Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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 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?--] (]) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
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 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?--] (]) 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: ]''' (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. ] (]) 21:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
Church of Caucasian Albania is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
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. Grandmaster06:07, 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.--Ευπάτωρ22:34, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. 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. Grandmaster05:56, 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, 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" 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:
That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. Contrary to Bunjatov, there is no evidence that any of this literature was translated into Armenian from another language and his assertion that the Armenian Church caused the Albanian literature to be translated into Armenian and then had originals destroyed is a flight of fancy. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians" in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Ed.) Classical Armenian Culture Influences and Creativity. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.
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: Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources (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)
