Talk:Church of Caucasian Albania

CEE Spring - Udis
{CEE Spring 2017}}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarqa (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To Parishan about the Massaget
Parishan Massa get is derived from Maz Saka= the Great Saka, it is a word of Iranic root. The Albanian Maskout and Massaget are not necessarily related. Also Khazars came much later and there is no evidence that there were any tribes called Massaget among the Khazars, and moreover no evidence that they came to the Caucasus. Tell me exactly where in the sources says such a thing. Thanks.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Eupator and parishan what is the difference of opinions here?
Eupator says that this is OR. Please explain why is this. Parishan what do you have to say against this. I am not well read in this subject, but is it all about the autocephaly? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Eupator needs to explain the reason for the OR tag on talk, before attaching it, according to the rules. He has not done so, therefore it is not clear what he considers to be an OR. Grand  master  06:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do squat but in case it was not clear for you the first time i'll repost it again: Original research per the overindulgent use and interpretation of a primary source-Kaghankatvatsi: No original research. Have a nice day.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Grandmaster is misquoting the source? Becaue he gives the source. The only thing that might mean original reseearch is that he misquotes the source, or he is saying things which are not in the source. is this like that? Please give an example --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know, don't care. I'm not a historian, it is not my job to examine primary sources. Primary sources are not to be used as references in most cases, especially controversial ones. In this article a primary source is used to reference pretty much most of it. Read the guideline.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the reaction of Grandmaster to this? I try to mediate and solve this problem.I just think this issue is not that big and difficult to solve.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanna know precisely which section in Eupator's opinion needs secondary sources. Grand  master  05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The History of the Country of Albania, a history, probably not by a single author, covering more than 4 centuries, is clearly not a primary source as defined by WP:OR. It is a common mistake to confuse "primary" with "very old". Also, it is only "interpretation" of primary sources that is not allowed. Reporting what they say in summary form is allowed. Having said that, confirmation of material from a more modern history is desirable, although one suspects they are able to do little more than repeat the history with some qualifications, background and nuances. The relevant section, which is not in fact very helpful, is Verifiability.  Our guidelines are pre-occupied with fringe science, BLP issues and the like & offer little or no guidance on dealing with early medieval monks.  I have removed the tag as inappropriate.  Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above discrepancies, you shouldn't have removed that tag. There is an overindulgence in quoting MK, who essentially gathered every piece of information there was on Caucasian Albania, fact and legend, and dumped it into several volumes. Unless we're just representing traditional views, perhaps 85% of the information on this article should be coming from secondary sources or at least specialists who have sifted the fact from fiction. Using him so extensively is akin to having the articles on the Crusades based solely on the works of either Muslim or Christian historians.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be the case, but WP:OR is not the guideline dealing with this. Whether we have a tag for dealing with this situation I don't know. I repeat, the book is a secondary source by WP definitions, though I'm sure not the most reliable one. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * my humble opinion: this is not OR, unless anyone can shows that the source is interpreted. One can also opposes grandmaster's Parishan's edits if they had misquoted the sourcwe. But that should be shown first. Upator and Marshal Bagramyan are of course allowed to bring up sources which have an opposing view. Again I do not think it is OR unless proven with solid arguments. I invite all editors to shake hands and reach an agreement on this article. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding, the objections are probably caused by sections about St. Eliseus and St. Bartholomew. I clarified that the story about St. Eliseus is a very old local tradition, and the section about St. Bartholomew also makes clear where the info comes from. Those stories come from old chronicles, and whether to believe them or not is up to the reader. Local Christians certainly do believe in them. I think we just need to properly attribute the information to the sources it comes from. Grand master  05:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can list just a series of mistakes that I found on a first passing of the article. For example, we read "It was then that he arrived at a place called Gis where he built a church, the first one in the Caucasus,[4] today commonly believed to be the Church of Kish north of Shaki, Azerbaijan." Commonly believed by who? The Church of Kish before its restoration (i.e., destruction) had an original altar which gave that section of that church as being Georgian, while having the rest with Armenian engraving and text, which was desecrated and removed in its entirety and the Georgian altar was removed to rebuild a new altar and was exhibited at the Azerbaijan International.


 * Second, the image of the church builds some sort of connection to a Church which never really existed; the way it is used here is original research. In yet another mistake we read, "associated with the present-day Baku[7]" Check the source, and where the word Baku is used. And what about St. Bartholomew? See the use of the picture: having no pictures of any Church of Albania to add, Parishan added an image of a Russian Church. It is extremely unlikely that any Albanian Church was ever build there, as when the population converted to Christianity, the Albanian Church was attached to the Armenian one and it would defy logic or common sense to have any church that far away. The source used is the Russian Diocese of Baku. They were interviewed during the so-called restoration and the authorities put words in their mouth.


 * Third, more on Parishan's misrepresentations: "The archbishop was considered the head of the Church of Caucasian Albania, and he had traditionally been ordained by the Armenian Catholicos until 590, when Caucasian Albania proclaimed its own locally ordained patriarchy." The Armenian Catholicos would consecrate only those from the Armenian Apostolic Church; do you know of any other pope or Catholicos, who could consecrate archbishops or priests from an independent church? We also read, "However in 551, due to plundering raids of Khazars on Caucasian Albania, the seat of the archbishop was transferred to Partaw." See the contradiction, in fact the only time the Church of Caucasian Albania would ordinate was after the capital was moved to Partav, the so-called new Albania. To quote Robert Hewsen's very apt remarks on the relationship between the Armenian and Caucasian Albanian Churches:




 * Albania had been reduced to a geographical connotation by the fifth century, yet the reader would never know this in the manner which the words "Caucasian Albania" is abused around the article. This section alone is a mess in and of itself. The concerns I highlighted above are only the tip of the iceberg; do I really have to pile more evidence?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The OR tag was added because of "Original research per the overindulgent use and interpretation of a primary source-Kaghankatvatsi: No original research (see near top this section). That was a mistaken reasoning for the tag, as explained above, so I removed it. If the article is felt to have actual OR, or to use partisan modern sources in an unbalanced way, an OR or POV tag may be appropriate. I have no view on, or knowledge of, the issues myself, so won't comment. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your earlier explanation is flawed. The "History of the Country of Albania" is a primary source. It is an historical document and it is not a "history" in the modern meaning of the word. As such, its content can be subject to varying interpretations and an over use of that content could easily result in OR. The validity of the tag being used here will depend on whether the alleged OR is real or not - finding that out is the purpose of the talk page. Meowy 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reread the WP definition, linked above. Unless the WP article on the book is grossly misleading, it is a secondary source in our terms.  Even if it were a primary source, "overuse" would lead to POV, not OR - for that "interpretation" is needed.   Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were no Armenian inscriptions in the Church of Kish. Local tradition links it with St. Eliseus. As for the rest, here's a good source:

C. J. F. Dowsett. The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Goš. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3. (1958), pp. 472-490. It says:

And the chronicle itself says:

Grand master  07:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problems can be solved this way. This is also something I want to propose for the Atashgah article. Instead claiming something as a fact and then refer to the sources, it should be clearly mentioned in the text that the Sources (X, or Y) says this, and the local tradition says this. This way no one suggests that the statements are universally accepted, but are according to the mentioned sources. Yet the sources are mentioned. The problem of interpretation is solved this way.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a helpful step, but really, more modern, and neutral historians should be used as well. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? Introduce some modern sources here. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There were indeed Armenian inscriptions on the church. That it was so was documented on the other article. It is pretty much obvious from that the inscriptions were desecrated and desecrated so poorly, that the tool marks are still visible. The "restoration" also removed the altar and in its stead this was placed in the middle, reproducing, the only relic ever found attesting any Caucasian Albanian architecture. Dowsett's quote is irrelevant and your claims that there were no inscriptions are as frivolous as the Azeri claim that Armenians never lived in Nakhichevan. Parishan added the following not me: "The archbishop was considered the head of the Church of Caucasian Albania, and he had traditionally been ordained by the Armenian Catholicos until 590, when Caucasian Albania proclaimed its own locally ordained patriarchy." – which is accurate, but the point is that they were ordained by the Armenian Catholicos because the Albanian "Church" was recognized by the Armenian Church as one of theirs and dependent on it.

Johnbod, the article on The History of Caucasian Albania is misleading and erroneous. For example, the source which Grandmaster has used above gives a conclusion on why people assume there were multiple authors: "There is, however, no need to reject the name Kalankatuaçi and Dasxurançi by assuming, as Professor W. B. Henning first suggested to me, that this refers to the name of Movses' monastery in Kalankatuk' while Dasxurançi refers to his native village, we can take Kalankatuaçi and Dasxurançi to be one and the same person." The article say nothing of the book itself, such as the fact that it covers the the beginning of time to the present day. It's convenient to attribute it to different authors, because first it clouds the fact that it was written by an Armenian and from a region which now is disputed. Also, if there were multiple authors, it explains why different periods are described being witnessed by different authors, giving weight for what there is in it. The fact is that the source is primary and secondary at the same time; primary particularly because the sections cover religious materials. What's wrong in this article is that it excessively uses this single work and specifically from sections which are most open to reinterpretation, particularly because those could be considered as primary sources. Note that philosophical works, religious writings like the Bible, Torah, Koran are considered as primary sources.

This article, I believe, is beyond repair, full of personal connections of different events, many of which are totally irrelevant. But others of course are free to disagree. And Grandmaster, the names on the above list were Armenians, and this is what Dowsett says in the beginning of his work: "The land of the Aluank' or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence." It's beyond belief on Dowsett has been abused and his works have been manipulated on Wikipedia; the same work was used by Atabek, where he wrote, "In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax," but the same work place that in context on page 482 when it writes: "By this earthquake much was ruined in places [towns] in the cantons of P'arisos and Xacen" On his footnote to clarify what is Xachen he writes: "Late name of part of pr. Arçax, forming at this time a small independent Armenian principality (p. 482, note 4)" The quote from Atabek referred to what was said about Khachen, a principality of Caucasian Albania, but Dowsett believed that principality was Armenian. A reminder to all editors not to distort Dowsett's, nor any other authors', works.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, the History is clearly not an autobiographical or testimonial work, nor one of prophecy, revelation or philosophy. These, with works of fiction etc, are what are defined as primary sources. Whether it is reliable is a completely different matter. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * MarshallBagramyan, I don't really understand which part or statement in the article you disagree with. You probably mix the church in Kish with the church in Nij. The 2 are different, the one in Kish never had any Armenian inscriptions. If anything, it had a lot more to do with Georgian church, than Armenian. With regard to Dowsett. I highly doubt that St. Shup'xalishoy or Matte were Armenian names, most of the names are either of unknown origin, or well known Christian names. Being in Armenian sphere of influence is not equal to being ethnically Armenian. The Armenian influence is well documented in the article. In my opinion, this is a very interesting topic, and should be further developed. It can make a GA, maybe even an FA, if more neutral and reliable sources are found and used in the article. Grand  master  13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think FA or GA should not be the aim of this article. I see very good articles without FA and GA ratings and I see bad ones with those ratings. Articles should contain the truth and should be balanceed. My proposal was to cite Kaghankatvatsi and mention this overtly. I see no obstacle in citing Kaghankatvatsi. As I have understood the controversy of Kaghankatvatsi and Khorenatsi is that apparently more authors have written under the same name. Therefore I think there should be a prominent mention of see also the Kaghankatvatsi article. Eupator and Marshal Bagramyan can express the controversy about the source in that article. Is this a workable suggestion?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Many historians believe that the book by Kaghankatvatsi was actually written by more than one person, and Kaghankatvatsi was the compiler or one of the authors who contributed to that book. But it actually has nothing to do with this article. Grand master  05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well I say let's adress this, if this is why Eupator says that he is controversial.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think The History of the Country of Albania is even linked in the article, is it? It should be, with something on controversies surrounding its accuracy. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This can be done in the section background, before the text about st. Eliseus--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with linking the book with this article, however the authorship of the book has nothing to do with the church. The book is as accurate as any other contemporary source, say Moses of Khoren. It is just a collection of true stories and local legends, and sometimes it is difficult to separate one from another, but this article makes no attempt to do that. It just says that this author (or authors) say so and so. Whether it is true or not is not up to us to decide, unless we have a reliable secondary source that analyzes the truthfulness of the stories in the book. If you look at it, legendary stories are part of any religion, and it is up to the people to believe them or not. Grand  master  15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose to solve this issue by the formula I proposed. Mention the author explecitly in the text. And then also give a link to it above the text which is prominently visible.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost all references to the primary source are now accompanied by supporting secondary or tertiary sources. The few that are not are provided with clarifications stating that the opinion is expressed by the primary source. I do not see the need for the tag any more. Parishan (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Eupator, provide the arguments as to what you dispute in terms of accuracy, and then insert the accuracy tag. The cleanup tag can stay. Atabəy (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of Caucasian Albania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://allsaintsrothbury.org.uk/BARTHOLOMEW.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924203801/http://www.christianevidenceroom.com/TheResurrection.html to http://www.christianevidenceroom.com/TheResurrection.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Armenian Catholicosate of Aghvank
How is Armenian Catholicosate of Aghvank related to Caucasian Albanian church? In medieval times, the monastery of Gandzasar served as the See of the Catholicosate of Aghvank of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which continued to exist until 1828. That's a fact, but not related to Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addictedtohistory (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)