Talk:Church of Kish/Archive 3

B.C.??
<>

I never heard of churches built in the 1st century B.C. = BEFORE CHRIST!? Are you sure?


 * That was an error. It should be A.D. I fixed it. Grandmaster 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
I have attempted to compromise the article.Hetoum I 05:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nowhere near a compromise. Propose it on talk first, and let's discuss it. --Grandmaster 05:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * so talk instead of reverting ;) don't violate parole nowHetoum I 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't. Propose your edits, and let's discuss them. Grandmaster 10:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this starting again without any discussion first? Hetoum, at least try to get consensus first, otherwise the article will be blocked, so on and so forth. Reverting now until we all come to consensus. Ehud 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Karapetian is a self-published source, and is absolutely not neutral. According to the rues, he cannot be used in this article. See the rules, we cannot refer to his website:  Grand  master  06:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership
There seems to be a problem with ownership of this article assumed by the user Grandmaster. The work done by the Research on Armenian Architecture clearly shows the Armenian origins and usage of this church. The rest of the article also addresses the usage of this church as an Armenian Apostolic church, and indeed its architectural origins are also Armenian. So I see no problem in adding in the Armenian names of the church as well as the fact that the style of architecture is Armenian and that it belongs to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Serouj (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, the two page article on the finds of the RAA are at and . Serouj (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The style is more Georgian than Armenian. The church looks nothing like an Armenian one. Read the results of research conducted by the Norwegian scholars, the links are in the article. Karapetian is not a reliable source. He is a known for his extreme nationalist attitude, and is a self-published source, not a scholarly publication. The links that you cite are a self-published source, the rules do not allow using such sources, the sources must be published in a reliable publication. Grand master  07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a fact that the church functioned as an Armenian one for a couple of centuries, and that Armenian inscriptions were removed by the Azier government sometime after 1973. So it is established that the last usage and ownership of the church was Armenian.  We can add to the article that the church may have been of Armenian or Georgian orgin originally, and that it was used by each group at different times in its history.  So under religious affiliation, we may add both Armenian Apostolic Church and Georgian Orthodox Church.  It is therefore also reasonable to add the Template "Armenian churches" to the bottom. Serouj (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also (and this is besides the point) Karapetian publishes under the RAA, he cites his sources and it is not unreasonable to cite his research. Serouj (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no Armenian inscriptions in this one. You confuse it with the one in the village of Nij. There's no reliable source confirming that this church functioned as an Armenian one. Karapetian is not a reliable source, he is not third party, and is self-published. -- Grand master  07:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Grandmaster, you are confused. Karapetian is a foremost expert of Armenian architectural historiography and he is indeed a reliable source.  If it's your word over his, then I'm afraid Wikipedia takes his.  Your claim that Karapetian is an unreliable source is baseless.  Here is the quote from Karapetian,
 * "One of the stones of the monastery enclosure bore an inscription commemorating the construction of a section of its wall in 1865. Fortunately, S. Darchinian managed to photograph it in due time in 1973, for we failed to see it during our visit there in 1986. The inscription (five-line in the Armenian original) reads: The 17-gaz part of this wall was built in July 1865 with the means of Mkrtich Msiriants from Nukhi in memory of his parents and himself."
 * I am afraid your claims are groundless Grandmaster, and your only defense is that Karapetian is "unreliable". There is more than enough evidence and sources that this church was used by Armenians (as well as Georgians) (see Karapetian and his references).  What you are doing is owning the article, and you know better that this is against Wikipedia policy.  I am adding that the religious affiliation of this church is both Georgian and Armenian, I'm adding the Armenian churches template, as well as the Armenian names of the churches.  Serouj (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not Karapetian that is the original source! See Karapetian's SOURCES from the 19th century that he cites! In any case, the Research on Armenian Architecture is a reliable source and is the foremost authority on Armenian architectural historiography. Serouj (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Karapetian is not reliable, and neither are the sources that he quotes, you need to find them in the original publications. Unless you have any reliable source that this church was Armenian, we cannot include the claim in the article. Karapetian is a well known chauvinist, who claims that every church in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia is Armenian, and I quoted some of his racist views above. Plus, it is a self-published source, and such sources are not acceptable. So find a reliable source, and then the Armenian version could be included in the article. -- Grand master  04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned before, Karapetian is the foremost expert on Armenian architectural historiography, and the Research on Armenian Architecture of which he is a fellow is the corresponding organizational expert on Armenian architectural historiography. Your claim that Karapetian is not a reliable source is baseless, and your personal attacks on his character don't have place in Wikipedia.  Karapetian is one of the most reliable resources on this topic and his research is quite thorough and cited in detail.  And you know very well (as you have admitted above) that his analysis is balanced.
 * There is more than enough evidence (even in the body of this article itself) that the church was used by both Georgians and Armenians. While the church may have had Albanian origins (and we can leave that in the article) the church unarguably was used by both Georgians and Armenians since the church was reconstructed in the 12th-13th centuries (by then the "Caucasian Albanians" were long extinct for already 600 years).  I am not sure where your problem with the above is. Serouj (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it is not surprising that the historical record on most churches in what is now today Eastern Turkey, southwestern Georgia, Nakhichevan, the NKR and Northern Artsakh, northwestern Iran, and most of the lands west of the Kura river show that they are Armenian, as these lands have been the historical homeland of the Armenian people for millenia. So I don't see why you are so surprised when Karapetian asserts the Armenian history of these churches (see the Historical Armenian Churches template at the bottom of this article for an overview of them). Best, Serouj (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Karapetian is not a reliable source. He was discussed a lot above. What else do you have? If nothing, then you have no sources to support your claim. I have many Azerbaijani sources which state that the Blue mosque in Yerevan is Azeri, but Armenian users would not accept them. And as I said many times before, the website that you refer to is a self-published source. Not acceptable. -- Grand master  12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bjornar Storfjell's excavations suggest the church being either Georgian or Albanian, but not Armenian. Brandt 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a dispute as to the origins of the church. I don't contest that, and that is why under architecture (and in the intro) we have "Armenian/Georgian".  If the church was built in the 12-13th centuries, then there's no way it was Albanian, because the Caucasian Albanians had been extinct for centuries by then!!!  The historical record shows that the church was used by both Georgians and Armenians.  This is confirmed by both Georgian as well as Armenian sources.
 * Just because you say Karapetian is unreliable does not make him so. I don't want to repeat his credentials here.  You know them well.
 * This is not the first church in the region that has been used BOTH by Armenians and Georgians. See Kobayr and see Bana cathedral. Serouj (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have no reliable source about it being Armenian. The region was under Georgian control in the 13th century, so the Georgian version sounds plausible. At the same time, the site of the church was used for religious purposes for more than 2,000 years, and it is possible that the present building was built in place of an older one. And the legend links it with Albania, you can read that on the website of Russian Orthodox church too. -- Grand master  04:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer removal of the template. At least one third-party source (Storfjell) challenge the Armenian origin of the church. Besides, even Moses wrote, that it is the "mother of Albanian churches". Brandt 11:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The church without a doubt has been used by Armenians (in addition to Georgians). Don't be ridiculous. To restate the umptienth time, the Albanians were long extinct by the 12th-13th centuries when this church was built so they could not have possibly built it nor had it as a congregation.  On the other hand, both Georgian and Armenian sources verify its usage by Armenians.  (It was for a while used as a Georgian church, too.)  Serouj (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)