Jump to content

Talk:Gandzasar monastery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archbishop

[edit]

I am fairly certain the Archbishop resides in Shushi. I would feel more comfortable with the statement to the contrary being removed unless it is referenced. --RaffiKojian 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This monastery hav several properties that classifies it as udi or alban monastery rather than armenian monastery.Reynhold 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the text. Also, Gandzasar is the official Seat of the Archbishop of Artsakh. However, the Archbishopric's main administrative offices are located in Shushi. The Archbishop lives in Shushi. Capasitor (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent and star

[edit]

Tagging Islamic symbols on Christian churches is insulting to Christian religion. I would welcome the Azeri-stub if the image changes. Note that I'm leaving the wp:AZ tag in the talkpage as it is not highly visible. VartanM (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Built by an Armenian prince of Artsakh, Jalal I, and covered with ca. 200 Old-Armenian inscriptions. No need to remove that it was and is an Armenian monastery. --Vacio (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Monastery

[edit]

"Eight years after the beginning of Armenian migration, in 1836, the czarist government dissolved the Albanian Church district and brought it under the complete control of the Armenian national church." ref here --144.122.135.88 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Arab domination ended, the Caucasian Albanian Church became a diocese of the Armenian Church and the name Aghvan survived only in the name of this diocese associated with the church and monastery complex at Gandzasar, which was the See of the Catholicate of the Caucasian Albanian Church" ref here Please, stop giving misinformation! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stop misinterpreting. Sardur (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see the references here Kardashians (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

According to NPOV we should write both names and both states that pretend to possess the territory where the object is located. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Azerbaijani spelling clearly does not belong here (both for Dadivank and Gandzasar). The issue here is not a matter of presenting a neutral point of view. According to Wiki's rules, the foreign spelling must have some relevance to the article in question. This was a Christian Armenian monastery built by Armenians during a time when no Azerbaijani nationality existed. Just because it is in a land which as you believe temporarily is de jure part of Azerbaijan does not mean we add Azerbaijani to it as well. Thus, there is no meaning in adding this script. Also, remembering the fact that Azerbaijani historians have and continue to distort and erase the history of Armenian churches in not only Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, it seems dangerous to include the Azerbaijani spelling, causing readers to be mislead or to inadvertently misinterpret the facts. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered here.--Quantum666 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Monastery situated in Azerbaijan

[edit]

There was false information regarding region of this temple. The monastery is located inside internationally accepted borders of Azerbaijan Republic. It was built as Caucasian Albanian church (as written in the facade of the temple). I hope this information will be taken into consideration. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Monastery is situated in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic de-facto and in Azerbaijan de-jure. Both pieces of information are equally correct, so if you make any change, please be constructive to reflect both instead of destructing one in favor of the other. Please make sure you follow WP:NPOV while doing so.
As per Caucasian Albania and related issues, you are welcome to launch a new discussion section with that title and put your arguments with respective references there. -- Ashot  (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This form of article cannot be acceptable as it holds too many false and one-sided information. There were many neutral sources ([De Waal, Thomas (2003). Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. New York: New York University Press. p. 154. ISBN 0-8147-1944-9. Retrieved July 19, 2010. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)], Late History of Albanian Church) showing this temple being built as Caucasian Albanian Church. I am trying to do my best in order to follow neutrality, but this article shows Kalbajar region of Azerbaijan as a part of another country (which is unacceptable by any means). WP:NPOV rule is completely ignored in Mr. Ashot's reverts. I am afraid we are going to ask again for mediator in here too, for the reason that Mr. Ashot will not let any neutral source to be introduced in the article. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you reread my comments and follow my advice? -- Ashot  (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misconduct edits of Verman1

[edit]

Verman1, who has recently made edits here, was very well aware of Wikipedia guidelines (at least via another discussion at Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery). Regardless of this, he initiated changes here without preliminary discussion. Hence, his edits are reverted. -- Ashot  (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to show good will and will wait for Mr. Ashot to follow neutrality. If not, I will have no option but to put neutrally sourced information by myself. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put it here first, get a consensus, and then you are free to put it in the article. This is what the talk pages are for! -- Ashot  (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related sources have already been posted in here. These are very clear editions. It is impossible to put all content of these books in here. As of specific evidence, we have these facts (but not only).
1) The monastery situated in the Kalbajar Rayon of Azerbaijan (it is unacceptable not to publish this information)
2) Gandzasar was the residence of the catholicos of the Albanian Catholicate from about 1400 until 1816, (until Caucasian Albanian Church was annexed to Armenian Church by Russian authorities)
3) There is inscription in the facade of the temple. Inscription contains these writings "I Hasan Jalal, build this temple for my people of Aghvank". Aghvank is ancient name of Caucasian Albania. Therefore it is ridiculous to call Hasan-Jalal an Armenian prince.
These information in the 2nd and 3rd parts are published by third-party and by neutral sources. Current form of this article is obviously one-sided and contains falsified information, which can mislead any reader. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you should read more about citing in Wikipedia guidelines. One should mention exact pages in references so that others can crosscheck how this or that author support the idea. Additionally you are welcome to post full sections of proposed article text here and ask for comments and concerns. Once you get a consensus, you are free to publish the text. I thought I was clear about that in my previous notes. -- Ashot  (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get any answer from Mr. Ashot regarding above-mentioned facts. I have to ask again for Mr.Ashot's views about these facts, we have to get consensus regarding them. Please don't get away from the issue. My editions was fully well-referenced, had citations from neutral sources, thus it will be regarded as vandalism to revert them. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This just looks like a repeat of what transpired on the Tsitsernvank article. You delete third-party references and insert POV information which is backed up by partisan websites that do not even come close being neutral, let alone accurate. You're even being selective on what to quote from your more reliable sources. In De Waal's book, the author quotes historian Robert Hewsen who plain says that the people who built Gandzasar considered themselves as nothing else but Armenians, even if they were ruling over an antiquated realm known by the name of "Aghuvank", which itself was the Armenian designation for Caucasian Albania. The full quote is the following: "Finally we came to the Karabakhi prince, Hasan-Jalal. Professor Hewsen concluded that "I have found not a shred of evidence that [the meliks] ever thought of themselves as anything but Armenians, albeit members of the Albanian branch of the Armenian Church." This is hardly an innocent case of a content dispute because numerous editors have in the past couple of years tried to rechristen these Armenian churches as Caucasian Albanian, an opinion which holds no water among academia today. Furthermore, Verman's own attitude towards the editing process is getting tedious. He clearly shows that he doesn't like what has been written here and that not only is his version of this article written by him the "correct" one, but that everything else is "vandalism" and thus "unacceptable". That sort of attitude and behavior is not welcomed here with open arms. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding post mostly has nothing to do with the article. Main purpose of Mr.Bagramyan is to denigrate users who don't share his views (thus following Mr.Ashot's way). Tsitsernavank monastery has nothing to do with this temple. My questions still stay unanswered. Also, Robert Hewsen noted that Albanian catholicate was "branch" of Armenian Church, which is completely wrong. Caucasian Albanian Church was not branch of any church until 19th century, when it was forcibly annexed to the Armenian Church. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Any reference except yourself? -- Ashot  (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think opposite side is willing to reach any consensus with above-mentioned posts. This is discussion page, regarded page's issue must be disscussed here. I don't think it is right place to denigrate other users. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"(until Caucasian Albanian Church was annexed to Armenian Church by Russian authorities)" :) Vidovler (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verman1 is engaged in explicit misconduct. Sarmatai (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed good faith for Verman1 but he has lost that. He has been pushing Azeri POV on a number of Armenia related articles or articles which mention Armenians.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) Gandzasar was the residence of the catholicos of the Albanian Catholicate from about 1400 until 1816, (until Caucasian Albanian Church was annexed to Armenian Church by Russian authorities) In the entire existence years of this claimed Albanian Church it was only devided from the Armenian Church for a century under Byzantine Empire, which separated the Armenian Church. That was from after 590 to 705, and even then, there was no independent Albanian Church. Your edit is a fabrication.

3) There is inscription in the facade of the temple. Inscription contains these writings "I Hasan Jalal, build this temple for my people of Aghvank". Aghvank is ancient name of Caucasian Albania. Therefore it is ridiculous to call Hasan-Jalal an Armenian prince. Aghvank is the Armenian name for Armenian Albania, and any of those writtings on the temple were writen solely in Armenian. Why did he write in Armenian, why did he use the term for Armenian Albania? Did Hasan Jalal ever write in any other language than Armenian?

These information in the 2nd and 3rd parts are published by third-party and by neutral sources. Current form of this article is obviously one-sided and contains falsified information, which can mislead any reader. Regards, That the monastery was part of the Armenian Church, no credible source has ever writen else, from this discussion it's clear you are being evasive. Vidovler (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ashot, every point was written by Verman. Why do you delete where it says the church is in Azerbaijan? Why do you delete source Black Garden? It is neutral! Dighapet (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on Verman's edits here. I don't oppose that it is de-jure in Azerbaijan and have addressed the issue multiple times previously. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I give consensus to Verman's edits. If you agree it is Azerbaijan's de-jure part, then look what you undid: You undid that it is de-jure located in Azerbaijan, you undid the Azeri name (if the church is de-jure in Azerbaijan, then the Azeri name has to be included); you undid the fact that Albanian church was annexed to Armenian church officially in 19 century; you deleted Russian site where it says Hasan Jalal was Albanian, you undid quotation from Thomad de Waal in Black Garden book; you undid link to Culture of Azerbaijan, etc. So stop your deletions and pov and come to consensus. Dighapet (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Azerbaijan de-jure doesn't mean not being in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic de-facto. You may add de-jure related information, but you shouldn't delete another valid piece of de-facto related information. I also undid information regarding affiliation Caucasian Albania's Church and architecture as there is no consensus about that... and so on... why wouldn't you re-read what I actually undid yourself?-- Ashot  (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I included both claims and restored neutral sources. Since church Albanian or Armenian is still discussed and there is no consensus both will stay in the article. So don't undo Dighapet (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? that's a load of 24 carats nonesense. Why don't you provide the full context of Thomas De Waal reference? [http://books.google.com/books?id=pletup86PMQC&pg=PA154&dq= here it is (he presents Mamedova thesis to then ridicule it), also http://books.google.com/books?id=pletup86PMQC&pg=PA157&dq= see this page where he writes how ridiculous this claim of Caucasian Albania is, he includes Jalal! Vidovler (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was yet another misconduct edit. You cannot add POV claims in line with neutral claims (regarding Caucasian Albania). -- Ashot  (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha :) you now contradict your comment. How can I add "POV" if it's in line with NEUTRAL sources? I know you don't like it but please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dighapet (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC):Why[reply]

Why wouldn't you reread my comment? -- Ashot  (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reply to provide to the comments I have made above? Vidovler (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, who don't like it, the link you provide discribes your behavior, afteral, you write this above: Yes, I give consensus to Verman's edits. To claim to give concensus would mean that you have dismissed everyone but you and gave yourself authority. Vidovler (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please write something meaningful to discuss, not for play of words. Ashot said no consensus was achieved and I said I give consensus to Verman. Where do you take I dismiss others? Dighapet (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) haha! I rest my case lol! You're just typing. Since you did reply to my comments without addressing them, I established the other version, since you had nothing to disagree about. Vidovler (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian Church had already been well incorporated into the Armenian Church by the 9th century. The priests that resided at Gandzasar in the 19th century when the Russians abolished the CA Catholicate were ethnic Armenians, they had be ordained by the Armenian Church.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian Church was always incorporated into the Armenian Church, except from 590 to 705. Vidovler (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've protected the article. Please discuss on the talk page in good faith. I have no clue which version is correct and will revert to a different version after a few days if the side that currently has its version up does not make a good faith attempt to resolve this. --rgpk (comment) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't pay attention, but I clearly put all references and neutral sources in tlak page prior to my edits in the page. The discussion was going on about these facts that I posted in above. I am afraid that deleting all these content from article will make the discussion pointless, as we can not see even a bit compromise from opposite side (you can clearly see from discussion that they have no will no reach consensus). They were just reverting pages contnuously, without bringing any single counter-argument. --Verman1 (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You began to edit on Armenia related articles, you did not use the talk page, and you reverted the valid edits of others. How can you claim that it is the other side which does not want to discuss and reach consensus when you have shown no disposition do truly discuss yourself?--Moosh88 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Armenia-related article, the temple is Caucasian Albanian Monastery (see above), and it is situated in Azerbaijan (not in another country as written on the article) --Verman1 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like most of the maps provided by Dighapet, Thomas De Waal just further confirms the opposite. Could you please read the sources before backing up your arguments with them (especially when Vidovler had provided you with that opportunity with reference to the De Waal's book on Google Books)? -- Ashot  (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does Thomas Dewaal confirm? He does not confirm nothing. Vidovler is not historian. Albanian church was independent before Arabs.. It was passed under Armenian diocese when Arab Khalifs came and occupied Azerbaijan and was converting population to Islam. After Arabs left, Turks and Mongols came and occupied Azerbaijan but Albanian church existed in all Azerbaijan including Karabakh and Kabala, that's why it remained. If Albanian church was not independent Russians would not abolish it and pass to Armenian diocese in XIX century. They passed to fully armenize Albanians. In general, if you are so good in compromise, why you not changing at least the map in article. You already said Karabakh is de jure Azerbaijan. Dighapet (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who (especially about occupying Azerbaijan in the medieval times:))? And if Thomas De Waal confirms nothing, why wouldn't you tell that to Verman1, so that he does not refer to De Waal while pushing his own point of view? -- Ashot  (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I write carefully. I said Thomas Dewaal confirms nothing in reply to your "De Waal confirms the opposite". Yes, Arabs occupying Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is a region, not just a country's name. You should research in historical books first. Dighapet (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then read carefully what Thomas Dewaal writes on p. 154. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read. What do you want to say? Thomas is just describing his view of what a historian Mamedova said. Mamedova does not say Gandzasar and Hasan Jalal was Albanian because she thinks so. It is also written by other historians that Hasan Jalal was son of Vakhtang and comes from Mihranid family. Dighapet (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does Thomas Dewaal himself tell that that the Church is Caucasian Albanian? -- Ashot  (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he does not say that but he presents his view on Mamedova's argument. All other sources say Hasan Jalal was a Mihranid, not Armenian. At last Gandzasar was subdued to Armenian church and sometimes it was under Armenian rule but it is an Albanian church. Dighapet (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good of you, so hopefully neither you nor Verman1 will refer to Dewaal while pursuing the disputed article changes any more. And if you ever find any reliable source supporting your Albanian-Church-related-point-of-view, you are welcome to discuss it here. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a worthless discussion, reading that page, we can see that he ridicule Mamedova claiming that she is taking the politicians role rather than the historians. Vidovler (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this has really grown into worthless and time-consuming discussion. Hopefully it is over. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one evidence that there ever was an independent Albanian Church, any of you has to provide still one. For a century the Armenian Church was divided by the Byzantine Empire that region to become Chalcedonian, yet, even then, it was still not an independent Church. You claim De Waal does not confirm anything, but yes HE DOES, at the pages I provided you. I'll quote just one (even though he specifically write about the two monasteries) : All of this confirmed what perhaps no one should have doubted in the first place: that the man whose dagger in the Hermitage bears an Armenian inscription was not in fact a latter-day Caucasian Albanian. Yet it needed a scholar in New Jersey to prove it. Vidovler (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe/non-specialist opinions

[edit]

Neftchi, the reason I undid your latest additions to this article is because they do not correspond at all to the more specialist literature on Armenia, Artsakh, and Caucasian Albania. Ronald Grigor Suny, it should be remembered, is not a specialist of this region nor even of Armenia. His area of expertise is the Soviet Union, modern Europe, and modern Georgia (just have a glance at his works, which have nothing to do with the ancient or medieval period). Much of the conclusions he reached in Looking toward Ararat are based on a quick, and somewhat simplified, treatment of Caucasian Albania. He does not seem to understand that Caucasian Albania by the time of the tenth century was nothing but a geographical designation and that the princes who built Gandzasar considered themselves as nothing but Armenians, a fact that has been pointed out by historians like Robert Hewsen.

You are trying to establish a fringe opinion that is at odds with those of other scholars, and it does not matter if the material is "sourced" if the sources are not the state of the art in academic literature. Furthermore, your use of the book Heritage of Armenian Literature does not support the contention that Gandzasar was a "historically Caucasian Albanian" and appears to be a misreading of their own text.

You have already been exporting these misconstrued views to other Karabakh-related articles, and after a quick glance I regret to say that the same problems that are found with your edits are encountered in those articles, namely tendentious interpretation and forced attempts to insert fringe opinions. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot dismiss a source based on your personal interpretation that the author is not a specialist. Do you have sources to proof anything you say? Marshal, you're not a specialist! Ronald Grigor Suny's source goes above your personal interpretation which is based on original research. Your continues cherry-picking of sources is against Wikipedia regulations. You cannot dismiss one source and approve another, only because it doesnt suit your personal view. So bring forth sources. And your accusations that I try "insert fringe opinions" is ungrounded. Do you have any evidence of this accusation? So I suggest you stop your baseless accusations or I will report your disruptive behavoir to the admins. Mursel (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As editors, it is within our competence to study and judge sources on their reliability and competence to comment on certain areas. As such, Ronald Suny is not a specialist in the medieval period and the best way I can "prove" this is to direct you simply to his biography on the University of Chicago page and to his article here on Wikipedia. It's amusing that you accuse me of cherry-picking when you yourself have tried to shoehorn a single source written by a historian whose area of expertise is the Soviet Union, and not even the medieval Caucasus. I don't have to toss myself across mountains and valleys to prove to you things that are already well-known. Please do not make threats on empty grounds and understand that your failure to adhere to AGF, attempts to insert POV statements, propensity to edit war, willfully distort and misinterpret sources are probably of greater concern for the editing community on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of cherry picking of sources is ungrounded and it seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is your evaluation of sources is not based on the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You have no argument to remove Suny as a source from this article. Mursel (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat myself, but, again, we can evaluate sources and judge which ones to include and which to exclude if there are serious misgivings about their competence to comment on certain issues. Suny's brief treatment of the last two thousand years of Karabakh history in a single paragraph (with no footnotes of any kind) means that we should be seeking out more specialist literature. Again, the cherry-picking is not originating from me; if you'll notice, this article cites several authors who are more qualified to comment on the history of a medieval monument than a historian of Soviet studies. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your being unreasonable and unwilling to provide sources backing your allegations. Ttherefore Im going to ask 3rd party opinion because your cherry picking on sources and its a typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mursel (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party opinions

[edit]

"Should this article mention in the lead that this monastry was historcialy Caucasian Albanian?"[1]. Mursel (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be discussed further, this article is clearly one-sided. Also, local language should be added to the naming. Some users persistently want to remove local language from the article. --Verman1 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-Armenian name of Gandzasar and Tzitzernavank does not exist. Unless you cite NEUTRAL ACADEMIC SOURCES, this is edit BATTLE. You are over your head on what you do with adding fictitious non-Armenian names for these places. Are you going to add Azerbaijani "names" for Egyptian Pyramids and Eiffel Tower? Zimmarod (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that no one can add Azerbaijani spelling to the Ganja, just because there is no neutral source confirming this? And, by the way, do you have any source that non-Armenian names for the monasteries don't exist? --Verman1 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandzasar is not an urban center like Ganja but a major Christian shrine built and maintained by Armenians in the last 800 years. Its purported Muslim name is way too controversial an allegation to take at face value. Hence the request to include a neutral source. Am I right User:Zimmarod? Winterbliss (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that it would be very, very useful in these circumstances if an independent third-party source would be produced to verify the alleged Muslim name. WP:V and WP:NPOV are, of course, some of our key policies. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter, as far as I know, according to WP:NPOV local name (not specifically Muslim name) spelling should be demonstrated in articles. --Verman1 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but that does not seem to be what the source says. The source says that an ethnically distinct, Christian Kingdom of Caucasian Albanians existed somewhere around the 4th century, but that it went extinct (becoming completely 'Armenized'), and is only present 'in memory' in some of the language of an otherwise entirely Armenian culture. This could probably be worked into the body, but (IMO) the connection to Caucasian Albanians is too thin to really support its use in the lead. However, as JohnCarter says, it would be useful to see more sourcing on this. --Ludwigs2 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are vital here - if there is genuinely a local term for this place, what is your source for it actually being in use? With something like this which clearly inspires some passion, verifiability and reliable sourcing from neutral third parties are crucial. Verman and Winterbliss, both of you need to keep this in mind at all times. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: Ludwig is right. The source does not mention Gandzasar by name. Does not talk about any particular monastery or church. No reason to put in the lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description is very poor

[edit]

Please check the "clarify" tags I have put in. But these are just small issues. There is no proper description, really. So much on politics & war that the church is almost left out.

Any monastery walls & annexes old enough as to merit mention?

Why is the narthex treated as a separate element?

There should be a description of

  • The churchyard with at least the most important khachkars
  • The narthex/gavit: where are the "two columns near the eastern wall that support the roof", inside? Freestanding? Anything to be said about the small cupola?
    • Tombs: founder & others, inscriptions, reliefs.
  • Main cupola: EXTERIOR and INTERIOR - sculpture, architecture. Seems to be the most fascinating part. Is there a giraffe up there, or a goat with an endless "neck" (column)? I see a bull among the EXTERIOR, not the INTERIOR decoration - clarify, then rectify if needed. If the "giraffe" is a weird sheep, then it's even more proof that what's described as INSIDE ("bull and sheep") is actually OUTSIDE and needs to be rectified.
  • Nave, side aisles: nothing worth mentioning? Are there side aisles? Separated by columns? Any decoration (columns, capitals)?
  • Foundation inscription: where is it? Narthex, nave, side aisles, sacristies?
  • Sacristies

I'm not getting an image of the church yet from what we have. Of the Azeri fringe (as in: BS) theory, more than I wished to know :) Arminden (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khachen in the 10th century?

[edit]

I went ahead and linked to the Principality of Khachen, but is it correct? That article doesn't start as early as the 10th c. Also, there's no explanation of the name (a town? A ruler?), and WP only has a town by the name of Khacen much farther south, in Iran. Arminden (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Reliable sources?

[edit]

This edit removed 3 §. The content was:

Prior to 15th century, while Armenian Catholicosate was still based in Cilicia, their wish was Gandzasar, planning to make it the seat for Armenian Catholicosate[1], but in 1441, they have finally settled in Etchmiadzin / Üç Müəzzin
The statement by Grigor Tatevatsi portrays the ways Armenian Catholicosate tried to subordinate the Alvani Catholicosate [2]
In 1476, Sultan Yaqub Agh-Qoyunlu clearly states that he gives the ruling of Catholicosate of Alvan to Ter-Shmavon, who was the descendant of Hassan Jalal, the prince of Alvan. "In the rule of Yaqoub Bek in the Catholicosate of Shmavon I, 935 of Armenian Calender.."[3]

How bad are the referenced sources? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


What is bad about the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran Shah (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Version vs Armenian Version

[edit]

Hi!

I suggest, since Gandzasar is common heritage and since both Azeris & Armenians consider it dear to their history and identity, we should make two separate sections one for Armenian version another for Azerbaijani.

I have tried to to add some relavent information regarding the monastery, with out adding much, just to see that pointlessly it was being taken down with no particular reason.

Lets have separate sections starting from the History part, where i hope we can respect mutual interests without taking down any information of the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arran Shah (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No because of WP:DUE. You can't write a section based on primary and unreliable sources, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Take your revisionist edits out of this article. If you continue to edit-war and reinstate it, you'll be reported. The WP:ONUS is in you to reach a consensus in the first place, but not with such sources, it can't happen per policies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tatevatsi, Grigor (1440). Григор Тат‘еваци: Матенадаран. Рук. No 4669. С. 199б–200б (in Armenian). Yerevan: Matenadaran. pp. 199–200. ISBN NO4699. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  2. ^ Памятные записи армянских рукописей XV в. Ч. I. С. XXXIV. Подробно см.: История Армянского народа. Ереван, 1972. Т. 4 (на арм. яз.). С. 39.
  3. ^ Памятные записи армянских рукописей XV в. Ч. III. С. 84.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gandzasar_monastery&oldid=1207357268"