Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery

Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad. Grandmaster (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the CSD tag from this page. As I understand it G5 is a tool to allow articles created by banned users to be deleted, not that all articles created by banned users have to be deleted. Looking through the web this does seem to be a notable historic building and could be certainly expanded. If other editors are not convinced I suggest the best re-course would be to go via AFD to gain greater concensus. ^Khukri 08:55, 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)

Andranik, the Lachin region is under occupation of Armenian forces not under control of the unrecognized "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", if you have doubts about the wording, please, refer to the UN SC resolutions on the topic. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:25, 7 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)

Andranik, "Karabakh forces" is your interpretation of Armenian forces, hence not neutral. "NK" is not a recognized entity, and in fact Lachin was never part of NKAO, it's an occupied district of Azerbaijan. Hence using the name "Kashatagh" for a region that whole world calls Lachin is completely unencylopedic. Armenian history is not "native" to Lachin district, since the population of it was always predominantly non-Armenian prior to occupation. Atabek (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot find "Kashatagh" on any map published by a reputable source. Presenting it as something legitimate is not appropriate. Grandmaster (talk) 08:49, 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. ^Khukri 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Khukri, as you correctly noted, the article must represent names and countries recognized by the international community. Lachin is internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan republic, occupied and ethnically cleansed by the Armenian forces. We have an article about Lachin district of Azerbaijan. Presenting the name ("Kashatag") invented by illegal and unrecognized separatist authorities as a legitimate one compromises factual accuracy of this article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:43, 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.

• Lachin is recognized as de jure part of Azerbaijan (thats what we mark first in the article), it never means the international community supports the Azerbaijani side. Historically it was a part of Armenian kingdom, Armenians was suppressed there its why the conflict between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan happened, and untill now Armenians live there (it is one of the centers of Armenian Christian culture, see the cited site) and the name of Kashatagh has not only de facto (since 1992-94) usage, but this region is a matter of official discussions between Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities for a peaceful decision over Nagorno-Karabakh. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurate. The region was not a part of Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy, and is not subject to any discussion. The Armenian population of the region before the occupation was equal to zero, and the actual population (ethnically Azerbaijani and Kurdish) was forced to flee. The region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and this is unlikely to change. Grandmaster (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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 ^Khukri 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the entire population of the region is forced to flee, what else can it be called, considering that this is what many international organizations call it? I would appreciate your further involvement in this issue, thanks in advance. Grandmaster (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue actually is not such a huge problem, it can be resolved by choosing more appropriate wording. Any suggestions are welcome. Grandmaster (talk) 13:46, 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)

Thoughts

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 ^Khukri 08:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no independent sources to support the existence of this monument. And such buildings are often used to justify the claims to the land, therefore sources representing both sides are not mush reliable. So it is a hard task to actually improve the article due to the lack of reliable sources. Grandmaster (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the monument itself exists so doesn't need supporting documentation ;). You say is often used to justify do you know that for sure with this case. Even if documentation has been published by Ming the Merciless's propaganda press, it's still a source, and the actual history of the building is unlikely to be contentious, just possibly the use of the building or it's position. I know editors from these regions are often at odds, looking at your editing you most probably know more editors from this region than I do. We can reference books, etc so if anyone can find documentation on this building locally, then that can be referenced and added to the article. ^Khukri 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that you cannot rely on accuracy of archaeological info, the age of the building etc, if it is not confirmed by an independent source. I have no doubt that there's some sort of a building there, but is it actually as old as it is claimed to be or it is a recent construction? Grandmaster (talk) 11:01, 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 ;) ^Khukri 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. We need as many reliable (preferably third party) sources as possible. I'll try searching for some. Grandmaster (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Can I use an armenian source at least for the traditional story of building as it is an Armenian holy site (Grandmaster, it surely exists, I was there with a group of tourists...)? I dont know if we can find foreign sources on St Gregory Illuminator's activities in Kashatagh (I prefer to see this name at article anyhow) and other provinces of Armenian kingdom. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea that was the first link I found when I started to look for this, and along with your Italian link I think enough information can be extracted to give a good base. As for the use of Kashatagh, as I said above the Wikipedia article re-directs to Lachin, I think we have the location pretty well covered in one line so I'm not sure if we wish to keep including contested names into the article. There is already one article in Russian referenced, and the fact that both of you have similar language bases inc Russian means we aren't restricted to just using English, and I trust the two of you to extract the pertinent information from non English/French sites. Cheers ^Khukri 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Khukri, I added some! Feel free to edit if anything is uncorrect. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed inaccurate claim that Lachin is part of NK. It is located outside of the borders of former NKAO and is not part of the territory claimed by Armenia. Please see the map of NK, Lachin is located outside of its borders. [1] Lachin is just a district in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Grandmaster, you're not right! Lachin is a part of NK region, and a part of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It just wasnt a part of NKAO with borders by Stalin. Pls do not reword admin's mediation! Andranikpasha (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Location: 10 km from the village of Khonotsakh, near Lachin, Karabagh"[2]. We even dont mark that the Lachin is under Armenian control, otherwise if it was just in Azerbaijan, surely it will be closed as no any Armenian church is allowed to be opened in the country. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

NK is a region with fixed borders, while Karabakh in general is a large region. Instead of edit warring, please check the map of NKAO first. Grandmaster (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Has NK region fixed borders? Any sources? I dont need to check any historical map included that of NKAO as another historical one of Armenian Kingdom says all the modern Karabakh was included in the Homeland of Armenians, so what? We have two modern terms - NKR (recognized or unrecognized, its a factually republic) and NK as a region. NKAO is out of our topic. It was a Soviet autonomy formed by Stalin's direction and doesnt exist since 1991. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does:

"Нагорный Карабах - историческая область в Закавказье. Площадь 4,4 тыс. кв. км.". Новый энциклопедический словарь. Издательство: "Большая Российская энциклопедия", Москва, 2004. ISBN 5-85270-194-7.

As you see, its territory is equal in its size to the territory of NKAO, which means it does not include Lachin. Parishan (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it an OR? Anyways thanks for the interesting research:)Andranikpasha (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Is it an OR"? I just showed you a documented source with an ISBN number. Parishan (talk) 23:05, 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. ^Khukri 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)

Ağoğlan is the name of the area not the name of the monastery. VartanM (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no area in Azerbaijan called Ağoğlan. Please avoid OR. Here are some Azerbaijani sources referring to this complex/monastery as Ağoğlan: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Parishan (talk) 01:08, 30 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)

Content does not matter in this case. We are discussing the use of the term. The fact is, the term is encountered and used by Azeris to designate this particular monastery, and it is not like the phrase 'Agoglan monastery' is not used anywhere. The fact that it is also a name of a river does not prove a thing. There are rivers in Azerbaijan, called Ganja, Lankaran, Nakhchivan, Shamkir, Astara, etc. but it does not mean cities with the same names do not have official Azeri names. Parishan (talk) 07:00, 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)

Atabek and other folks! Before doing radicalist POV edits its better to source a little existed material and to not change what we have with your own opinions on liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh and self-determination of its peaceful inhabitants terrorized by different forces since 1918. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And how your opinion about "liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh" is not POV? Grandmaster (talk) 09:05, 18 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)

Name change?

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)

Non existing project tag removed [10]. Replaced with Azerbaijan tag, as the monastery complex is located on internationally recognized and occupied part of Azerbaijan outside of even Nagorno-Karabakh. Atabek (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "top importance" tag just added by Atabek. There is no legitimate reason to think an article about a medieval Armenian church is of an importance equal, for example, to the Nagorno Karabagh war. Meowy 16:07, 10 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)

I put back the name "Kashatagh" - it is important to give the current de-facto name of the district as well as the de-jure one. Meowy 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was there, so I don't understand who you could put it back. I fixed obvious POV, since de-jure non-existent "NKR" has no authority to rename the territory of a de-facto state. Also, I removed the unsourced claim that "Kashatag" was medieval name of Lachin per WP:V. Grandmaster (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "fix POV", you reverted the whole edit, which included reverting to wording which had content which was clearly wrong (wording that implied that it was still being used as a monastery, for example). The name "Kashatag" wasn't invented out of thin air, it was the original name of the district, and was used from the 13th century onwards. Before that the name used was "Aghahejk" - but the older name was used to define a larger area than what is now Kashatag/Lachin. I've added a source. Your "no authority" claim is silly, those who live in or have territorial control over a place can call that place by whatever name they want, and in most cases de-facto names for obscure places should be given at least equal weight on Wikipedia. Meowy 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources, not Karapetyan. We have discussed this extreme nationalist before. And yes, "NKR" does not legally exist, therefore it has no authority to rename the territory of legally existing states. Grandmaster (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved to Tzitzernavank. "Vank" already means monastery in Armenian. How is Samvel Karapetian an extreme nationalist again? Hakob (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read his interview to de Waal, it is pretty obvious. Plus, it is not a third party source, as the rules require. Grandmaster (talk) 05:18, 12 May 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)

Sure. I thought you knew that by now. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (Btw, this article so far has not used a single decent third party source).

Or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_specific_source_types:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This one is also of interest: Wikipedia:Independent sources.

Karapetyan is neither reliable, nor third party, and nor third party published. As for him being a chauvinist, it is not just opinion of de Waal, everyone can read his interview to that author and see that Karapetyan expresses racist views about Azerbaijanis and Turks. How such a source could be considered reliable? And you would not be happy if I started using Azerbaijani sources here, they say things quite the opposite to what Armenians say. So please stick to neutral sources that have no conflict of interest on the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not spending time on this childishness. The source is perfectly acceptable, if you had access to the source you would know that its presentation of the name's history (it gives medieval examples which use that place name) removes any question of doubt. And if you knew anything about the region you would know the info about the placename was true and so obviously true that a source was never actually needed for that bit of info. Meowy 20:14, 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)

It is not a neutral source, it has a strong bias in this issue and as such is not reliable. Simple as that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:28, 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)

Have you checked the wiki rules about the sources? I suggest you do. This article needs to be deleted altogether as it cites no third party sources at all. If you really want to improve it, find some. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And there we have it. Grandmster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Wikipedia a medium for the distribution of propaganda. Because this article goes contrary to that propaganda, he responds by saying it needs to be completely deleted. The very first entry on this talk page was one by Grandmaster about his desire to have the whole article deleted. His desire was rejected on that occasion on the grounds that Tzitzernavank is a notable monument. Six months later, the article contains much more interesting, informative, and properly cited material - reinforcing that original decision to keep the article. Meowy 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. Personal attacks like: "Grandmaster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Wikipedia a medium for the distribution of propaganda" are not acceptable, and it is very ironic that you make such claims, when this article in its current form is nothing but pro-Armenian propaganda. It is not "properly sourced", it relies only on Armenian sources, which have an obvious conflict of interest here. If you used proper sources, there would be no problems here. Grandmaster (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. The fact that the region was formerly called Kashatagh (and Aghahejk) and was not known as Lachin since time immemorial is pro-Armenian propaganda? I don't think Meowy was doing any "edit warring," he has been trying to improve the article - a simple glance at the history of his edits on this page would reveal that. Reporting him is only going to make things worse, just like recklessly adding all those contributors to the Arbcom did (what a colossal mistake). Sorry, but there is only so much good faith one can assume. Hakob (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, before this fracas was initiated, Meowy had proposed that the article be moved to Tzitzernavank. Everyone agree? Any disagreements? Hakob (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is to use reliable third party source, as per wiki rules. And I don't mind the article move. Grandmaster (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, assuming good faith has its limits. One should always assume good faith on first contact with someone's edits. However, if over time I feel there is evidence that good faith is lacking in many of an editor's edits and other activities on Wikipedia, then there is no need to continue assuming it exists. The sources used in this article are reliable. I don't think you are dismissing them because they are unreliable, or even because they are mostly Armenian, but because they disagree with aspects of a current propaganda-line emanating from Azerbaijan. Meowy 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search and Tsitsernavank seems to return more results than Tzitzernavank. Most of the sources cited in the article also seem to use this spelling. Hakob (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But Tzitzernavank may be closer to the actual pronounciation. I don't know since I've never actually heard anyone speaking the name! "Tsit" suggests the "t" and the "s" sounds are differentiated, but "Tz" is more like a single sound. Is the name is pronounced like "t-si-t-serna-vank", or more like "zzi-zzerna-vank"? Meowy 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the "z" sound isn't heard in its pronunciation. Western Armenians may begin the word with a "D" and, unintentionally, subsequently pronounce the "z" sound" but a close rendition of the sound could be seen in the Russian letter "Ц" (although the equivalent of this letter in Armenian would in fact be "Ց, ց", like the "ts" in "cats"). Divided into syllables, it would be "Tsi-tser-na-vank."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In English, "ts" at the end of a word is generally pronounced like that "ts" in "cats", but "ts" at the start of a word is not generally pronounced like that: they are mostly seen in foreign words and those words mostly start with a "z" sound like "tsar" - which wouldn't be correct in this case, would it? I don't know which would be best. Neither do the sources! Karapetian uses Tzitzernavank, Hasratyan uses Tsitsernavank, Donabedian uses Cicernavank'. But, since it's your language being rendered into English - you choose! Meowy 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well even the word "tsar" should not have a "z" sound to it (many erroneously use the form "czar") but I guess we should just go with precedent: the Tsitsernakaberd article uses the "Tsi" form so this is the best and most accurate rendition in English possible.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, those are all valid. Romanization of Armenian lists "ts" as well as "c" for Ծ. Hakob (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

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)

Unofficial Country

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)

I'm curious: could you just tell me how to access the site once you're in Azerbaijan? Sardur (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an occupied region by Armenian and Russian troops. --Quzeyli 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quzeyli (talk • contribs)

I prefer the word "inhabited" (on their ancestral homeland). Serouj (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

• 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 . or here
• They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad. or here
• Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced. or here

Please, check references.--144.122.135.88 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

• They are about location of monasteries which have been occupied.

"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)