Talk:Kanach Zham

History of Kanach Zham
Hey! I was wondering if you could shed some light on the historical details of this church, I've found conflicting reports regarding the date of its founding, sources such as these: state that the church was founded in 1818, while Shahen Mkrtchʻyan's Treasures of Artsakh-Karabagh seems to state that it was founded in 1847, which I assume is referring to the inscription dating from 1847 on the church, at least from what I can see from the Google Books preview: Do you know any more specifics about the history of the church? AntonSamuel (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I would trust the more academic work (Հայաստանի եւ հարակից շրջանների տեղանունների բառարան) that predates Mkrtchyan's book more, personally. Under the Shushi article it says 1818. --RaffiKojian (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Thought I'd ask you about this as well, do you perhaps know more about the history of the church and the date of its founding? AntonSamuel (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Satellite images of destruction
1 and 2 contain the satellite images of entirely destroyed church site. Anybody with good non-free image uploading skills, would be grateful if the satellite images are uploaded and featured in article, to reflect the current situation. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Demolished? Ruined? Damaged?
, can you explain why you remove the "demolished" where a secondary neutral source is saying that Furthermore, satellite images have shown that the 19th century Kanach Zham church – also in Shushi – has been demolished since falling into Azerbaijani hands. --Armatura (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Because "Christian Memo" from "Emerging Europe" referring to satellite images does not outweigh the Russian Orthodox Church, represented by an archbishop in Azerbaijan, which denies the demolition. We cannot quote sources selectively. All sources agree that there has been damage done to the church (which should be the consensus wording) but there are as many sources claiming its destruction as those that refute these claims. What is the logic of highlighting only of those positions? Parishan (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A case of WP:IJDLI, sorry, right after your lecture about neutrality and basing WP on reliable sources. Since when claims by religious leaders from involved countries are preferred over reports of neutral third party sources? Unless you have a source saying Christian Memo is an Armenian, lives with an Armenian or has otherwise have conflict of interest with AA topic that disallows them to write neutrally then your argument does not hold a criticism, sorry. Russian Church in Azerbaijan is still a source from Azerbaijan, with conflict of interest with Azerbaijan. It's easy to see that your "many sources claiming its destruction as those that refute these claims" do have that conflict of interest. By the way, no need for politicised language here - it's not "position" when neutral sources with no demonstrable conflict of interest report what happened, and support their report by evidence. The position of some National Socialists was that Hitler did not know about the gas chambers, shall we take that position into "consensus" about gas chambers? --Armatura (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do not mind continuing my lecture on neutrality over here. The very fact that you believe Christian Mamo "being an Armenian and living with an Armenian" could constitute a valid argument to discard a source demonstrates a poor understanding on your part of what a reliable source is. The Russian Orthodox Church represents an uninvolved party (the Azerbaijani government has no control over the statements it issues) and quite a reliable one given that it is the largest foreign Christian establishment in the whole Caucasus, and its reaction was considered notable enough to feature in a third-party news report. I am not saying it is more reliable than a Western source but you are calling on ignoring it completely in favour of Mamo, which unacceptable. According to WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Even though I have serious doubts that Mamo, who had only been a reporter for Emerging Europe for two months and clearly has never been to Shusha, is reliable, I do not object to his article being quoted alongside the article citing the Azerbaijani response to the claims as well as a reaction from the Russian Orthodox Church. However, using such a source to transform the entire article into a tribute to a demolished monument while the claim of its demolition has not even been formally verified (and especially in the presence of contradicting reports) violates WP:WEIGHT (I also advise that you take time to read this). So far, the only claim that is supported by all sources is the damage. Parishan (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition, it is quite telling that in his more recent article, published in June, when talking about the fate of Karabakh's Armenian heritage on the Azerbaijani-controlled territory, Mamo cites the relevant bit from his April article in its entirety but leaves out the part on Kanach Zham (which is very strange given that the article is primarily about Shusha). This is another reason to consider this claim dubious and to refrain from assigning it weight over all the other reports. Parishan (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It feels like patronising,, please avoid characterising other editors' level of understanding and stick to the topic. Does not matter how big that church is, it has a conflict of interest with Azerbaijan by the fact of being in Azerbaijan - it is a source from Azerbaijan (and the sky is blue), and it cannot be given a priority over or equal weight with neutral third party sources. Currently (in your version) the word "demolished" is absent altogether (lead and body)- and that  does not even remotely smell of consensus. You are welcome to propose a deprecation of Emerging Europe for biased or no editorial oversight, but not here - there is a place for that. You can present all that evidence you have collected on the editor whose article you don't trust or like. You can also write to him/him or their editor and complain directly if you like. You are against cherry-picking sources, right? Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC video tells us all that we need to know. If it is not utterly destroyed, it has, at the very least, been put beyond use. Which was probably the intention of the bombing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What BBC video? Parishan (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that a BBC video about Kanach Zham or the church in Jabrail? Do you have the link? --Armatura (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Armatura, not at all. Collecting evidence on an author's professional background is the best way of establishing their reliability. Christian Mamo is not a reliable source on Nagorno-Karabakh but is acceptable as a third-party source reporting on a partisan claim. Meanwhile, Nagorno-Karabakh has been visited by dozens of third-party reporters since November 2020, including from BBC, RIA and Sputnik, and somehow none of them happened to notice or to suspect that a whole church was missing. Not a single source has picked up this claim in the past two months, including Mamo himself in his latest article on the fate of the Armenian churches in Karabakh, which seriously affects the credibility of the claim and its status per WP:WEIGHT. The article mentions the word "destruction" and "destroyed" five (!) times in both the lede and the body; this should be plenty for a claim that is unverified and refuted. Parishan (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no 'destroyed' in the lead or 'demolished' anywhere in the current version edited by yourself, you can use CTRL+F and see yourself, we both share the same vision I hope. You somehow decided that the article is not reliable by some logic that may not make sense to others (does not to me). It's not up to you, as you told me recently, to find "the truth", either, my impression is that you just don't like that source as it uses a stronger term (damage and destroy could be accidental, but demolished means deliberate destruction, which is sometimes done as part of ethnic cleansing). We could argue where to use it - in the body or body+lead but leaving out that citation from a RS altogether is not acceptable, sorry. If you think it is just me (a non-neutral editor) not agreeing with you, why don't you request a third opinion and see what people who don't know you or where Kanach Zham is think instead of reverting? --Armatura (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What I said was: "The article mentions the word "destruction" and "destroyed" five (!) times in both the lede and the body", and the lede under its current version does read: "there have been claims of its destruction". If you think "demolished" is more suitable wording, I do not object to saying "claims of its demolition" in the lede or anywhere else where a reference to Mamo is applicable. I also did not suggest that Mamo's article should be removed as a source completely. I suggested that it be given due weight according to WP:SECONDARY and WP:WEIGHT, as a single source making a controversial and dubious claim. Controversial claims require significant coverage, and judging from Mamo's further reports on the issue, it looks so far as if even this one source is backtracking on its original claim. Parishan (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a step forward towards consensus. And I of course don't mind the Russian Church claim to be cited, as if even what they are saying is false, it's still ok to cite what they said as a claim / position of a notable organisation. Only in a way that it does not make the neutral reader to think that that (affiliated) organization have somehow managed to "prove it to be false" or "disprove" it or "refute it" (these are dictionary synonyms). --Armatura (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies- I was thinking of the Jabril Church video.Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Russian BBC video
you removed the information about the demolition of the church, basing your edit on audio track of the Russian BBC video. I watched the video, it just states "Azerbaijan says it is going to renovate a second church" without specifying which church (there are many churches in the city) and makes it clear that it is what Azerbaijan says rather what the reality is, and it does not say it has proven the previously available information false. I'm afraid your conclusion hence constitutes WP:OR, and in Wikipedia editors are not entitled to that, even if they visually recognise the buildings in video, can you therefore kindly self-revert? Thanks. BW --Armatura (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many churches? There are only two churches in Shusha: Kanach Zham and Ghazanchetsots. If you have proof that there were more than two standing church buildings in Shusha in October 2020, feel free to cite them. As for the video, the church seen at 10:35–10:42 is Kanach Zham (before the camera moves and one can see Ghazanchetsots in the background), with its belltower damaged. No one denied that the church had been damaged; the question was whether or not the church was razed, and the video shows it still standing at the time when the reporter is talking about its restoration. Back in July, there was similar footage published by an Azerbaijani source, where the exact same building is shown and identified as "Kanach Zham" being under renovation. This should be enough proof. These are also much more recent reports compared to those alluding to the building's destruction. Azerbaijan has been in control of Shusha for nearly a year now, and dozens of reporters have visited it since. Would you be able to cite any recently reported evidence of the church's "complete destruction", other than the go-see-for-yourself satellite imagery by Zartonk Media and the breaking-news effect it created in a couple of publications? Parishan (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. By saying many churches, I include the churches ruined before the recent war - Holy Savior "Meghretzotz", Holy Savior "Aguletzotz",  Hermitage of Holy Virgins “Kusanats Anapat”, “Parin Pizh.” I’m sorry, but Wikipedia cannot rely on your or any other editor’s visual recognition or mental deduction of a building in a video. I therefore ask you again to avoid WP:OR, revert yourself and wait till a reliable source will write what you’re trying to derive from the video. If your hunch is true, one of those many reporters will eventually confirm it. But till that WP:OR applies Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reference to the churches that disappeared before 1991 has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. I did not offer any visual recognition or mental deduction as I did not need to do so. I brought up two sources with the church seen and orally identified. When a city has two churches, one of which is identified in a filmed report by its name "Ghazanchetsots" and the second one as "the other church", this is enough evidence to suggest that claims of its "complete destruction" are false.
 * There is more. An Armenian reporter in a news article dated July 2021 (months after the church was supposedly destroyed) comments on Kanach Zham being visited by a group of religious leaders earlier that week . If the church is "completely destroyed", what exactly did they visit? If the church was "completely destroyed", why does David Babayan in a statement, also from July 2021, calls Kanach Zham one of the two churches of Shusha that are still standing, underlining that Azerbaijan is "unable to physically destroy" Kanach Zham ?
 * The claim about the church's destruction fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL, i.e. the claim of an object being destroyed needs much more evidence than the claim of it still standing (which is its state by default), which we have plenty. Incidentally, I still find it rather odd that you are not at all bothered by the fact that the article presents the claim of the church's destruction coming from a dubious source as a barely contestable fact ("showed the complete demolition"), including an editor's own (!) created link to Google Maps with the comment "the destruction of the church can be seen", whereas reports from more authoritative sources like the Russian Orthodox Church are quoted as "claims". In any case, we now have evidence from Armenian officials and media that the church is standing. I need to see some more evidence from you in order to revert myself. Parishan (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , with all respect, if you in principle refuse to understand why your sentence "A reporter for BBC Russian who visited Shusha in September 2021 confirmed that the church was undergoing renovation." is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, it is unlikely that a further discussion is going to be useful. The Wikipedia policy clearly says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The BBC Russia reporter did not say "Kanach Zham is being renovated" yet you deduced that if they did not name the church, but it is was not the Ghazanchetsots Church shown by camera, then it must be Kanach Zham she is talking about. I am afraid it is not how Wikipedia works, and if you are not happy with how Wikipedia works why don't you challenge those policies directly on their relevant pages? I have not checked the credibility of the other source you found to defend your initial deduction, but can I invite your attention to the fact that we are not on truth-searching expedition here, and you are not here to debunk the previous claims, but rather contribute to consensus. In this case, there is no consensus, hence all info was appropriately attributed - "reports of damage emerged", "the Russian Church maintains", ""Azerbaijani x agency said" etc before your "BBC showed the true face of Armenian propaganda"-style edit. And no need to give an air of superiority to Russia-related sources when it suits the purpose, Russia has a complex and controversial involvement in this conflict, and we are yet to see any neutral international organisation to be permitted to investigate the damages Armenian cultural and religious heritage sustained during / after the war. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do not object to wording the BBC report as MarshalBagramyan suggested below. Parishan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I now had some time to look at the other sources your provided. "Novoe Vremya" publishes an apparent conspiracy rubbish like: "Для чего Сорос инвестирует огромные деньги в Арцах?" (Why does Soros invest huge money in Artsakh?). The other news - NEWS.am is a tabloid, I don't know what led you to suddenly take what it says without scrutinising. The very same article says "Азербайджан систематически уничтожает эти памятники. ("Azerbaijan is systematically destroying these heritage sites), shall we also cite that sentence as a fact? There is no consensus, and reliable neutral sources are still needed to confirm what has happened / happening to the church. --Armatura (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So, before we move on, just to be clear (sorry to be asking this for the third time but I seem to be getting no answer): are you saying that Zartonk Media, which desribes itself as a "multimedia outlet", and a banned user posting a Google Maps localisation link with the word "destruction is seen" are more acceptable sources than an Armenian news agency? Not to mention that these dubious sources are making an exceptional claim and therefore need to be approached with extra caution. I am very curious to hear your answer. Incidentally, BBC News lists News.am among Armenia's most prominent news outlets and also features it in its news alerts. Is there a source referring to it as a tabloid or is that your personal assessment? If News.am being a tabloid is a problem, the same statement by Babayan was published by the Center for the Support of Russian-Armenian Strategic and Social Initiatives.
 * In any case, most independent sources agree on the fact that the church was only partially damaged, mentioning namely its destroyed domes and belltower. We notably find this information in the report by the OSCE Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons (which refers to the partial destruction claims as allegations) and in the US State Department's most recent report on religious freedom in Azerbaijan (which also refers to those claims as allegations), both of which are much more notable that Zartonk Media or Christian Mamo. The church's partial destruction is not denied by Azerbaijan, and this is also the opinion maintained by some Armenian sources . Interestingly, the case brought by Armenia against Azerbaijan before the International Court of Justice also mentions the church's partial destruction. In his letter to the UN Secretary General, Armenia's ambassador to the UN admits that it is difficult to verify if the church tower has indeed been destroyed but adds that aerial images suggest Kanach Zham has been "severely damaged". With a clear consensus and in the presence of so many sources that cast doubts on the claim that the church was "completely destroyed", I see no point in clinging to a marginal and POV way of presenting the events. Parishan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to address your concerns with the current version below my argumentation. Blind reverts with ambiguously worded edit summaries are disruptive. What exactly is "fringe" and "exceptional" about the NKR minister confirming in an official statement that the church has not been "completely destroyed"? Parishan (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's not be impossible here. We have to be precise in our wording and discern the differences between damage/destruction/demolition, etc. There's nothing wrong with the BBC video as a source. The narrator says that Shushi's second church is also undergoing "renovation." I am not sure I would use that particular phrase in this instance, however (she's not an investigator or part of a fact-finding commission). So perhaps a compromise edit can be "footage showed the church undergoing 'renovation'" (renovation in quotation marks). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no objections. Parishan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. How can we be sure it’s Kanach Zham in that footage if the source doesn’t specifically identify the church “being renovated” as “Kanach Zham”. Surely we cannot rely on editor’s visual identification or synthesis for that. See my argument above. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue at this point is not about the church being renovated or not. If we agree to present the renovation as Azerbaijan's claim, it does not matter after all what the footage is showing. The question is that the Wikipedia article is currently featuring a narrative claiming complete destruction of the church based on a dubious report by a self-declared "new-age multimedia outlet" that presents itself as "inspired by admiration for the Armenian nation and the Armenian struggle", topped off with a link generated by a now banned Wikipedia editor (!), inviting the reader to log on to Google Maps and check out the "destruction" for themselves; a clear violation of WP:OR, which for some reason you fail to see. In addition, this dubious report is presented as a fact ("showing complete destruction") against Azerbaijan's and the Russian Orthodox Church's rebuttal, presented as a "claim", in violation of WP:POV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL (per which you cannot expect a third-party source to "disprove" what has not been proven). Meanwhile, a sufficient number of independent sources suggests that despite the damage that the building endured during the war and allegedly in its aftermath, it has not been "completely destroyed". Parishan (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * my objection is specifically against taking a synthesis from a video (which does not specifically state what you are saying it states) as a source, and that objection remains. It looks like you have done some research now and found some extra sources with better credibility than the ones you initially provided, I have not read them yet, but they sound better than news.am which, with all respect, goes as low as publishing personal facebook or twitter posts (if they can make a headline) of people who are not even notable, with what it looks like limited to zero editorial oversight. No need to get angry when you edit is contested, what you can do instead is drafting a proposal with your sources added and allow others (including the ones who disagree with you) to polish it here on talk page till a reasonable consensus is reached, I hope you agree that somebody reverting your edit or you reverting somebody else's revert is not going to result in stable article. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now a plethora of sources, and online photos, confirming without doubt that the dome and the belltower of the church have been destroyed, and that the remainder of the church is still standing. This renders the above discussion void, especially since the article should be about the church, not a timeline listing of media reports about the church. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)