyan's book do we find inconsistencies and factual mistakes? His views on the Karabakh conflict and Azeris notwithstanding, where exactly do see the problems in what he claims? I doubt you can create an argument on the basis of simply claiming that because "A" holds this view, any and all conclusions he makes about "B" thus renders him unfit and unreliable as a source.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Historians, and all individuals in that case, naturally come with biases, some simply are far more subtle than others. You cannot dismiss an entire source simply on the grounds of their positions. You're going to have to start bringing out some concrete examples of unreliability. I'm curious, when you review a book, do you simply judge the book's usefulness and effectiveness solely on the positions of the author?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Current knowledge": Nagorno-Karabakh still is a part of Azerbaijan and near 1 million Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds are refugee from there. "Current situation": Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. see ref -- 144.122.135.88 ( talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
References
That monastery is located in AZERBAIJAN! Stop propaganda in WIKIPEDIA! -- 144.122.250.211 ( talk) 12:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear all, I have been asked to comment on this article most probably due to my involvement when it was almost deleted a few years ago. Please do not revert anymore changes until they have been discussed here, before anyone comments that it is the incorrect version, I would like you to read this about m:The Wrong Version. I have not currently protected the article and would like to suggest all editors from this point stop reverting backwards and forwards and tone down the rhetoric, there's too much talk of vandalism and abuse in edit summaries. I have seen little effort on these talk pages of dispute resolution just assertion of facts with few supporting sources, and then reciprocal assertions without basis.
We will sort this article using the tools at our disposal, i.e. discussion, reliable sources, verifibility and not original research or heresay. I fully appreciate the national interests in articles like this and though I'm not an expert in the subject I am neutral and to overcome my lack of expertise I would all parties when they reply to include the sources for their comments.
A few key points as I understand it please give references when disputing any statement, I've kept them simple to allow for yes or noes.
1) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not internationally recognised
2) The Nagorno-Karabakh region is currently within the borders of Azerbaijan
3) The Church of Caucasian Albania no longer exists
4) Historically this church was in Armenia, and it's construction has been compared to other Armenian churches and monastries of that time
Are any of the statements incorrect?
Cheers Khu kri 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The status of Nagorno-Karabakh is perhaps a moot point because we already have a couple hundred or so articles which state the political status of the region. We should mention that Nagorno-Karabakh is currently a de facto independent republic which, to date, is not internationally recognized but almost mention that it is within Azerbaijan's de jure borders. The line regarding Caucasian Albania, however, is not so open to interpretation. Amaras was a monastery under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Apostolic Church and there's no evidence to indicate that the Caucasian Albanian Church had any control over it.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that is just a canard which is popular only in Azerbaijan, and enjoys no scholarly support outside of that republic. Tsitsernavank is just one of several dozen Armenian churches in and near Karabakh which Azerbaijani scholars have rechristened as "Caucasian Albanian", going so far as to falsify and distort primary sources to prove that these churches have no connection to Armenia nor Armenians. Caucasian Albania had lost all its ethnic and political connotations by the ninth century and while a Caucasian Albanian diocese existed up until the early nineteenth century, its members considered themselves as Armenians and nothing else.
Further, this is not a simple content dispute we are discussing but an attempt at distorting history and I have already lost count on how much talk pages I have repeated this argument on other related articles. Verman himself is unable to produce a single reliable source to support his claims and instead has resorted to edit warring on a massive scale to revert changes he disagrees with. The unreliability of sources published in or distributed by Azerbaijan, as well as online websites, has been mentioned elsewhere but it is worth repeating here. One of the most prominent historians on the matter, Robert Hewsen, has cautioned:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291
I don't see this as a good-faith discussion and it's rather disconcerting to see that the one version which numerous editors have worked on, with complete references, reliable sourcing and neutral wording, has been replaced now with one which is packed with out-and-out lies and glaring omissions. I know that this is a standard practice among administrators who want to help mediate a matter, who often revert the article to the "wrong version", but some better discretion would have been desirable here. Leaving aside the de facto-de juro debate, which itself has been handled smoothly elsewhere, I really don't see much point in this discussion, when not a reasonable argument has not been brought up to warrant mediation. Regards, -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the support. The reason I asked was I wanted to differentiate between my first two points of the republic v the region. But I'll wait till a few others have responded and then we can start to make some head way with creating a lede that is correct with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and will hopefully be acceptable to everyone. As I hope we'll all agree trying to resolve the regions issues with respect to wikipedia in an article about a monastery is maybe not the correct place, so hopefully neutrality will move the debate to a more appropriate forum. Though hopefully once this is resolved I can point you all in the right direction for maybe starting an RFC that can be used a reference and naming convention for all these disputes. Let's face it Macedonia, Ireland and I believe Taiwan Republic of China have all gone to ArbCom to achieve some form of definitive position for Wikipedia. Cheers
Khu
kri
14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Surely, Kevorkmail will post some maps affirming Armenian position. How about these maps:
There are much maps which can be posted here. All the maps I posted show that Caucasian Albania stretched much more to the west than Armenians claim, i.e. to the west of Kura River, and surely Agoglan Monastery (Tsitsernavank Monastery) located in Lachin is an Albanian monastery. This monastery together with other Albanian monasteries in Karabakh and Azerbaijan were given to Armenian diocese in 1836 (Read Church of Caucasian Albania for more details). Before that, Karabakh was part of Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Mongol dynasties of Ilkhanate, Jalayirids, Azerbaijani Turk states Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu, Safavid Empire, Karabakh Khanate and Elisabethpol Governorate (Russian Empire) and independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. So, this monastery was built during the time when Caucasian Albania existed and then for centuries it was under Persian and Azerbaijani Turk rule, some brief time under Armenian rule. But this article is full of the sources which are written by Armenian writers. Surely, they will say the church was Armenian. 90 per cent of source is Armenian. This article needs neutral sources and good faith edits, not POV information. Dighapet ( talk) 15:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all I would like to thank you all for having patience while we looked through the issue. This is a long post and I ask all editors to read it a couple of times through before replying.
Unfortunately it is my belief that none of the actors involved in these discussion are actually interested in mediation and are more focused on pushing their partisan interests instead of discussing the improvement to an article about a monastery. That shames us all, as this article has a lot of history and it's that we should be discussing and trying to improve the article, not everyone's personal agenda. It is also a poor reflection that there are ArbCom rulings in place with enforcements being applied and very little with respect to RFCs to help guide editors who wish to become involved.
Over the last few days, I've tried to read as much as I can on the the admins noticeboards, RFCs, ArbComs and discussion I've had with other editors on and off wikipedia to gain a better perspective on these articles. I would like to give you my thoughts on this article and maybe moving these disputes away from here and to a more appropriate forum such as RFC.
There are two main contentions in this article 1) location 2) affiliation
I think the discussions of de-jure and de-facto are pertinent discussions when we are addressing geopolitical issues, but for purely geographic issues, it is my belief that Wikipedia has to respect international law and that which is recognised by the international community. I think this follows the guides laid down in the Macedonia and Ireland naming conventions and is prevalent in how Wikipedia refers to what is commonly known as Taiwan as the Republic of China. It is my belief that the monastery should be noted as being in Azerbaijan, as it would be remiss of an encyclopaedia to refer to a location that wasn't recognised; BUT I also think to help remove the discussions from here and after a discussion I had with Sandstein I don't think it's against Wikipedia's policy to mention that it is also located in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This exists and I found a number of high quality sources such as the BBC that can be added to show that status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic within Azerbaijan. My wording would be along the lines of
“ | ..... is a 5th-6th century church and former monastery in Azerbaijan in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The monastery is five kilometres from the border of Armenia's province of Syunik. | ” |
The article should not cast judgement on the status of the area, just report that which can be sourced.
The affiliation is a slightly different matter, as this is about sources and the criticisms being laid against each source requires a more expert knowledge than I have and and should be examined by someone who would take a neutral perspective. From my examination of the sources I believe that the monastery is of Armenian origin and can be shown to be of similar construction to other buildings of it age in that area. I think the religious denomination is debatable, but what I do believe is that the affiliation of the church cannot be claimed as being Church of Caucasian Albania. At one time at it's creation or during it's history this may have been true, currently it is not the case. I recommend that it's affiliation is removed from article until such time as non-partisan source can be presented that shows the churches current denomination.
What I have written above is only my beliefs from having looked through what you have presented, I have given reasons why I think this is the case but whether you chose to follow them or not is up to you. I write this as an editor no different to yourselves and not as an admin or in any form of trying to mediate your disputes. I would ask all editors to ask themselves the question are you interested in the article about a monastery that could possibly have a connection with St George or pushing your own agendas? I think those of you who are active in this area should start an RFC to once and for all clear this up, follow the example set down by your fellow Greek and Macedonian editors to try and come to an agreement and a definitive naming convention. I will make no changes to this article without discussing it first, it would be remiss of me not to remind you that other admins will take extremely dim views of edit warring here and will apply sanctions as per arbitration enforcement with far less discussion.
If I can be of any help or to point you in the right direction please don't hesitate to ask.
Regards Khu kri 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We have a duty to tell the reader that while Nagorno-Karabakh is nominally a part of Azerbaijan, it is also a de facto independent republic. To not do so would be a willful omission of information, and one which you have already carried out on the Kosalar, Lachin article as you neglect to mention that the village's de facto name is Tsitsernavank. This is not the first time we are having this conversation on Wikipedia and your attitude is akin to leaving the other editors with only two options: "it's my way, take it or leave it." When you do not make compromises, choose to revert continuously other editors on sight because you think they are in the "wrong" even after you are warned not to do so, do not substantiate your claims with clear, reliable sources, denigrate the other side by calling out their ethnicity as an impediment to their neutrality, then you will see why your arguments are not treated seriously. That is against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia and I'm surprised why you have refused to change that sort of disruptive behavior. You have yet to give any substantial reasons as to why authors like Robert Hewsen, a peer-reviewed Western scholar, and a professor from Cal State University, Fresno are unreliable, other than the fact that both their authors are Armenian, which is unacceptable.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at sources which say the region the monastry was founded was in Caucasian Albania. Historian Igor Kuznetsov, expert in Udins wrote (
http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/udiny.html):
1. Утик вошел в состав Армении при Арташесе I (189 — 160 гг. до н. э.). Агванк оставался независимым. После раздела Армении между Ри мом и Ираном (387 г. н. э.) Утик (а также Арцах и часть Пайтакарана) был присоединен к Агван-ку, из которых образовалось особое персидское марзпанство (наместничество). С этих пор утвер дилось расширенное понимание Албании, (парф., араб. Арран, груз. Эр-Ран), включающей боль шую часть части территории современной респуб лики Азербайджан. До 510 г. н. э. в Албании сохранились царская власть (местная ветвь парфян ской династии — Аршакидов, которые правили и в Армении: Вачаган I, Ваче, Урнайр, Иавчаган, Мерхаван, Сато, Асай, Есвален, Ваче, Вачаган III), после упразднения которой правили персидские марзпаны (наместники) и албанские князья Мих-раниды, признавшие верховенство Сасанидского Ирана. В VI — VII вв. Утик в значительной сте пени был уже арменизирован. I translated: Utik was included into Armenia during Artashes I (189 - 160 B.C.). Aghuank (Caucasian Albania) was remaining independent. After division of Armenia between Rome and Iran (387 B.C.) Utik (with Artsakh and Paytarakan) were added to Aghuank which created a "marzpanstvo" (vicegerency). Since these times, expansive understanding of Albania was confirmed (Arabs called it Arran, Georgians Er-Ran), which included the major part of the Azerbaijanian Republic. Until 510 B.C. tsar rule was remaining in Albania (local branch of Parthian dynasty of Arshakids which ruled Armenia: Vachagan I, Vache, Urnayr, Iavchagan, Merkhavan, Sato, Asay, Esvalen, Vache, Vachagan III), after which it was abolished and Persian marzpans (viceroys) and Albanian dukes Mihranids which accepted superiority of Sasanid Iran, ruled the region. In the VI - VII century, Utik was significantly Armenized.
2. С VIII в. в связи с конфессиональными, по литическими и культурными изменениями (слия ние с Армянской церковью и т. д.) письменным языком и языком культа удин становится армян ский. I translated: Since VIII century, because of confessional, political and cultural changes (annexation to Armenian church and so on), written and culture language of Udins becomes Armenian.
3. Ко времени Агуэнско-го собора (488 г. или 493 г.), созванного агванс-ким царем Вачаганом III Благочестивым, мест ная церковь имела уже своего архиепископа (ре зиденция г. Партав-Бердаа) и 8 епархий (Партав-ская, Кабалинская, Гардманская, Шакинская, Пайтакаранская, Амарасская и др.). I translated:By the time of Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) diet (488 or 493 A.D.), which was called by Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) tsar Holy Vachagan III, local church already had its own archbishop (residence in Partav-Barda) and 8 eparchy units (Partav, Gabala, Gardman, Shaki, Paytarakan, Amaras and other) So, Amaras Monatery is also Albanian.
4. Когда в 590 г. византийский император Маврикий учредил на своей территории альтер нативный Халкидонитский католикосат для ар мян, Албанская церковь приостановила отноше ния с расколовшейся "отступившей" Армянской церковью. Глава Албанской церкви стал рукополагаться на месте (учреждение католикосата), кро ме того к рукоположению от Албанского като ликоса переходит Сюник, бывший под юрисдик цией Армянской церкви. I translated: When in 590, Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church. Leader of Albanian church became ruling on his spot (establishment of catholicossate), besides in rule of Albanian Catholicossate was transfered Syunik, which used to be under Armenian church. So, you see, when Aghoghlan (Tsitsernavank) monastery was built, it was built when the territories and church were under Caucasian Albania until 705 when Arabs who occupied region abolished Albanian church.
5. Неудачная попытка перейти в халкидонит-ство была предпринята при агванском католико се Нерсесе Бакуре (688 — 704 гг.), после низложе ния которого Албанская церковь потеряла авто кефалию и вошла в состав Армянской (агванс-кий католикос рукополагался армянским). Фор мально агванский католикосат (резиденция в Ган-дзасаре, Нагорный Карабах) просуществовал до середины XIX в., затем был упразднен, а соответ ствующие приходы Армянской церкви переподчинялись непосредственно Эчмиадзинскому като-ликосату (Адербеджанская и Арцахская епархии). I translated: Unsuccesful try to be passed under Chalcedon Council was made under Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) catholicos Nerses Bakur (688-704) and after that Albanian church lost its autocephaly and was attached to Armenian church (Aghuank catholicos confered orders from Armenian). Officially Aghuank Catholicothassate (residence in Gandzasar, Nagorno-Karabakh) existed until middle of XIX century, and was then abolished, and correposponding laity of Armenian church was re-subdued directly to Echmiadzin Catholicossate.
So, main points are: - the church was built during the time when Karabakh was in Caucasian Albania, I already gave you maps. - the church was built by Albanians because it was under Albanian church whic also supervised Syunik from 590 until 705. Dighapet ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading this exchange and decided to give my opinion. Armenian Church is not an ethnicity, there were at times Assyrians and even Georgians from the Armenian Church which is recognized as an independent Church! Having said that, the quote provided above: "Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church." This somehow was true, which was after 590 to 705, but this monastery was already build then, and what is discribed did last about a century. So the Church was build as an "Armenian Church" and at worst case, could have lost affiliation with the Armenian Church to become a Chalcedon Church not Albanian for a hundred year, this was abolished when the Arabs invaded the area at which time they were reunited (worst case) again. So at not time, was there any independent Albanian Church, which was not recognized as part of the Armenian Church, particularly not in the region where Tsitsernavank Monastery was built and none of the maps provided clearly document that, as they are only geographical, and say nothing about this monastery. Unless you can provide any evidence directly claimin the monastery to be Albanian, there is no point in debating about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [12]). However this is just FYI and I hope you all can work it out. -- rgpk ( comment) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I was asked (I've been absent from the site for a few weeks), I would like to point out that this article is a part of a series of articles that have been tied up several times in Arbitration. I highly suggest checking those decisions and, if necessary, asking for enforcement. -- Bobak ( talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC) |
Three editors have repeatedly restored fake content into the article: [13], [14], [15], and deceptively cited for that content two sources that do not even contain that content. "Armenian Apostolic" is not an architectural term, no monographs on Tsitsernavank Monastery uses that phrase to describe the architecture of the church or its builders (including the three that are cited in the lead to support its insertion in this article). Neither do any of the propaganda Azeri sources, including the two that are being cited to also support the usage of the phrase "Armenian Apostolic". The Azeri sources deny that the church was constructed by Armenians, period. They do not mention anything about it being or not being "Armenian Apostolic" (whatever that means) and their denial obviously does not refer to the MODERN-ERA religious affiliation of users of the church (the term "Armenia Apostolic" was not in existence at the time of this church's construction in the early-Christian era). Since we have 3 editors who can't even be bothered to look at sources, I am fact tagging the term "Apostolic". Unless sources are produced that use that specific term, I will delete it as unsourced. Restoring unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I will revisit in a month and see if sources have been found. 92.1.144.176 ( talk) 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@ 92.1.144.176: I recommend you read WP:OWN, but I’ll reference one important clause from it right here: “No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say”. Also, the Armenian Apolistic Church is the National Church of Armenia, and so every Christian church in Armenia or Armenian parts of countries can be assumed to be a member of that church. InvadingInvader ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right Khukri! This is a really significant topic and surely must be represented at Wiki. And Im agree to check its content and expand it! Andranikpasha ( talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No Atabek it is under control of Karabakh forces! Current Kashatagh is not an Armenian district, but that of NK. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) And pls dop not remove the sourced word of native! Its important to represent the history how it was, without falsifications. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Its out of our topic the history of NKAO, the history of Armenian Artsakh, we just marked that this land is officially recognized as a part of Azerbaijan and that de facto an Armenian (also Armenian populated) district exists there right now! F.e. if anyone wants to see this church, the only way to receive visa of NK officials, not that of Azerbaijan. We have a discussed refirect for Kashatagh, so whats the problem. And lets to not make propagand here: native Armenian is surely related to the style of building (as about the land its discussed between Armenia and Azerbaijan and also out of this topic). Lets assume good faith, anyways its an article on culture not politics. Andranikpasha ( talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I only have this article watchlisted as I saved it from deletion though I'm not an expert on the subject. But please may I remind all editors that wikipedia requires verification of information and that while sometimes contentious from a local point view the article must represent names, countries etc recognised by the international community. Also as has been already written, it's a building and to be honest a very interesting one reading the history here, together make the article a good one please. Khu kri 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Im sure on neutrality of Khukri so I had to agree with what he wrote. Grandmaster represented his view. Now Im representing mine. Lets leave to Khukri as a neutral person to decide how to write the part related to district: it can be a consensus.
As I said I'm not an expert on the subject though if you wish my input I will read up on the matter over the next couple of days. But first of all using phrases like ethnically cleansed is a sure fire way of not calming a discussion, no matter what the truth of the matter is. Also I find it unusual that Kashatagh is redirected straight to Lachin (rayon). I will read up on the issue and see if I can see some middle ground. Cheers Khu kri 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, lets to not comment each others views with the words like occupation and ethnic cleansing but just leave our opinions as Khukri says he will try to find a consensus! I also think this is the best way for all of us. Andranikpasha ( talk) 14:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an international mediator and never will be but I've had a look at the article from the perspective of the building itself, and trying to create a base for a decent article. Having originally looked through the material I was originally inclined to remove the NK reference completely, as it is not internationally recognised..... but I then stumbled upon this comment "In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people." which I think summed up the situation. So I've left the NK references in the article though tried to re-word it so as to appear neutral from both sides, it references the NK page but doesn't cast judgment on it using words like control, etc.
Now in my honest opinion, I believe that's it location within a politically controversial location should remain at one line, and that alot more information should be added to this article. There are plenty of articles that describe to locations situation and this one doesn't need to be another. So I set a challenge to all those who have discussed this article to turn this article into at least a good article or get a did you know? out of it. Who made it, why, what were their motivations, how has the building fared during wars, and the changing face of Europe, Asia and the Causasus, what prompted the restoration, what else is notable about the building, why was it built so early, how has it lasted all these years? It's a pretty unique building in my opinion and I'd like those who know about the area to add to this article. I have this article watchlisted so I can help all you wish. Cheers Khu kri 08:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, who to not read Italian sources of article at first? Andranikpasha ( talk) 12:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Focus on the article not the editor please. OK lets turn these points around, instead of saying what we can't do, lets find out what can be done. Lets not be negative, please try and be positive and find information that can be put in. It's easier to find reasons why not to do something than to do it, hence the reason it's called hard work ;) Khu kri 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it an OR? Anyways thanks for the interesting research:) Andranikpasha ( talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, please stop refering to admin state or intervention as your rationale for reverting in edit summaries. My role as an adminstrator is irrelevant in regards to this article all I did was removed a CSD tag, the rest is as a normal editor. Regards. Khu kri 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Parishan, Ağoğlan qəsri, yields 2 actual results on google, one from an Azeri wikipedia contributor, and the other from an unofficial Azeri site.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding right? See the first source (the only one thats in English) you provided, the river Agoglan. It say also Monastery on river Agoglan. It also conveniently places it as Albanian, like every other Armenian monument. Interesting and credible site indeed. We have here the Agoglan tower [7], Agoglan temple [8], Agoglan castle [9] but most hits refer to the river Agoglan. There is no official Azerbaijani name for the place. VartanM ( talk) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lachin corridor connects occupied NK with Armenia, it was fought by Armenian forces in order to have this corridor to Armenia. If there really was "so called de-facto independent Karabakh" there would be no necessity to open a corridor to Armenia, would it? So VartanM, Andranikpasha, and other folks, please, adjust your POV and use the wording reflected in the relevant UN, PACE, and other documents. Atabek ( talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a POV too! The difference is that Im not putting that POV to the article, like Atabek done. And pls, do not change consensused variant with your preffered one as CIA is not the only source. Pls be civil and discuss it! Andranikpasha ( talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Tzitzernavank Monastery - "vank" means monastery, so really there is no need to use the word monastery in the article's title. Nobody, including English speakers, would call it "Tzitzernavank Monastery" they would call it "Tzitzernavank". In addition, the use of the word "monastery" in such a position suggests that the church was built as a monastic church (which is not certain) or that it is still used as a monastery (which it is not). Meowy 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I brought some clarification to situation of Lachin region, where it's located, controlled and renamed by who. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule saying we have to abide by Thomas de Waal's label of Samvel Karapetyan being a nationalist. He is an expert on the architecture of the region and what some journalist's opinion of him (or yours, for that matter) is does not in any way negate the facts of the information on the church. Can you please direct us to which Wikipedia rule that specifies that only third-party sources must be used?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For such controversial issues we should use neutral sources.-- Dacy69 ( talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, okay, so can you please pinpoint exactly where in Karapetyan's book do we find inconsistencies and factual mistakes? His views on the Karabakh conflict and Azeris notwithstanding, where exactly do see the problems in what he claims? I doubt you can create an argument on the basis of simply claiming that because "A" holds this view, any and all conclusions he makes about "B" thus renders him unfit and unreliable as a source.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Historians, and all individuals in that case, naturally come with biases, some simply are far more subtle than others. You cannot dismiss an entire source simply on the grounds of their positions. You're going to have to start bringing out some concrete examples of unreliability. I'm curious, when you review a book, do you simply judge the book's usefulness and effectiveness solely on the positions of the author?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Current knowledge": Nagorno-Karabakh still is a part of Azerbaijan and near 1 million Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds are refugee from there. "Current situation": Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. see ref -- 144.122.135.88 ( talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
References
That monastery is located in AZERBAIJAN! Stop propaganda in WIKIPEDIA! -- 144.122.250.211 ( talk) 12:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear all, I have been asked to comment on this article most probably due to my involvement when it was almost deleted a few years ago. Please do not revert anymore changes until they have been discussed here, before anyone comments that it is the incorrect version, I would like you to read this about m:The Wrong Version. I have not currently protected the article and would like to suggest all editors from this point stop reverting backwards and forwards and tone down the rhetoric, there's too much talk of vandalism and abuse in edit summaries. I have seen little effort on these talk pages of dispute resolution just assertion of facts with few supporting sources, and then reciprocal assertions without basis.
We will sort this article using the tools at our disposal, i.e. discussion, reliable sources, verifibility and not original research or heresay. I fully appreciate the national interests in articles like this and though I'm not an expert in the subject I am neutral and to overcome my lack of expertise I would all parties when they reply to include the sources for their comments.
A few key points as I understand it please give references when disputing any statement, I've kept them simple to allow for yes or noes.
1) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not internationally recognised
2) The Nagorno-Karabakh region is currently within the borders of Azerbaijan
3) The Church of Caucasian Albania no longer exists
4) Historically this church was in Armenia, and it's construction has been compared to other Armenian churches and monastries of that time
Are any of the statements incorrect?
Cheers Khu kri 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The status of Nagorno-Karabakh is perhaps a moot point because we already have a couple hundred or so articles which state the political status of the region. We should mention that Nagorno-Karabakh is currently a de facto independent republic which, to date, is not internationally recognized but almost mention that it is within Azerbaijan's de jure borders. The line regarding Caucasian Albania, however, is not so open to interpretation. Amaras was a monastery under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Apostolic Church and there's no evidence to indicate that the Caucasian Albanian Church had any control over it.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that is just a canard which is popular only in Azerbaijan, and enjoys no scholarly support outside of that republic. Tsitsernavank is just one of several dozen Armenian churches in and near Karabakh which Azerbaijani scholars have rechristened as "Caucasian Albanian", going so far as to falsify and distort primary sources to prove that these churches have no connection to Armenia nor Armenians. Caucasian Albania had lost all its ethnic and political connotations by the ninth century and while a Caucasian Albanian diocese existed up until the early nineteenth century, its members considered themselves as Armenians and nothing else.
Further, this is not a simple content dispute we are discussing but an attempt at distorting history and I have already lost count on how much talk pages I have repeated this argument on other related articles. Verman himself is unable to produce a single reliable source to support his claims and instead has resorted to edit warring on a massive scale to revert changes he disagrees with. The unreliability of sources published in or distributed by Azerbaijan, as well as online websites, has been mentioned elsewhere but it is worth repeating here. One of the most prominent historians on the matter, Robert Hewsen, has cautioned:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291
I don't see this as a good-faith discussion and it's rather disconcerting to see that the one version which numerous editors have worked on, with complete references, reliable sourcing and neutral wording, has been replaced now with one which is packed with out-and-out lies and glaring omissions. I know that this is a standard practice among administrators who want to help mediate a matter, who often revert the article to the "wrong version", but some better discretion would have been desirable here. Leaving aside the de facto-de juro debate, which itself has been handled smoothly elsewhere, I really don't see much point in this discussion, when not a reasonable argument has not been brought up to warrant mediation. Regards, -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the support. The reason I asked was I wanted to differentiate between my first two points of the republic v the region. But I'll wait till a few others have responded and then we can start to make some head way with creating a lede that is correct with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and will hopefully be acceptable to everyone. As I hope we'll all agree trying to resolve the regions issues with respect to wikipedia in an article about a monastery is maybe not the correct place, so hopefully neutrality will move the debate to a more appropriate forum. Though hopefully once this is resolved I can point you all in the right direction for maybe starting an RFC that can be used a reference and naming convention for all these disputes. Let's face it Macedonia, Ireland and I believe Taiwan Republic of China have all gone to ArbCom to achieve some form of definitive position for Wikipedia. Cheers
Khu
kri
14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Surely, Kevorkmail will post some maps affirming Armenian position. How about these maps:
There are much maps which can be posted here. All the maps I posted show that Caucasian Albania stretched much more to the west than Armenians claim, i.e. to the west of Kura River, and surely Agoglan Monastery (Tsitsernavank Monastery) located in Lachin is an Albanian monastery. This monastery together with other Albanian monasteries in Karabakh and Azerbaijan were given to Armenian diocese in 1836 (Read Church of Caucasian Albania for more details). Before that, Karabakh was part of Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Mongol dynasties of Ilkhanate, Jalayirids, Azerbaijani Turk states Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu, Safavid Empire, Karabakh Khanate and Elisabethpol Governorate (Russian Empire) and independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. So, this monastery was built during the time when Caucasian Albania existed and then for centuries it was under Persian and Azerbaijani Turk rule, some brief time under Armenian rule. But this article is full of the sources which are written by Armenian writers. Surely, they will say the church was Armenian. 90 per cent of source is Armenian. This article needs neutral sources and good faith edits, not POV information. Dighapet ( talk) 15:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all I would like to thank you all for having patience while we looked through the issue. This is a long post and I ask all editors to read it a couple of times through before replying.
Unfortunately it is my belief that none of the actors involved in these discussion are actually interested in mediation and are more focused on pushing their partisan interests instead of discussing the improvement to an article about a monastery. That shames us all, as this article has a lot of history and it's that we should be discussing and trying to improve the article, not everyone's personal agenda. It is also a poor reflection that there are ArbCom rulings in place with enforcements being applied and very little with respect to RFCs to help guide editors who wish to become involved.
Over the last few days, I've tried to read as much as I can on the the admins noticeboards, RFCs, ArbComs and discussion I've had with other editors on and off wikipedia to gain a better perspective on these articles. I would like to give you my thoughts on this article and maybe moving these disputes away from here and to a more appropriate forum such as RFC.
There are two main contentions in this article 1) location 2) affiliation
I think the discussions of de-jure and de-facto are pertinent discussions when we are addressing geopolitical issues, but for purely geographic issues, it is my belief that Wikipedia has to respect international law and that which is recognised by the international community. I think this follows the guides laid down in the Macedonia and Ireland naming conventions and is prevalent in how Wikipedia refers to what is commonly known as Taiwan as the Republic of China. It is my belief that the monastery should be noted as being in Azerbaijan, as it would be remiss of an encyclopaedia to refer to a location that wasn't recognised; BUT I also think to help remove the discussions from here and after a discussion I had with Sandstein I don't think it's against Wikipedia's policy to mention that it is also located in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This exists and I found a number of high quality sources such as the BBC that can be added to show that status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic within Azerbaijan. My wording would be along the lines of
“ | ..... is a 5th-6th century church and former monastery in Azerbaijan in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The monastery is five kilometres from the border of Armenia's province of Syunik. | ” |
The article should not cast judgement on the status of the area, just report that which can be sourced.
The affiliation is a slightly different matter, as this is about sources and the criticisms being laid against each source requires a more expert knowledge than I have and and should be examined by someone who would take a neutral perspective. From my examination of the sources I believe that the monastery is of Armenian origin and can be shown to be of similar construction to other buildings of it age in that area. I think the religious denomination is debatable, but what I do believe is that the affiliation of the church cannot be claimed as being Church of Caucasian Albania. At one time at it's creation or during it's history this may have been true, currently it is not the case. I recommend that it's affiliation is removed from article until such time as non-partisan source can be presented that shows the churches current denomination.
What I have written above is only my beliefs from having looked through what you have presented, I have given reasons why I think this is the case but whether you chose to follow them or not is up to you. I write this as an editor no different to yourselves and not as an admin or in any form of trying to mediate your disputes. I would ask all editors to ask themselves the question are you interested in the article about a monastery that could possibly have a connection with St George or pushing your own agendas? I think those of you who are active in this area should start an RFC to once and for all clear this up, follow the example set down by your fellow Greek and Macedonian editors to try and come to an agreement and a definitive naming convention. I will make no changes to this article without discussing it first, it would be remiss of me not to remind you that other admins will take extremely dim views of edit warring here and will apply sanctions as per arbitration enforcement with far less discussion.
If I can be of any help or to point you in the right direction please don't hesitate to ask.
Regards Khu kri 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We have a duty to tell the reader that while Nagorno-Karabakh is nominally a part of Azerbaijan, it is also a de facto independent republic. To not do so would be a willful omission of information, and one which you have already carried out on the Kosalar, Lachin article as you neglect to mention that the village's de facto name is Tsitsernavank. This is not the first time we are having this conversation on Wikipedia and your attitude is akin to leaving the other editors with only two options: "it's my way, take it or leave it." When you do not make compromises, choose to revert continuously other editors on sight because you think they are in the "wrong" even after you are warned not to do so, do not substantiate your claims with clear, reliable sources, denigrate the other side by calling out their ethnicity as an impediment to their neutrality, then you will see why your arguments are not treated seriously. That is against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia and I'm surprised why you have refused to change that sort of disruptive behavior. You have yet to give any substantial reasons as to why authors like Robert Hewsen, a peer-reviewed Western scholar, and a professor from Cal State University, Fresno are unreliable, other than the fact that both their authors are Armenian, which is unacceptable.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at sources which say the region the monastry was founded was in Caucasian Albania. Historian Igor Kuznetsov, expert in Udins wrote (
http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/udiny.html):
1. Утик вошел в состав Армении при Арташесе I (189 — 160 гг. до н. э.). Агванк оставался независимым. После раздела Армении между Ри мом и Ираном (387 г. н. э.) Утик (а также Арцах и часть Пайтакарана) был присоединен к Агван-ку, из которых образовалось особое персидское марзпанство (наместничество). С этих пор утвер дилось расширенное понимание Албании, (парф., араб. Арран, груз. Эр-Ран), включающей боль шую часть части территории современной респуб лики Азербайджан. До 510 г. н. э. в Албании сохранились царская власть (местная ветвь парфян ской династии — Аршакидов, которые правили и в Армении: Вачаган I, Ваче, Урнайр, Иавчаган, Мерхаван, Сато, Асай, Есвален, Ваче, Вачаган III), после упразднения которой правили персидские марзпаны (наместники) и албанские князья Мих-раниды, признавшие верховенство Сасанидского Ирана. В VI — VII вв. Утик в значительной сте пени был уже арменизирован. I translated: Utik was included into Armenia during Artashes I (189 - 160 B.C.). Aghuank (Caucasian Albania) was remaining independent. After division of Armenia between Rome and Iran (387 B.C.) Utik (with Artsakh and Paytarakan) were added to Aghuank which created a "marzpanstvo" (vicegerency). Since these times, expansive understanding of Albania was confirmed (Arabs called it Arran, Georgians Er-Ran), which included the major part of the Azerbaijanian Republic. Until 510 B.C. tsar rule was remaining in Albania (local branch of Parthian dynasty of Arshakids which ruled Armenia: Vachagan I, Vache, Urnayr, Iavchagan, Merkhavan, Sato, Asay, Esvalen, Vache, Vachagan III), after which it was abolished and Persian marzpans (viceroys) and Albanian dukes Mihranids which accepted superiority of Sasanid Iran, ruled the region. In the VI - VII century, Utik was significantly Armenized.
2. С VIII в. в связи с конфессиональными, по литическими и культурными изменениями (слия ние с Армянской церковью и т. д.) письменным языком и языком культа удин становится армян ский. I translated: Since VIII century, because of confessional, political and cultural changes (annexation to Armenian church and so on), written and culture language of Udins becomes Armenian.
3. Ко времени Агуэнско-го собора (488 г. или 493 г.), созванного агванс-ким царем Вачаганом III Благочестивым, мест ная церковь имела уже своего архиепископа (ре зиденция г. Партав-Бердаа) и 8 епархий (Партав-ская, Кабалинская, Гардманская, Шакинская, Пайтакаранская, Амарасская и др.). I translated:By the time of Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) diet (488 or 493 A.D.), which was called by Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) tsar Holy Vachagan III, local church already had its own archbishop (residence in Partav-Barda) and 8 eparchy units (Partav, Gabala, Gardman, Shaki, Paytarakan, Amaras and other) So, Amaras Monatery is also Albanian.
4. Когда в 590 г. византийский император Маврикий учредил на своей территории альтер нативный Халкидонитский католикосат для ар мян, Албанская церковь приостановила отноше ния с расколовшейся "отступившей" Армянской церковью. Глава Албанской церкви стал рукополагаться на месте (учреждение католикосата), кро ме того к рукоположению от Албанского като ликоса переходит Сюник, бывший под юрисдик цией Армянской церкви. I translated: When in 590, Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church. Leader of Albanian church became ruling on his spot (establishment of catholicossate), besides in rule of Albanian Catholicossate was transfered Syunik, which used to be under Armenian church. So, you see, when Aghoghlan (Tsitsernavank) monastery was built, it was built when the territories and church were under Caucasian Albania until 705 when Arabs who occupied region abolished Albanian church.
5. Неудачная попытка перейти в халкидонит-ство была предпринята при агванском католико се Нерсесе Бакуре (688 — 704 гг.), после низложе ния которого Албанская церковь потеряла авто кефалию и вошла в состав Армянской (агванс-кий католикос рукополагался армянским). Фор мально агванский католикосат (резиденция в Ган-дзасаре, Нагорный Карабах) просуществовал до середины XIX в., затем был упразднен, а соответ ствующие приходы Армянской церкви переподчинялись непосредственно Эчмиадзинскому като-ликосату (Адербеджанская и Арцахская епархии). I translated: Unsuccesful try to be passed under Chalcedon Council was made under Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) catholicos Nerses Bakur (688-704) and after that Albanian church lost its autocephaly and was attached to Armenian church (Aghuank catholicos confered orders from Armenian). Officially Aghuank Catholicothassate (residence in Gandzasar, Nagorno-Karabakh) existed until middle of XIX century, and was then abolished, and correposponding laity of Armenian church was re-subdued directly to Echmiadzin Catholicossate.
So, main points are: - the church was built during the time when Karabakh was in Caucasian Albania, I already gave you maps. - the church was built by Albanians because it was under Albanian church whic also supervised Syunik from 590 until 705. Dighapet ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading this exchange and decided to give my opinion. Armenian Church is not an ethnicity, there were at times Assyrians and even Georgians from the Armenian Church which is recognized as an independent Church! Having said that, the quote provided above: "Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church." This somehow was true, which was after 590 to 705, but this monastery was already build then, and what is discribed did last about a century. So the Church was build as an "Armenian Church" and at worst case, could have lost affiliation with the Armenian Church to become a Chalcedon Church not Albanian for a hundred year, this was abolished when the Arabs invaded the area at which time they were reunited (worst case) again. So at not time, was there any independent Albanian Church, which was not recognized as part of the Armenian Church, particularly not in the region where Tsitsernavank Monastery was built and none of the maps provided clearly document that, as they are only geographical, and say nothing about this monastery. Unless you can provide any evidence directly claimin the monastery to be Albanian, there is no point in debating about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [12]). However this is just FYI and I hope you all can work it out. -- rgpk ( comment) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I was asked (I've been absent from the site for a few weeks), I would like to point out that this article is a part of a series of articles that have been tied up several times in Arbitration. I highly suggest checking those decisions and, if necessary, asking for enforcement. -- Bobak ( talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC) |
Three editors have repeatedly restored fake content into the article: [13], [14], [15], and deceptively cited for that content two sources that do not even contain that content. "Armenian Apostolic" is not an architectural term, no monographs on Tsitsernavank Monastery uses that phrase to describe the architecture of the church or its builders (including the three that are cited in the lead to support its insertion in this article). Neither do any of the propaganda Azeri sources, including the two that are being cited to also support the usage of the phrase "Armenian Apostolic". The Azeri sources deny that the church was constructed by Armenians, period. They do not mention anything about it being or not being "Armenian Apostolic" (whatever that means) and their denial obviously does not refer to the MODERN-ERA religious affiliation of users of the church (the term "Armenia Apostolic" was not in existence at the time of this church's construction in the early-Christian era). Since we have 3 editors who can't even be bothered to look at sources, I am fact tagging the term "Apostolic". Unless sources are produced that use that specific term, I will delete it as unsourced. Restoring unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I will revisit in a month and see if sources have been found. 92.1.144.176 ( talk) 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@ 92.1.144.176: I recommend you read WP:OWN, but I’ll reference one important clause from it right here: “No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say”. Also, the Armenian Apolistic Church is the National Church of Armenia, and so every Christian church in Armenia or Armenian parts of countries can be assumed to be a member of that church. InvadingInvader ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)