Misplaced Pages

First off, reach consensus before reverting. Second, I can cite reasons for why the sources your provide are NOT RELIABLE and MAY LACK CREDIBILITY. Baku diocese simply repeats claims of Azerbaijani "intellegentsia" and propaganda, which is made up and HAS NO REFERENCE sources. Similiarly, reading the Norwegians report, you see his NIL credibility as his work is marred by errors and he has no idea on dates. Armenian researcher article cites every comment he makes and is comprehensive. If we find an Azerbaijani source strongly citing references as did Armenian article. I will be willing to accept it.

Some of the claims you make are EXTRAORDINARY themselves, so lets not kid ourselves as well. First Caucasian Albanian church? Mother of God of all east?

So, lets take this a step at a time. First off, I approve of the Movses K. refewrence, only issue being the name of the saint. I googled the different versions we have been fighting over and found St. Elisha (Yeghishe) is correct name translation of the saint and most commonly shows up on internet hits. Hetoum I 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) So, instead of you guys trying to edit war, lets try to take this one step at a time. First off, I am ok with the

The Armenian source should be removed from the article, it is not third party. Hetoum, check the rules, you cannot use that one here. All the claims based on that source should go as well. And Russian Orthodox Church is third party, it is not controlled by Azerbaijani government. Stop edit warring and do not make changes that have no consensus and are not supported by reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

SO WHAT IF IT IS NOT THIRD PARTY? Stop this RACISM! It cannot be reliable because it is Armenian and Armenians are LIARs right? WRONG! The author cites sourced and brings strong credibility?

What is credibility of the Russian Orthodox article? Did it CITE sources? Is it EXPERT on region? NO! You have to show better reason than that and just drop it because the source is Armenian and you DONT NOT LIKE what it says.

P.S. on the Movses reference you included, I checked, and I suspect this refers to a different locations.

The Confusion Respecting the Toponyms of Kish and Gis. Archbishop Sargis Jalaliants, a prominent topographer, was the first to muddle up the historical village of Kish with Gis_*1, but later the same confusion also occurred in other researchers' works _*2. Led astray by the phonetic similarity between the toponyms of Gis' and Kish,' they presented the history of Gis Settlement, Hayots Aghvank, as that of Kish Village, located in Boon Aghvank, thus giving rise to a lot of misunderstanding., thus giving rise to a lot of misunderstanding. B. Ulubabian was the first scholar to distinguish between Kish and Gis, taking into consideration the records provided by different sources _*3.

)

Hetoum I 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I remind you the Misplaced Pages rules again:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

We are not interested in what Ulubabian and other modern Armenian sources claim. Please find a third party source to support you claims and stop reverting the article without consensus on talk. Grandmaster 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing to see a newcomer to blame me in being inactive. Ulubabiyan has BIG conlfict of interest with given article. You are very welcome! --Ulvi I. 05:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added info about the research by Norwegian scholars. Grandmaster 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see you guys reverting without actually talking. First off, you must discredit Ulubabian for reasons other than his race. And I already cited why you cannot cite the Movses quote since KISH is different from GISH, see source.

Norwegian source can be cited for some things, but his work suffers from credibility since he makes numerous errors in his work, and is basically handed materials by his Azerbaijani Tatar colleague, and he fails to objectively analyze all sources on this topic. Also, Norwegians are known for supervising the destruction of Armenian inscriptions on ANOTHER Armenian church in Azerbaijan so he is not exactly impartial either. Hetoum I 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is "good reasoning". Norwegian and Russian orthodox sources are not impartial but Armenian is.--Dacy69 04:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You violate the rules, Hetoum. I already quoted the rules, you cannot use Ulubabian and other Armenian sources, they are not third party and have conflict of interest. Norwegians are perfectly neutral, and you cannot remove them just because you don't like them. Grandmaster 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum complaining about our indication of Ulubabian's ethnic origins and our suspicion that he would be biased in this issue, now uses extremely hateful racist expression about us - calling an Azerbaijani a "Tatar" a name given and used by Russian colonialists two centuries ago. You know what - Nizami Gandjavi too in one of his verses said his mother was "Gord", i.e. brave, the same thing as "Gordon", or "Gordiy" mean in Indo-European languages today, but we cannot prove until very today to the Iranian scholars who insist that Nizami meant "Kord", i.e. "Kurd" - ethnicity. Let's leave your "Gish" vs. "Kish" problem to where it belongs. --Ulvi I. 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I thought Tartar was term commonly used by not only rest of world but by current people known as Azarbaijanis as well, anyhow, it really does not matter, if it offends, maybe I can use Caucasian Albanian or something :) - whatever you prefer. I am not one to spew racist comments, so sorry if this is what you interpreted ;) - I am better than this.

Actually Iranians make a point that Gord and Kord are not the same place like KISH and GIS are NOT same either. Is Armenians and Iranians liars together, or something wrong with revisionists? :)

I am not discounting the Norwegian not because I do not like what he is saying, but what he is saying is a WRONG interpretation and terminology. Anyhow, I will redo this article in the sandbox in detail to avoid this silly edit warring. :) Obviously, I wasnt clear enough on emphasizing misinterpretations of certain individuals.

I will deal with basic errors this silly Norwegian makes, and why his work lacks credibility. In the meantime, lets try to get an administrator into this as quickly as possible. Seems more than one are tryng to avoid this sticky icky. Cheers. Hetoum I 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will remind you the rules again. You should use reliable third party sources, so Armenian online propaganda ones are not acceptable. I'm not using Azerbaijani sources either. You are not allowed to do any original research, so there's no way you can prove that Norwegians are wrong, unless there's some third party source that contests their findings. Take care. Grandmaster 04:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dedication

Is the church dedicated to some particular saint? --Ghirla 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The extraordinary assertion that the core of the church predates the Great Pyramid of Giza, needs to be substantiated by reliable academic publications. --Ghirla 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article actually says that the cultic site dates 3000 years, that's quite possible. The church itself was of course built much later. Grandmaster 06:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's interview with the Norwegian scholar who led the researches in Kish:

He said, inter alia:

Generally, archaeologists can expect to find a reliquary (a box with a relic that relates closely to the person or the saint) buried underneath the church altar, especially if the place of worship has been named or dedicated after an individual or a saint. We found no such evidence at Kish. Instead, beneath the altar lay irrefutable evidence of an Early Bronze cultic sacrificial pit, yielding secrets of ceramic fragments, charcoal, charred bones and two skulls of sheep or goats. The carbon dating eventually yielded up the secrets of the pit, dating the contents to around 3000 B.C.

Grandmaster 06:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the {{dubious}} template, as it has a source. Grandmaster 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote - heavily sourced

Problems with sources.

Orthodox in Azerbaijan – This is not a center of udi culture. You lie and falsely misinterpret facts. Sentence says – restoration of church possible after registration of udi community. Whats this mean? It is a center of udi culture? Are there udis here? The Azerbaijan magazine says it will be a museum.

Baku Branch is also not free to speak because of religious danger and thread to them. Also, recent expansion of diocese might make it conflicting interest to call a place Armenian. Also, are they experts on architecture and history of the region? They sure as hell do not cite sources. Are they monks or reasearchers on the topic?

Also, no sources for dating of church in Norwegian article. They tested stuff buried in the church yard from 4500 years!!! All below church, no definite conclusion on date!!!! Also how can church from 13th century be Caucasian Albanian when they had disappeared from face of history by then.

Also, Norwegians not impartial, even they say themselves. This article cites info accurately, and takes care of Albanian construction fairy tales. Enjoy  Hetoum I 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no reliable source to support the claim that church was Armenian. Stop inserting unreliable info. Grandmaster 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

page is vandalized by anon editor. It should be protected from anon contributors.--Dacy69 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try calling it anon vandalism, you are the one removing sourced information. Sorry I did not log in, I was busy with other things in my life. Please revert to my version, I discussed all sides and cited sources. Cheers.Hetoum I 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue previously. You need submit neutral sources.Moreover you are using incivil comments that should be taken into account by admins. You just admit that these anon edits were yours but you forgot to login. It is rather strange you made 4 edits and all 4 times you forgot to login. --Dacy69 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Look stay on topic and stop barking like a dog at me, and on top of that making crap up. Who is the one on revert parole here? You! And are you trying to teach me to be civil in the meantime? Looks so! Wow, hypocrisy at its bets! I bow down to you.

And second, I didn't say I forgot to log in liar, I said I was too busy to log in with other things. My sources are fine, and unless you can find sources to contradict mine, my version should stay. I included your sources, and mentioned the errors they made. cheersHetoum I 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the rules again and use third party sources that have no conflict of interest in this issue. Grandmaster 10:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moses of Kalankatuyk

This is from Moses of Kalankatuyk:

Греческие полководцы подстрекали его потребовать верховенства над Алуанком, с чем алуанцы не согласились, выдвинув одного из учеников Господа по имени Елиша, рукоположенного святым Иаковом, братом Господним, прибывшего в Алуанк, проповедовавшего и построившего там церковь раньше, чем в Армении, первую церковь, мать церквей Восточного края, а именно – церковь в Гисе, основанную им, которой и посвятили себя .

Grandmaster 10:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you keep citing this section from Movses K. - but the name of the location is not the same. The title of the article is Kish, and the location of Movses' discussion is Gis.

I do not understand how Gis=Kish. This does not make sense, and is wrong in light of Ulubabian's evidence.

Also, I do not understand how you are interpreting this to be Albanian while pleading the 5th (verifiability). The page states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Hence the burden is on you. My sources are non-governmental and do not operate in Azerbaijan. The sources you cite operate or bear strong connection to Azerbaijan's government. The websites you refer to challenge commonly held view of this location's Armenian identity with questionable academic credibility and lack of citation of sources on the topic. So it is up to you to bring credible, neutral and reliable sources to disprove the Armenian identity of the location- hence the exceptional claim and a requirement of exceptional sources on your part.Hetoum I 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no sources that support your idea about "Armenian identity" of this church. Ulubabian, etc do not count, they are not third party. As for Gis/Kish, this info is verifiable from Russian orthodox church website. Grandmaster 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you. I did cite several sources reflecting Armenian identity of the church. A report of a Georgian priest from 1310 A.D. published in scholarly treatise from the 1970's. I also cited periodicals from 19th century and so forth. I am not sure what you mean by "Ulubabian, etc do not count," - he is a credible scholar on the topic from the Soviet Union. He has no connection to Azerbaijani government, and his work is peer reviewed and verifiable. Meanwhile, the source you suggest of the Russian church is a diocese of the Russian church in Azerbaijan. It bears strong relations to the government of Azerbaijan. It is not clear to me how the Russian Orthodox church has expertise on topography of Albania. It is neither a credible source on the topic, nor is it's content verifiable. It is material written on a church website without an author, without verifiable citation or explanation, while Ulubabian is. Since Ulubabian's writing is generally accepted and verifiable, preceding this anonymous website writing, it is up to you to bring an exceptional source to prove Gis=Kish.Hetoum I 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ulubabian promotes certain ethnic POV, as is evident from his works. He is not peer reviewed or anything. And I did not see you citing any source other than that Armenian website. Whatever is published there cannot be taken any seriously. You have not read Ulubabian either, you just took it from that website. So just forget about that website and find some reliable third party source. And Russian Orthodox church has no connections with Azerbaijani government whatsoever. It is a diocene of the Russian church and is subordinated to Moscow only. The articles on their websites are quite scholarly, they cite their sources, and the name of the author is also known. Grandmaster 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are unclear by statement “Ulubabian promotes certain ethnic POV, as is evident from his works.” If you have something to say, please say directly and not vague so we can understand where you are taking this allegation.

Also, you are incorrect - of course his work is peer reviewed. It is published in “Works of the Yerevan University.” This is a volume of works published by Soviet state university. It is reviewed at university and also by Soviet censors. So, it is quite reliable.

I of course cited sources other than “the Armenian” website. Georgian priest from 13th century and 19th century periodicals to name a few. Also, I do not understand why you are claiming “anything from an Armenian website cannot be taken seriously.” Please stop racist comments like this, turning this into battleground based on “ethnicity” of source as you have done in many other articles. We are to rely on content of writing, not ethnicity of author. So far you have not discredited contents of website, only shown anti-Armenian sentiment based on disapproval of content based on ethnicity of contributor.

Again, I repeat, Russian Orthodox church is religious organization, whose credibility in study of Armenian architecture and topography is nonexistent. Is it organization of religion or scholarly research? Of course you can claim it is subordinated by Russian church, but this diocese is not in Russia. They must register their activity and coordinate their action with government of Azerbaycan.

I scrolled across this page and saw no name of author on the page. Also, it claims Kish=Gis, but doesn’t explain how it came to conclusion or provide citation at how the conclusion is reached.

It is not verifiable and is later that Ulubabians work which says difference between Gis and Kish and gives explanation for conclusion. Therefore, you are still challenging and trying to prove Gis=Kish. So, you still lack exceptional source for an exceptional allegation. Hetoum I 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you question neutrality of Russian diocese, then Ulubabian and other Armenian-originated sources are more questionable.--Dacy69 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? I don't see a single reason for your revert. VartanM 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Hetoum and Vartan, stop POV editing. You cited no sources other than that Armenian website, which is not reliable. The Georgian priest is taken from the same source, if you really think such a source actually exists quote the original. Nothing published on that website can be taken any seriously. Grandmaster 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't accusing people of POV accusations get tiring after a while? Especially when you guys are on parole for this exact same action and are getting ready for arbcom round II.

I already answered your questions above, so there is no need to keep repeating what you just said and turning wikipedia on a battleground based on ethnic lines. Hetoum I 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum I, you should find reliable third party sources instead of Armenian websites. Zondi 05:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering you to the rules, that is not turning wikipedia in a battleground based on ethnic lines. The rules require that we use reliable third party sources. If the church was indeed Armenian, that should be mentioned somewhere other than that Armenian website you push so hard. Grandmaster 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You adding three Armenian users to an Arbcom case that has nothing to do with Armenians is turning wikipedia into a battleground. You still haven't proved that Kish=Gis. Regards. VartanM 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Vartan is pretty clear, please do not drag us in this ArbCom case. Don't speak of pushing when you are the one trying to push off this source so hard, not to mention solely on it being "Armenian." And please do not make me repeat I cited Georgian chronicle, and 19th century periodicals on the identity of church. And I am simply going to ignore zondis comment as it was answered above if he read.

There is no need for all the Azerbaijani editors to gang up and attack Armenian editors in a revert war. I noticed no commentary to responses by Grandmaster(saw other edits but ignoring this one) and I modified to my version. It is up to you to now explain why this church is not Armenian, not us.Hetoum I 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot use an Armenian website entitled "Research on Armenian Architecture" as a source for the history of this church, it's just not logical. If we were to use Azerbaijani sources on Armenia-related articles, they would look a lot different. Parishan 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources to support the claim that the church is Armenian, simple as that. The Armenian website that you are using is not a third party reliable source. And Parishan is right, you would not be happy if I edited the article about Yerevan using Azerbaijani websites as my only source. Sources should have no conflict of interest. Grandmaster 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look. It is simple, I waited for a response for 2 days and got none, so I changed article to my version. I did this. So, before you try to revert anything please finish discussion here.

If Azerbaijani editors will persist on finding 3rd party sources every time they see something they do not like they will get nowhere. See Polish-Soviet war article and millions of others. (Literally!) And if you follow your twisted interpretation of this wiki policy why are you using Azerbaijani sources for Azerbaijani articles. Hypocrites!

What is meant on Azeri sources on Yerevan article? Is it a threat? If you want to use reliable and credible Azerbaijani sources on articles as Yerevan you are more than welcome, no one is stopping you!

RAA is a NON-Governmental organization, located outside of Azerbaijan, with no connections to Azerbaijani or any other, including Armenian government connection. They have nothing to gain or lose from any government - no money, no publishing rights, NOTHING.

This organization has published numerous works on Armenian architecture. This organization's participants are foremost experts in the field of Armenian architecture. This includes author of this article, Karapetion. See interview of him here.

All the sources you have provided are either connected to the government of Azerbaijan very strongly or are not credible or verifiable on their content. The Azerbaijani goverment is of course known for its vandalism and destruction of Armenian sites, including removing of Armenian inscriptions of various places(including this one!), demolishing them, and/or calling them Albanian. Such actions have been supported or ignored by both Russian church and Norwegians

These are more than allegations and are evidence backed by photographic evidence. So to prove your exceptional allegations, bring in exceptional sources.

Hetoum I 11:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC) It is also dissapointing to see actions of "Dr. Alban" who appears to be a sockpuppet. Hetoum I 11:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Church of Kish is a monument of Albanian architecture located on Azerbaijani territory. Movses of Kalankatuyk is Albanian author for a simple reason, he is from Kalankatuyk which was in Caucasian Albania. So I don't see a basis here for POV pushing using .am extension websites to establish a basis for non-existing Armenian links. Atabek 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am simply going to ignore disruptive comment by Atabek as he repeats what was already stated 1 week ago and answered. I wish Azeri editors would give same courtesy and try to work resolution as Armenians are. Unfortunately ... Hetoum I 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see either you or Vartan working toward the resolution. All you do is edit war to have the article your way. That's not acceptable. Grandmaster 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi to all

Hi, I see that this article has become an object of edit warring, so it seems that here are also some socks. i filled a case for checkuser, I hope that after some socks being discovered, it will take some toll from you.Ateshi-Baghavan 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reverts are that by Azerbaijani sockpuppets, possibly by some banned user like Adil Baguirov. Or, someone on parole, as yourself if I am not wrong, formerly ASLANTURK . I wonder why you reported Armenian editors who reverted vandalism but not these four vandals inciting edit warring:

User: Aramgutan, Zhirtibay, DrAlban, Qarapapaq

Hetoum I 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to tell you that i am not Aslanturk, but User:Elsanaturk, and it comes from Sanatruk(it links to another page) of Caucasian Albania, so do not make any hypothetical statements about my username. And secondly, I have not used my revert parole yet on that page, so i needn't make sock accounts to make reverts or edits. thirdly, what you call vandalism, is simply neutral version, and everything started from some editors to insert armenian sources to that article, and then another editors reverted them, and when limits of first some users ran out, there appeared some new account and Ip which resemble to socks, and also appeared some other accounts that resemble to socks from opposite direction, so if you want you can file another chekuser. BTW, i can't see any Qarapapaq there, and Aramgutan appeared after I filed case. Dr Alban and Zhirtibay I do not believe are either you or VartanM, so that is why I filed only those above. Hope, this clears all. Ateshi-Baghavan 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry of ignorance on your name :) - I can't know everything. As for that version, it was factually innacurate, there is not even a question of neutrality. Anyway, I am getting tired of writing exact same answer for exact same question by 3 different editors. See responses above.Hetoum I 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article got protected, and now i think time is for discussion. let's start. Ateshi-Baghavan 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Guys, sockpuppeting on either side is not going to help, but will be making the condition of either side worse. So, we should just discuss our edits towards a consensus and do so in a constructive manner. Atabek 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like once again to request Hetoum and Vartan to stop edit warring and find reliable third party sources to support their claim that the church is Armenian. The Armenian website that they use as their sole source is not reliable and cannot be accepted. Grandmaster 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems Azerbaijani edit warrer was blocked. Possibly all instigation is work of Adil Baguirov?

Since there was no response to my comments I reverted to my version, so it's up to you to explain what is wrong with my version and reach consensus. Anyhow, sorry Grandmaster, but you cannot discard every source you do not like because of ethnicity - please stop waging war along national lines. I gave courtesy of giving reasonable answer to your sources, please do the same. If you have reason of not including the source other than it's ethnicity I am willing to talk.Hetoum I 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the arbcom will investigate your behavior on this and other articles. I already explained why the obscure Armenian website cannot be considered a reliable source. Unless you come up with indeed reliable sources to support your claims, please do not rv the article and edit war. Grandmaster 07:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum read NPOV rules and neutral sources. Then you would not make accusation that someone reject a source based on ethnic affiliation. In disputed cases we should seek thirdparty sources.--Dacy69 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please save arbCom for arbCom and dont threaten me, focus on discussion here. NPOV roles say no thing as this source not being able to be included. Nowhere does it say it must be thurd party. You cannot say this especially when you are using sources connected with Azerbaijani govt. So unless you will stop creating a battleground along national lines, and make racist comments calling Armenians liars. There is no reason why this source is not reliable. Hetoum I 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool down. it is you who here used insulting language. I never called Armenian liars. NPOV stands for what it stands.Well, why you would not accept Azerbaijani sources at first place.--Dacy69 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You never called Armenians liars? Here are words from Grandmaster “The Armenian website is not reliable and cannot be accepted” – Sounds like saying Armenians are liars - a racist comment to me. As for sources, I explained why Azerbaijani government(not on ethnicity) and affiliated sources cannot be used on their previous records and non-verifiability and non-reliability. Please DON’T BE A DICK and force me to repeat for the 2-5th time what I have already patiently said to the other Azerbaijani editors. My answers are above. Kindly read above before posting comment, as it is likely you are second or 3rd person or time asking same question.

As for Grandmaster complaining I am not working towards a solution, he by discarding source on ethnicity and making racist commentary sure the heck is! Now that is truly unacceptable. Hetoum I 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I already explained why the Armenian website is not reliable and I even quoted you the rules that we must use third party sources. You reject all other sources on the basis of that website and insist that we must take it over anything else. Not possible. Once again, fin a third party soyurce to back up your claims. I said nothing bad about Armenians, and Azerbaijani websites are as much unreliable as Armenian ones, I just refer to the rules which you can check yourself. They require using source that have no conflict on interest in the issue. Grandmaster 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that the rules do not say that we must use third party sources, and millions of wikipedia articles do not do this. Should does not mean must. What if there are no "thirdy party" sources available? Even Azerbaijani articles as Shirvanshahs and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic seem to be exempt from this rule, and you yourself include Azerbaijani/and or affiliated sources on the article while calling Armenians liars. Nice try but it is not a rule.

As for your reasoning - you actually did not explain why a well articulated article heavily relying on citations is not credible other than "it is Armenian propaganda" and a "lie."

Further, I explained why Azerbaijani Government, their proxies and Norwegian as well as Russian organizations cannot necessarily be relied on their content based on their previous records and vandalism of Armenian historical sites, as well as association and action regarding it. (read above)

Despite this, I did not wholly discard your references. I noted that most contents of your articles lack citations and do not bear credible authors(or anonymous content!) on the subject.(read above) They also make numerous incorrect statements. The Armenian source is published on the website of a scholarly organization by a well known author who is established in the field and who cites his information and explains his conclusions. This is less that what I can say for most content of sources you have presented.

Reposting content from previous post: All the sources you have provided are either connected to the government of Azerbaijan very strongly or are not credible or verifiable on their content. The Azerbaijani goverment is of course known for its vandalism and destruction of Armenian sites, including removing of Armenian inscriptions of various places(including this one!), demolishing them, and/or calling them Albanian. Such actions have been supported or ignored by both Russian church and Norwegians - thus a nail in the coffin to any weak thread of credibility they even may have had.

Hetoum I 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And I explained that neither source has any connection to Azerbaijani government and Armenian side is as much guilty of vandalism as anyone else in the region. Third party sources are available on the subject, and Misplaced Pages rules require using them. Both Shirvanshah and ADR articles rely on third party sources in all controversial aspects. So please make some effort and find third party reliable sources to back up your claims. Grandmaster 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how you came to a conclusion that my sources lack citations or authors. They have both. The Russian Orthodox church source is a scientific source (dissertation) by priest Aleksei (Nikanorov), which he defended in Moscow Theological academy: It has a large bibliography.

And Norwegians did their own research, the results of which they cite. They did excavations, carbon dating, etc. A lot more credible than some obscure Armenian website with an obvious conflict of interest. Grandmaster 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are those the same Norwegians as here? VartanM 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, different ones. But sponsor is the same, the Norwegian government. Grandmaster 07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter you much you sugar coat it, your message is clear and sour – Armenian lies and propaganda. Kindly stop this racism. If you have actual problem with content of the article, and can show it is inaccurate please prove it. Please say if you have problem other than the fact that author of content is Armenian and you do not like what he is saying.

Hmm, actually the articles do not cite neutral sources for controversial content, including blaming deaths of obscure ADR government officials on “Armenian Militants.” Please do not lie Grandmaster. I cited but one example, I can of course go on. Also, look at Soviet-Polish war article relies primarily on Polish sources, and it is a featured article, so I see no point in continuing to answering your made-up rules.

And still, you continue to whine on Armenian source when you continue to cite Azerbaijan International magazine – no citations for materials, not a scholarly source. Hypocrite! It is at best a current events article, which can be at most relied on it’s current event content reporting what is currently happening. At best is a bit of an exaggeration and assumption of good faith on my part.

Second, so the Russian page is the work of a priest applying for PhD. Mhhm, so he is non-authoritive –not even a scholar. And also, while I skimmed the pages and he did have citations for some of his materials, but he does not discuss how he concluded Gis=Kish. My source is specific in detail in proving these two are not equal and comes from an authorative professor who says to say Gis=Kish is wrong. Exceptional claim needs exceptional sources, you know the rules.

Then, how can we even fool ourselves and call Norwegians neutral when they quietly supervised the sandblasting of Armenian inscriptions at a site during “restorations” – And they continued project despite this, and remained quiet, praising opening ceremony, just like Russian church of Baku. How are sources who ignore vandalism of Armenian culture considered neutral and third party sources? Even your Azerbaijan magazine quotes a Norwegians saying they have “vested interests” with Azerbaijan.

Both organizations you cite of course have strong connections with Azeri government - Russian church must be registered with the government of the country and oppression of religion by goverment is rather well known in Azerbaijan. Same of Lutheran-Norwegian organization that funded restoration. It is an organization doing charity work in the country – must be registered and coordinate with government. The dig and “restoration” was done under Azerbaijani government supervision and their agents like Mammedova and others from Baku.

And what “Armenian side” are you speaking of conducting vandalism when this article deals with an article on Kish. While I cite problem with Azerbaijani government, not every Azerbaijani is a degenerate bent on vandalizing Armenian culture, but it is official policy of it’s government. I don’t think there are pictures of Armenian soldiers sledge hammering Azeri monuments. Any Azerbaijani government and affiliated source cannot be regarded as credible for obvious reasons. Hetoum I 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Norwegians had a conflict with the Udi community in Nij when the latter removed the Armenian inscriptions. Norwegians subsequently withdrew from the project. Udis claimed that Armenian inscriptions were made in their church much later after it was built and they did not want them there. Norwegians disagree, they wanted to preserve everything the way it was when they came there, and you cannot accuse Norwegians of anything. If anything, Norwegians can be accused in taking pro-Armenian stance in this issue, and not otherwise. As for Kish, no Armenian inscriptions or anything of the kind was found there, so it is impossible to claim that the church is Armenian. It is not. And Russian priest is PhD. Btw, why don't you apply to WP:DR? I never seen any of you guys trying to resolve the dispute by legal means, only edit warring. Grandmaster 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kish as a matter of fact did have Armenian inscriptions before they were destroyed as well by unknown individuals. Read the Karapetian article. And even if id did not, where are “Caucasian Albanian inscriptions” – were there even Caucasian Albanians in the 13th century in this region to build the church?

The work of the Russian priest is a non-peer reviewed dissertation of someone who is not established in the field of Armenian architecture. He also provides no proof Gis=Kish. He only assumes, and does not explain reasoning. In this case word of Ulubabian published in soviet era encyclopedia is correct. He provides detailed explanation of his conclusion and he is established scholar witch decades of knowledge as opposed to the work of non-expert Russian priest who’s work is published on a website of religious institution with strong ties to Azerbaijani government.

Also, I ask you again to stop making racist generalizations about “Armenians only edit warring” and turning this article into a battleground – especially after edit warring of banned user Adil Baguirov. I did not apply to mediation because I am assuming good faith about Azerbaijani editors as yourself and hoping we can work this out.

We did after all establish Armenian source is not to be discarded, now we can move on to first point that Kish is not Gis.

Regards,Hetoum I 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So far we have only established that the Armenian website is not a reliable source and cannot be used. For the millionth time, find a neutral source. And if you have any proof that Adil has any invovement with this article, you should present it to the admins, but not making baseless accusations. Grandmaster 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, rules say third-party published sources, which means no self-published sources. Your sources are self published so we cannot take them seriously. If you will use Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, then we will use the source I provided. Hetoum I 06:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not self-published. In fact, your source is self-published. Grandmaster 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He is Russian priest. His work is on the website of the Russian church, it is self published. My source is not self published, do not make up things. Hetoum I 06:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, Hetoum, Russian priest does not own the website of the Russian orthodox church. It is an official website of the Russian Orthodox church in Baku. Your source is some guy (who appears not to have any scientific background), who published it at his own website. Big difference. Grandmaster 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's bread and butter comes from Russian church, his work belongs to Russian church - like architect working at company. It is self published material.

Again, stop lying on Samvel Karapetian. It is not HIS website, and he does not OWN RAA website, or even a webmaster of it - it simply published his work. He is of course not some guy as you lie. He is published author and accredited expert on Armenian architecture. Google his name for numerous books and articles he has authored and asked for interviews on these issues. It is, similiar as if to say Elie Wiesel is "some guy" who wrote on the holocaust.Hetoum I 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian priest is not self-published source, as I said before Russian Orthodox Church is a large organization with millions of followers. The source was published at their website. As for Karapetian, does he have any qualification as a historian? And is he not the leader of the NGO that runs that website? Grandmaster 08:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian priest is not a follower, but employee and part of Russian church, not volunteer or participant. It is his bread and butter, his work belongs to Russian church(he is church) - it is self-published. Karapetian is of course well known. If you assume good faith or google his name you will find dozens of books. He is neither leader nor webmaster. You should read before making baseless claims. His expertise is indesputable. Hetoum I 11:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Online report about the excavation? I recall reading a detailed report about the excavation of the church from an online source. I saw it about a year ago, but I cannot now locate it. Has anyone else happened to have found it? It might have been on on the Thor Heyerdahl Research Centre's website - but if it was then, it isn't there now. It was similar to this article, but included floor plans. Meowy 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, Russian priest is not self-publiched, he does not own Russian Orthodox church. If his article appeared on thier website, it is published by a reputable organization, which has no bias in this issue. As for Karapetian, he is not impartial and not a specialist, and in addition to that is a self-published source. Not acceptable. And the article by Norwegian scholar cited by Meowy is a good and reliable source. Storfjell was leading the excavations and is a third party source. Grandmaster 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Grandmaster, do not make implied assertions that I approve of any of the sources that you seem to approve of. Even the briefest of internet searches should dig up enough troubling background information about J. Bjornar Storfjell to make one suspicious about anything his name is connected to. Meowy 11:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Publish" does not apply to posting on the internet. It refers only to paper publication. Otherwise, the Human Rights Watch website (www.hrw.org) would be precluded as a self-published source.--66.214.140.93 10:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. While Russian Orthodox Church belongs to a reputable organization, Karapetian is a person with unknown qualification and posts his opinion on his own website, as he is the one who runs that NGO. Plus, extreme nationalism displayed by that person does not add any reliability to his claims. Grandmaster 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules only prohibit personal websites. Websites by organizations are allowed. Otherwise, we can preclude www.hrw.org--the Khojali "Massacre" article will suffer irreparably.--TigranTheGreat 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. All this talk about self-published sources was initiated by Hetoum. Karapetian cannot be used for a simple reason - he is not third party, plus he is not an historian anyway. Grandmaster 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here you go lying again. I am disappointed. Karapetian has surveyed THOUSANDS of Armenian churches and published them for 25 years. He is well known and so is his research. His "historian" status is indisputable. Please drop your racism, and prove this is Albanian church as you claim. Hetoum I 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he published something is not a proof of his qualification. Plus he has an evident bias in this issue. And I provided third party sources to support that the church was Albanian. Grandmaster 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

His qualifications are indisputable. His bias is not clear as he cites what he writes. So, Gis does not equal Kish. So how is this church Albanian? Your sources are unclear.zHetoum I 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the above simply reveals that Misplaced Pages is the ideal medium for the dissemination of propaganda, and that Misplaced Pages seems to have been set up just for that purpose. Why waste time on it? Why argue with the likes of Grandmaster? And what idiot was responsible for creating this entry in the first place, paving the way for its inevitable hijacking by Azeri and Azeri-backed propagandists? Meowy 11:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. Comment on content, not the contributor. This is your first and last warning, next time I'll report you to the admins. Grandmaster 05:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Meowy has a point. Looking back at its history, this article (started by Emil2190, an Azeri user) seems to have been created to solidify the claims by Azerbaijani historians about Caucasian Albania and its history. The assertion of it being founded in 62 AD and of being the first church in the Caucasus appear to be a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the fact that Armenia was the first Christian nation which adopted the faith in 301 AD. Taking into account that the church was actually built in the Middle Ages only lends credence to this thought. -- Aivazovsky 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Meowy made racist comment and nothing else. His bias is onbious. It is not worth even to discuss.Your point, Aivazovsky, should be backed and elaborated, and not only thrown just in the light of anti-Azeri sentiments.--Dacy69 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is backed and elaborated, my statements were heavily cited, Gimme citations for this church being Albanian.Hetoum I 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, have you ever heard of WP:AGF? If yes, why then you are making bad faith assumptions on the motives of other users? As for the church being Albanian, third party sources have been presented, the ball is on your court. --Grandmaster 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets take a look at so called third party sources 1,2,3,5,6 and 8 are Russian language church articles, 7 is a picture submitted to World66.com by user azerbaijan08 9 is Azer.com Now the Russian Orthodox church of Azerbaijan is a church in Azerbaijan. Third party means someone who has nothing to gain or loose from their views, actions and whatever they say. Russian church in Azerbaijan can certainly loose if it goes against Azerbaijan's views regarding the church in its territory. World66.com is a user created travel guide website. An interesting fact about World66.com is that it categorizes Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenia. 9 is not third party at all. Anyone care to comment? VartanM 08:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

World66.com is not a reference, it is an illustration. We can delete it if there are any objections to its inclusion. As for the Russian church, you need to prove that Russian church can lose something if it goes against the views of Azerbaijan. It is not affiliated with Azerbaijani government in any way. And the article in azer.com is written by Norwegians, who conducted a research at that church. Grandmaster 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have already discussed the inadmissibility of the Russian church material based on the fact that they are self-published, so there is no need to go further on it.

So, first, you must prove that Kish=Gis. Second, the project is not Norwegian. It is funded by a Norwegian organization and conducted by a dual team of several Azerbaijanis and one Norwegian. This Norwegian shows no knowledge or credibility on the topic. He shamelessly follows ulterior motive calling church Azerbaijani despite numerous errors in his writing and contradicting himself. He is neither credible expert nor reliable. Further, his work is not on the website or publication of a reliable scientific organization. "The ball is on you court."Hetoum I 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We are just going around in circles. We discussed Russian church, Norwegian scholars and the obscure Armenian website. I don't want to repeat what I have already said many times. Either you get third party sources to support your claims, or give it up. I suggest we wait till the end of arbcom, to which you are also a party, and come back to this topic after it's over. Grandmaster 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We already established you have no evidence Gis=Kish, no self published sources per Rules. Even the Norwegian indirectly suggests this church is Armenian in his work. Please prove it is Albanian! Otherwise, there is no validity.Hetoum I 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When did we establish that? On the contrary, we have the Russian church website which supports this info. On the other hand, there's no third party sources to support your claim that the church was Armenian. Please find at least one such source. Grandmaster 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have sources for Kish=Gis other than self-published Russian source, we have no proof. Further, I have reference from Soviet scholar showing Gis is not Kish. And I did cite third party sources on the church. late 19-early 20th century periodicals as well as reference of a Georgian priest to reference of this Armenian Apostolic church from 1310. As I said, even your Norwegians work suggests this is an Armenian church - his work points to it. :) Hetoum I 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is written by Karapetian is not reliable, including the "Georgian priest". Find reliable sources please. Grandmaster 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very funny that Karapetian accuses Storjfell of the “lack comprehensive knowledge of the matter”, while himself twisting the well-known historical facts. In his attempt to Armenize the heritage of Caucasian Albania he goes as far as denying the existence of Albanians as ethnicity. He claims that “Aghvanits' should be regarded as a geographical name rather than an ethnonym”! Nice, isn’t it? I can cite millions of quotes from leading experts in the field to show that it is not so, but I don’t think that there’s actually any need for that. Aggressive nationalism and ethnic bias of this author is apparent for everyone. Here’s the quote from Karapetian, whose qualification as a scholar is unknown. It is also not clear what the name of Kalankatuatsi’s book has to do with the church in Kish. Quote:

The material published by J. Bjornar Storfjell, an archaeologist of Norwegian-American origin, reveals the aforementioned confusion between the toponyms of Kish' and Gis'. The title of the work by Movses Kaghankatvatsi which sounds as Aghvanits Patmutiun' in Armenian should actually be understood as History of Aghvank' (there exist other similar mediaeval works such as History of Syunik,' History of Taron,' etc.), namely the Armenian word of Aghvanits' should be regarded as a geographical name rather than an ethnonym, while it has been interpreted as History of Caucasian Albanians.' In other words, the aforementioned Norwegian researcher, who evidently lacks comprehensive knowledge of the matter, took the "scientific" theories put forward by the Azerbaijani specialists for granted, thus involuntarily depreciating his work. In fact, the Azerbaijani "scholars" trapped the Norwegian archaeologist to impart greater seriousness to their own falsified theses.

That Karapetian wrote his article for propaganda purposes is obvious from the very first lines:

The material on the history of Kish Village and its church pursues the aim of exposing the falsifications of the Azerbaijani "scholars" who try to "create" their own history for purely political purposes.

Very good. How can one expect any objectivity from such a source? Now about the Georgian priest. According to Karapetian that priest never says anything about the church, he only mentions the settlement of Kish, which Karapetian claims to be “historical Armenian” without any proof.

One of the earliest records to mention the name of Kish, a historical Armenian settlement, is found in the annals by Georgian Bishop Kyurile Donauri dating as far back as 1310. (interestingly enough, it is referred to as Kish-Nukhi as if to be differentiated from another settlement of the same name).

Nothing about the church or the settlement being Armenian, only the reference to the fact that Georgian priest mentioned the settlement of Kish-Nukhi and Karapetian's personal ideas about the ethnic composition of the village. So where’s any reference to third party sources that the church was Armenian? --Grandmaster 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good on selectively reading the article. Georgian priest mentions the Armenian historical Armenian community and it's CHURCH. So we have people in right place and right time mentioned with church. We also have 19th century periodicals naming this Armenian church it's pilgrims and resident abbots. We know Bjornar is lying on numerous examples in his article, and still he suggests on Armenian identity of church. Now, please prove it is Albanian.Hetoum I 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Georgian priest does not say so. Find the original source and quote it, we cannot accept it in Karapetian’s interpretation. From what I can see he only mentions the settlement of Kish-Nukha and nothing else. Grandmaster 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please if you are going to quote, quote all related content:

The exact date of the establishment of Kish's St. Yeghishe Church is unknown, but Yeghishe (Elisha) the Apostle is traditionally regarded as its founder:

   ...according to some legends, it is the first church built by Yeghishe the Apostle... _*15
   Despite this, however, different sources (1310) first of all mention the sanctuary under the name of Sourb Astvatzatzin and not St. Yeghishe _*16.
   Most presumably, a still older church used to be located in the site of the present-day monument, which is also suggested by its plan and construction peculiarities. The standing church with its circular tambour does not trace back to a period earlier than the 13th, or 12th centuries (a record attests that it was founded in 1244). The same record whose original source is, unfortunately, unknown, evidences that Kish Village and the local church were devastated as a result of Agha Mohammed's incursion:
   St. Yeghishe the Apostle's Monastery, which was built in Kish in 1244 by Archbishop Serapheme, was demolished during Agha-Mahmat khan's invasion

These are references from Georgian priest and 19th century periodicals.Hetoum I 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is from Karapetian and therefore not reliable. Quote the original document, i.e. Georgian chronicle, if such reference actually exists. Grandmaster 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, why do you think that Archbishop Seraphime was Armenian? The original source that this author quotes says:

"Caucasian Calendar for 1852", Tiflis, 1851, p. 271 (The Russian original reads, "Монастыр во имя Св. Апостола Егишея при селении Киш и Киш построен в 1244 г. по Р. Х. Архидиаконом Серафимом. Опустел во время нашествия Шаха Агамагмада".

Nothing about the ethnicity of Seraphime, if the quote is accurate. Grandmaster 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Medium where information is published does not matter. We have Georgian reference citing church. Reference does not say about identity of Seraphime. The name is of Jewish origin. However, the name of the church is cited as St. Yeghishe, and clearly Armenian.Hetoum I 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If Grandmaster cares to go again to the source of the quotation, here he will see that it says that the quote is from Caucasian Calendar for 1852 and there were no further details in that publication as to the original source of the information. Yeghishe is not an Armenian name - it is Greek in origin. But you both are not getting the concept of "Armenian Church" and "Georgian Church" right. After the council of Chalcedon the Orthodox world split into two camps: the Armenian Church rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, the Georgian Church decided to abide by them. To be a member of either Church had little to do with ethnicity, it had to do with religious beliefs. If an Armenian (or a Christian of any ethnic origin) wanted to worship using the same rites held in the Byzantine Empire then they worshiped in a church belonging to the Georgian Church because it was the sole representative of Chalcedonian church orthodoxy in that region. Meowy 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thought on that 1852 source. The phrase "St. Yeghishe the Apostle's Monastery" is most likely used because that is what the monastery was known as in the 1850s. It does not mean that that Archbishop Seraphime back in 1244 would have called the place by that name. Meowy 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, first of all the source your inserting is from raa.am, hence is Armenian, hence is not unbiased. Secondly, half of the POV text inserted is not even based on the source you're citing. This text needs serious NPOVing before it can appear in legible format. The information cited from the source at raa.am is simply false, because entire Shaki district as well as Qabala are located on the left bank of river Kura, which is not historical Utik. What you cited as Kutkashen is Qabala, and actually the source you cited does not mention it. So let's assume good faith, and discuss before POV or OR pushing. Thanks. Atabek 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, neither of the sources cited by Karapetian supports his claim that the church was originally built by Armenians. One of them says that it was built by some archbishop Seraphime, but nothing is said about his ethnicity. I wonder how Karapetian came to a conclusion that the church was Armenian. However, considering that this guy denies even the fact of existence of Caucasian Albania, it does not surprise me. In any case, Caucasian calendar should be quoted in original, since Karapetian does not have a reputation of a serious and impartial scholar and there’s no guarantee that he did no distort the quotes. Grandmaster 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of words that sugggest that St. Yegishe and Thaddeus of Edessa were historical figures that have been proven to exist is wrong. There is no hard evedence that they ever existed. That is why I used the words "a medieval tradition", and why I have now reverted the edit that removed those words. All the information derived from the RAA website are fully referenced on the RAA site, so use of the information here is completely justified. The settlement of Bum is clearly identifiable in any small-scale map of Azerbaijan. It is in the center of the Uti region. If the name Kutkashen needs updating to a more current name, then do it. Nowhere did I say or imply that the church was built by Armenians. However, Grandmaster, your continuous non-specific slanders agains Karapetian, an individual you know nothing about, is becoming tiresome. Meowy 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Karapetian has no qualification as a historian, and he is an agressively nationalistic author, whose publication is extremely anti-Azerbaijani. That does not lend him any credibility whatsoever, so he cannot be used. And I don't understand what church of Kish has to do with Heyerdahl and his theories. You can start a separate article on his theories if you wish, but this is not a place for it. You can add only information related to this particular church. I'm restoring the previous version, please find reliable third party sources, which have no bias and can be taken seriously. Grandmaster 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you included this line: Movses Kalankatuatsi also wrote that in the 7th century …pious Vachagan, the king of Albania, erected a pillar over the dungeon of Yeghishe's martyrdom. However, Vachagan the Pious lived in the 5th century. I wonder if Karapetian actually claims that vachagan lived in the 7th century or you misquoted him? In any case it is better to quote Kalankatuatsi from the original source, than refering to someone who refers to him. Grandmaster 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article does not claim that Eliseus/Egishe was a real person. It actually says: Even if the person did exist, etc. Please discuss your edits before actually making them, we may come to agreement that may help to resolve the dispute. And can you name at least one credible historian who thinks that Gis is Bum? Grandmaster 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Words like "Even if the person did exist" imply that it is almost certain the person did not exist. My words, which are more neutral, are preferable because they indicate that regardless of whether he did or did not exist, the population believed he had existed, and had been killed at that location. The position of the word "that" was a mistake by me. I've corercted it. The actual quote is a published English translation of the Armenian version. BTW, I don't think you understand the spelling of the name Kagankatvatsi. There are lots of variations in the spelling, I would not like to say which is right but a more phonetic spelling would be Kaghankatuatsi. In academic works a "gh" sound is often represented by a letter "l" with a diagonal slash through it. Your spelling Kalankatuatsi is inaccurate because you are using an ordinary letter "l" without the slash. You can see the use of the l with slash here Jstor article Meowy 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the quote. The English translation in the Karapetian book is a translation from a 1983 Armenian edition of Kagankatvatsi. It would be better to get the quote direct from the English translation by Dowsett, if someone has access to a copy of it (I don't). Meowy 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bum. Karapetian here cites "Ulubabian, B., Verification of Certain Historical and Geographical Names, in "Banber Yerevani Hamalsarani," 1971, N 1, pp. 176-177 (in Armenian)" as a source that says Kagankatvatsi's Gis in not present-day Kish. Karapetian, in "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabagh" gives the location of Gis as Bomen / Bum. Meowy 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is spelled as Kalankatuatsi in Russian translation of the book, which was done by Armenian scholars. I think they speak Armenian better than we do. As for Ulubabian, he is a nationalistic modern Armenian scholar. What do people like Minorsky, Trever or Dowsett say about Gis? Please cite real authorities, people without any bias. And Vachagan lived in the 5th century, it is basic knowledge for everyone familiar with the history of Albania. Why you keep on adding inaccurate info? It is not about the accuracy of quote, it is about accuracy of the dates. Check Iranica, this king lived in the 5th century:

After the death of Vache, Albania was to remain for thirty years without a king. It was the Sasanian Balash (r. 484-88) who decided to reestablish the Albanian monarchy in the person of Vachagan, son of Yazdegerd and brother of the previous king Vache (Movses, History 1.16, tr. p. 25). According to this version, Vachagan Barepash (the pious) must have been descended from the royal family of Persia. He demonstrated great zeal for Christianity, commanding the nobles who had apostatized to return to the Christian religion and waging war not only on Magianism but also on pagan practices, idolatry, and sorcery (notably against the sect of the matnahatk or “finger-cutters;” cf. below). He took the initiative in convening a church council at Aghuen (between 484 and 488); its canons were endorsed by high civil dignitaries and a certain number of nobles (Movses, History 1.26, tr. 50-54).

It is probable that the cult of the Moon had existed for a long time, at least locally. However, the tradition of the Sasanian epoch reveals traces of other quite different beliefs, which were so deeply rooted that, towards the end of the 5th century, King Vachagan III had to take vigorous measures to deal with them. --Grandmaster 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not spelt "Kalankatuatsi" in the Russian translation. The Russian translation is in Cyrillic, obviously. Meowy 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make in the rest of your post. The date I have written in the article refers to the date that the quote was written by Kagankatvatsi. But I'll add (or you add) a date for Vachagan into the article if you are sure that it is the same Vachagen as Kagankatvatsi is writing about.Meowy 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Check for yourself, in Russian it is spelled as Kalankatuatsi, translation by Smbatian: As for the quote, Kalankatuatsi is likely to live in the 7th century, third book of his chronicle is written later by another person, and Vachagan lived in the 5th century. In your quote it is not clear who the reference is made to, Kalankatuatsi or Vachagan. Grandmaster 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in Cyrillic. The entire page, top to bottom is in CYRILLIC! "Kalankatuatsi" appears nowhere. Meowy 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, the 7th century date clearly was referring to Kagankatvatsi - but for clarity and since it is optional because there is already an entry for Kagankatvatsi giving the possible dates of his work, I'll removed the date. If you are certain that the 5th C Vachagan is the same one in the quote, then probably that date should be added to indicate when the pillar would have been erected. Meowy 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is in Cyrillic, since it is in Russian. It says on the very top of the page: Мовсес Каланкатуаци. Why is it a problem anyway? There are different spellings of the name, nothing unusual. Grandmaster 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate different spellings of his name are acceptable. Your one-off, unique to yourself, spelling of it is not. 84.71.157.57 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blah

Hi, the stuff about Thor whatever should go on the page about Thor whatever not on the page about the church. I've linked the names so as to make it easier to start these articles. With respect to the other sources, Grandmaster is correct that the article should only use third party reliable sources. It will result in less disputes. I'm sure there must be non-Armenian and non-Azerbaijani sources available. I will say that the Armenian source can be used for the "pilgrimage" part though. Just not for historical issues. - Francis Tyers · 13:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the Norwegian interest in the Kish church is clearly relevent to a page about the Kish church. The article already contained links to the entry about Heyerdahl and the entry about his Odin books - both of which expand on the topic more. Your casual and contemptuous langage ("Thor whatever", "blah") does you no credit. Nor does your accusation that all Armenian and all Azeri sources are not worthy of use. Meowy 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, stop violating Misplaced Pages rules. They clearly state that third party sources should be used. Check for yourself:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Karapetian is not third party and therefore is not acceptable. Second, the part on Norwegians is original research and was added with the sole purpose of somehow discredit Norwegian scholars that carried out the research in Kish. It is a synthesis of irrelevant material, non of which has anything to do with the Church of Kish. See this rule, it is exactly about what you are doing: Francis has been involved in mediating Azerbaijan – Armenia related articles from the very beginning and has respect of both sides. I think you should show some respect for third party contributors and try to work towards consensus. Grandmaster 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the reasons for the Kish church being excavated and restored, and the beliefs of those involved in the project, are important content for a page about the Kish church. It is not original research. Most of the information is contained on the same webpages as you have been quoting from! Just because YOU think Karapetian is not acceptable is not a valid reason. Cite one example where he is knowingly giving false information. On the other hand, there are loads of false information contained in the webpages you have been citing (not the least being the statement that the church had been abandoned for 200 years). Meowy 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A good example is his attempt to deny the existence of Caucasian Albania. It is quite enough to see his bias. Since the rules require using third party sources, Karapetian is not acceptable. As for the motives of Norwegians, it is your POV, no third party source has ever criticized their work in Kish or implied that they had some hidden motives. The section about them should be deleted, it is not relevant to the church. --Grandmaster 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not attempting to deny the existence of Caucasian Albania. His view of what Caucasian Albania was differs from Azerbaijan's official position on what Caucasian Albania was. The motives and beliefs of those involved in the excavation and restoration are not hidden - they are clearly expressed in the articles I have cited. Meowy 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the section on Thor into his own article. I've moved the part about the Norwegian Humanitarian Enterprise into its own article. Information regarding Bjorn Wegge has been moved into his own article. - Francis Tyers · 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense what Tyers is offering. The Church does not belong to Norwegians and is not a part of Norwegian history. The restoration work related to the Church and humanitarian help to Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs by NHE can be reflected in a new article. Heyerdahl's visits and research on theories should rather be added to his page. Ehud 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is part of Norwegian history according to those involved in the excavation. Cultural monuments like Kish do not belong to anyone - they belong to World culture and to all humanity. Meowy 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, those theories were "rejected by all serious historians, archaeologists, and linguists". Not exactly appropriate for a general article, although a separate article on their theories might be a suggestion. - Francis Tyers · 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Those theories are believed by those taking part in the excavation and are cited by them as an important reason for their interest in the church. So they should be mentioned here as a brief summary, with a link to the main article.Meowy 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored some of the good edits and have made a couple more links. So that people more interested in the actors involved can click through. - Francis Tyers · 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your link to NHE, little of what was here you actually moved to there - so I have reverted your edits. Meowy 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you check the three articles you'll find all of the information has been preserved, see: Thor Heyerdahl, Norwegian Humanitarian Enterprise and Bjorn Wegge. If you think some information was in this article that isn't in those (more relevant) articles, please paste it here. I could have missed something. - Francis Tyers · 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have you (Francis Tyers) been erasing my comments on this talk page? Such behaviour is completely unacceptable. Meowy 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? - Francis Tyers · 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You erased, accidentally I assume, two of my replies to points made by other users. I've just re-inserted them. Meowy 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Opa, sorry, my apologies :( - Francis Tyers · 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Apology accepted. I'll edit out the text in the re-inserted replies that said they were re-inserted. Meowy 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we restore this quote from Kalanakatuatsi, removed for unknown reason by Meowy:

According to Moses Kalankatuatsi, St. Elishe arrived to a place called Gis, where he built a church and recited a liturgy. The church became the "spiritual center and the place of enlightenment of people of the East". On his way from Gis St. Elishe was killed by unknown people.<ref></ref>

The church (referred to as "Mother of All Eastern Churches") was the first church of Caucasian Albania and is believed to be the first church built in the Caucasus.<ref>http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus5/Kalank/text22.phtml?id=621 Moses Kalankatuatsi. History of Albania. Book 2, Chapter XLVIII</ref>

Grandmaster 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits by certain users seem to amount to an attempt to censor this entry by removing relevant information from it and burying the information from sight in other entries. None of the new entries created by Francis Tyers come close to being proper Misplaced Pages entries in terms of their size, notability, or content. They contain no content other than what was removed from this entry, and clearly have been created for the sole purpose of removing that content from this entry. Ehud, who has contributed no content to the entry, first edited out a paragraph in the Kish and the Norwegians section, leaving everythign else intact (thus presumably agreeing with its content) but some hours later returned and (without giving any reason here) removed most of the whole entry! Meowy 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Grandmaster's quote. Where does it come from? Is it a translation of the Russian and if so who translated it? Quoting from Dowsett would be better, since an English translation from the on-line Russian version will be a 3rd generation copy (going from the medieval Armenian to modern Armenian to Russian to English). The quote as it stands is not of much importance - if it quoted Kaghankatvatsi's actual words about the Saint's arrival at Gis then that would be relevant, but Grandmaster seems to be using his own words there. And why is it important to say that he was killed by "unknown persons"? Meowy 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Francis. When did you get your administrative priviliges?

We need to make something clear. Misplaced Pages rules do not ban use of Armenian sources. They do not mandate use of third-party (as in "neutral") sources. They merely mandate use of "third party published" sources--i.e. no self-published sources. It is clear from the rules, which uses "third-party published source" phrase, and not Grandmaster's "third party source" phrase:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.

Grandmaster's "interpretation" is a blatant distortion of the letter of the rules, and I am surprised that you, being an administrator, blindly fell for it.--TigranTheGreat 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, I first edited out the paragraph containing POV-ed information and left the Kish and the Norwegians section because I didn't see anything wrong with that section information-wise, but after researching I came to conclusion that having the info in another article would make more sense. In that section you have already enriched information about presence of NHE in Azerbaijan. Imagine if everyone will now be expanding that section by inserting new info about NHE's cultural activities in Azerbaijan, and their work with Azeri refugees and internally displaced persons. The article will go out of hand. Looks like, you're just trying to include the POV info on the church in Nij being Armenian. Ehud 01:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation, Tigran. The rules clearly say that third party sources should be used, please abide by them. But even if we assume that they require source to be published by a third party, Karapetian still does not qualify, as he published material on his own website, since raa is organization run by him. As for the quote that I suggest to restore, it comes directly from Kalankatuatsi, see the links that I provided to the full Russian translation of his book, available online. Grandmaster 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Francis, I would also like to bring to your attention how Grandmaster uncontrolably and blindly lies. I told him within a previous post on the same page that the RAA has only published in print and on it's website the works of Karapetian. He is not a webmaster, owner, director, or even founder of the RAA. I doubt the man knows anything about web design. His email, (if he even has one!) I have yet to see on their site. Founder and current chairman who's email is availible on the site is Dr.Armen HaghnazarianHetoum I 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked, this Karapetian is a director of Yerevan branch of this NGO. But still, he is not a qualified historian, at least I do not see any evidence of this, and he has a very strong anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Turkish and anti-Georgian bias. Extreme nationalist. Grandmaster 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The info about St. Yeghishe being killed in Gis was deleted, since Moses of Kalankatuyk states he was killed on his way from from Gis, not in that locale:

Святой же епископ, прибыв в Гис, построил там церковь и отслужил обедню. На этом месте была основана наша, Восточного края, церковь. И стало духовной столицей и местом просвещения жителей Востока. Уходя оттуда проходил через небольшую долину Зергуни, где находилась жертвенница идолопоклонников, и там он принял венец мученика. Parishan 06:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Francis Answer

To briefly answer what Francis said. I am currently busy and will add in more detail to talk tommorow.

Re:There is none. We can not dismiss sources only on ethnic ground, which in this page Atabek, Dacy69 and Grandmaster have done. It borders racism. We do not have much if any other contemporary scholars saying anything about the Church of Kish and as long as we cite the sources there should be no problem. Moeow did just that. And I don't think you nor anyone should support Grandmaster blatant dismissal of sources by hammering us authors ethnicity. It is unacceptable.

Grandmaster is just reverting and wonders what is Heyerdahl theory doing here. The number of persons who have written about it are in the few, so insignificant positions on something with insignificant coverage does not become as insignificant anymore, as from the same token we should request the articles deletion. Heyerdahl theories about the church those for become relevant. Also given that Heyerdahl was from Grandmasters standard the closest he could come up with a third source.

Just a reminder, that most of what has been said about the church were fabrication along the ethnic line recycled by Grandmaster. Claims such as it being the oldest church in the Caucasus, build first in the 70s. It would have made of it the oldest church on Earth, since older of two centuries from the Church of Megiddo in the middle east http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3164437,00.html which of course is ridiculous. Hetoum I 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick point, "it borders on racism", then they are racist towards themselves? They don't want to only exclude Armenian sources, but all sources of Azerbaijanis and Armenians. A sensible proposal in my opinion. We've done it on other pages and get good results. - Francis Tyers · 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kalankatuatsi says that church in Gis was the first church in the Caucasus, built by St. Eliseus. You can agree or disagree with the fact, but this is what he says. We are only messengers here. Grandmaster 07:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? A proposal to you: read those Azerbaijani scholars for the quality of their work. Ulvi who wrote a proposition to the Azerbaijani government to turn the Armenian churches in Azerbaijan into Azerbaijani genocide museums, or the junk on Azerbaijanis having lived there from time immemorial and for eternity. Adil Baguirov and the rest are such scholars. It should ring a bell to find out that even pro-Azerbaijani scholars consider Azerbaijani scholars who always end up to be active members of the academia of science not at all credible. It is convenient for Grandmaster to claim that both sides sources should be dismissed when he knows he could not provide a single Azerbaijani scholar on Kish church who has published any scholarly work on the issue. Dismissing authors on the basis of their ethnicity in this case is not to take a neutral stance. It is like a Palestinian claiming to be neutral by claiming that Jewish and Palestinian materials should be thrown away when we know Jews publish more than 4 times their numbers. You have not provided any arguments per Misplaced Pages rules for this exclusion. Per what rule does anyone give himself the right to dismiss sources on the basis of the authors ethnicity? Rules are voted and passed, I will accept exclusion according to the rules. If Francis you think such a rule should exist, go ahead propose it at your own risk of being accused of xenophobic.

Further, how is self-published material of Russian Orthodox Church on their website makes it credible or neutral, especially if it is the site of the Baku diocese. I wonder why the Russian Orthodox Church has so much information on history of Albania on their website. I must have mistaken it to be a religious institution instead of a scientific one. Their random credential-less priests or anonymous authors, or bishops publishing materials on their own private website show little credibility. Hetoum I 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian scholars have reputation for bias and nationalism. I can quote plenty of sources with regard to that. In fact, I did it on other pages. I can even quote famous Russian academician Piotrovsky, the director of Hermitage, who was enraged by one Armenian scholar, who tried to read Arabic inscriptions in Urartian language to claim that Armenian people always lived in a certain area. But all that is irrelevant. There's a conflict that involves two sides, and both sides are involved in a propaganda war. Armenian authors like Ulubabian and Karapetian go as far as denying the mere fact of existence of Caucasian Albanians. It is very unscholarly and contradicts what real authorities on the subject say. That’s why I proposed to refrain from using sources that have a conflict of interest on this issue. It applies to both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources. If you noticed, so far I refrained from using any Azerbaijani source, but if Armenian sources are to be used, so are Azerbaijani ones. They have equal value. As for the Russian church, there’s a reason why it makes its own researches on the history of Caucasian Albania. Udi people, ho are the only direct descendants of Albanians, are orthodox, and they are parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church. And they are interested in the history of Christianity in Azerbaijan. I don’t see why it cannot be considered a reliable source. Grandmaster 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You can quote nothing. The only thing you exposed so far is how prejudicial you are. The names of Armenian scholars are found in various periodicals. The fact of the matter is, many known scholars of the region are Armenians. There are no known Azerbaijani scholars of the region who publish in scholarly journals like Bournoutian, Suny etc. It is not as if you are excluding both, you are not. After requesting the name of an Azerbaijani scholar who published a peer reviewed material about Kish you have been able to provide none.

You provide Boris Piotrovsky, the Soviet archeologist? Some of his theories are still debated, most use his pagan period of Armenians as his most useful sources, but like many, including Soviet-Armenian scholars in the communist era Armenian history, back to certain period was censured. This is why for those certain periods Soviet historiography is taken with more skepticism. This is because it was to dismiss Armenian claims on certain territories, particularly Western Armenia (Anatolia) since Piotrovsky research coincided with Soviet Armenia’s submission to requisition the return of lands according to the Treaty of Sevres.

The Udi were not Orthodox, the Albanian Church was rather a part of the Armenian Church, the Armenian Apostolicism (established by Bartholomew and Thaddeus). The Russian orthodox church in Baku is not a credible source - it is an advocate source from a church which competed for centuries with the Armenian apostolic church driving fidels to that church the way they successfully did with the Udi. It is convenient for them to dismiss Armenian historic religious heritage. Not to ignore that Church in Baku are in no position to take independent stance. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul lay claims against the Armenian Diaspora and mostly support Turkey. We do not consider its position as those of the Armenian church.

On top of this, they are factually inaccurate, and have no idea what they speak of. The refer to Robert Mobili and his registration, trying to make a connection to Kish. But did you know it made a mistake. The reference should actually be to that of Nij. So, if they cannot get current events right, how can we rely on information on disputed history?Hetoum I 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You provided no peer reviewed Armenian scholar with regard to Kish either. Karapetian is not a scholar. I don’t mind using Suny and Bournatian, with certain caution, of course. As for Piotrovski, he was a scholar with the world fame, and he was qualified enough to know the difference between the writings in Arabic and other scripts, unlike some Armenian scholars. And Russian church was discussed many times, it is a neutral and independent source. Grandmaster 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you do admit that neither Russian church website material is peer reviewed or verifiable with citation of where they get their information. So, no proof of Gis=Kish.

Next, as a matter of fact, Karapetian is an expert, surveying Armenian churches for 25 years, since soviet times. His works are reviewed by other members of RAA (as Dr. Haghnazarian) and published by them. He is a historian and recognized as a foremost expert on Armenian architecture. If you do not like what he writes it simply too bad, because wikipedia rules are not calibrated by the Grandmaster standart.

Further, as I cited Ulubabian is a peer reviewed soviet scholar who disproved Gis=Kish. his work is published in Works of the Yerevan university, with clear explanation and proof of information.Hetoum I 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ulubabian disproved nothing, it is his personal opinion, which cannot be taken over the opinions of others, especially considering strong bias of this person. As I said before, cite third party sources, that have no interest in this issue. I'm going to include the opinions of Azerbaijani scholars as well. As for Karapetian, he is not a historian. Enough said. Grandmaster 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your original research and character assassination of scholars has no value, and you are free to provide Azerbaijani scholars. Hetoum I 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess, I don't really understand how the article full of Armenian resources (including Karapetian who is not a historian) makes it fully acceptable against neutral ones. Hence, the revert. Seriously gentlemen... One more thing, Hetoum I, about your comment in your edit summary: I don't know and don't want to know who Adil is and/or is not. I don't know what makes you sure I am Adil, AdilBagirov, Adil's sock, or whatever related to Adil, and I don't really want to know. I am rather new to Misplaced Pages and here to help bring neutrality. You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. You may just keep reasserting yourself with that idea, but that won't make me another person. If admins could pay closer attention to these allegations from Hetoum and/or others I would really appreciate it. I also propose to lock the article for editing (with neutral sources cited only) until the issues are resolved. Ehud 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Ehud?

Your edit pattern is rather odd, and if you are not Adil, then you would be a puppet for one of the opposing editors here. Certainly, attempting to hide behind a fake Jewish identity is nothing more than an attempt to harass Armenian users. Your revert is not only baseless but also brings back dubious content and original research equating to vandalism.

Your questions have been addressed in this rather long discussion, and while certain opposing editors oppose this version, it is by the wiki rules as seen in the discussion. So, unless you have something new to say or sources to add, your revert is nothing more than vandalism by a puppet.

Hetoum I 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seriously Hetoum I. You really need to make up your mind now and decide whether you think I am "Adil" or as you put it, "a puppet for one of the "opposing" editors". You're doing nothing but embarass yourself. Instead of concentrating on the article and coming to a neutral resolution so that both sides agree, you're obsessed with finding out whether a particular user is AdilBagirov/any other "opposing" user or not. Well sit tight and keep watching me then. For all I care, I am who I am and I do what I do, regardless what Armenian or Azerbaijani users think of me. However, you do need to keep the following in mind:

• I do not and never did harass any users on Misplaced Pages, let alone Armenian ones. What I edit and/or create is simply based on common sense;
• Despite your loud words like "Vandalism", there is none on my part. All my reverts were due to POV's based on Armenian sources;
• I do not have any kind of "fake" identity. I am a Jew and am proud of it. Whatever I contribute to Jewish WikiProject or Azeri WikiProject or any other WikiProject is completely none of your business.

Ehud 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again we see that racist attitudes are the norm when it comes to controversial Misplaced Pages articles. Ehud and Grandmaster seek to dismiss every Armenian source for no other reason than it is Armenian. Meowy 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you noted, we treat Armenian and Azerbaijani sources equal. Both are not acceptable because of the conflict of interest. How's that racist? Francis also said that third party sources are preferable. You base your claims on one extremely racist author, whose objectivity is highly questionable. Find a third party source. Grandmaster 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Center of Udi Culture?

The article also says the church is considered to be one of the centres of Albanian-Udi Christian. This is rather untrue, as the source it cited said(according to Dacy if I am not wrong) In 2003, the Albanian-Udi Christian community, led by Robert Mobili was registered by the state. It became possible after the restoration of church at Kish. However, this does not call it a center of Udi culture. The reference is rather vague and unclear - no sense to me. How is it a center of their culture? It is not an active church and is currently used as a secular museum according to the Human enterprise site. This reference should be removed as it is untrue.Hetoum I 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Voslit link not Valid

The Voslit link is not valid, and should be removed with it's content unless you can get another source for replacement. Hetoum I 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is temporary. It will be back online soon. They probably forgot to pay for their domain or something. But Kalankatuatsi is available at vehi.net as well. If vostlit does not work in near future, I will replace it with vehi. --Grandmaster 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can requote the stuff, then please do. I looked at the book on the vehi site, and I am having trouble matching quotes - I am not sure, some quotes by book and chapter and conctent may be dubious. Anyhow, I am removing bad link/quotes from them.Hetoum I 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, leave it there. The site will be back online in a couple of days. Grandmaster 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Parishan fixed it.Hetoum I 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vostlit.info is back online. I told you we just needed to wait a couple of days. --Grandmaster 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DR

Hetoum, pushing your version by edit warring is not gonna work. Why don't you try WP:DR? Clearly there's no consensus for edits that you propose and sources that you use, so the best way for you would be pursuing formal dispute resolution procedures. --Grandmaster 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because there really is no dispute, but vandalism by puppet Ehud. There would have to be a dispute for me to go through resolution. Everything was done by me by rules.Hetoum I 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What you actually do is violation of the rules. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and not brutal force. Edit warring to have the article your way is not allowed. And you should assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Unless you have a real proof that Ehud is a sock or meatpuppet, you should not make baseless accusations and work to achieve consensus. --Grandmaster 05:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have counseled Hetoum I to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith. If he fails to do so, let me know and I will intervene further. Hopefully, that will not be necessary. --Richard 06:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. --Grandmaster 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Karapetian

About Karapetian. Thomas de Waal met him during his travel to the region. De Waal refers to Karapetian as an ultranationalist, and indeed Karapetian expresses extreme nationalist and racist views. Some excerpts from de Waal’s book:

The next day peace talks were due to begin in Key West, Florida, on the future of Nagorny Karabakh. I wanted to hear Samvel's opinion on the talks, although I guessed what his answer would be. Samvel said he opposed any attempt at diplomacy with Azerbaijan, which traded in ancient Armenian lands. "I don't even want to think about it. I hope there won't be a settlement." Still, he asked my opinion on what a peace deal would mean for the Armenian side. I said that it would mean giving up at least six of the occupied regions around Nagorny Karabakh and allowing the hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis, who had been expelled from there, to return. "Even Kelbajar?" Samvel queried. I nodded. "That's impossible," he answered. He had not fought in the war, but as soon as the Kelbajar region had been "liberated" in 1993, he had gone to the region, now emptied of its inhabitants, and found hundreds of Armenian tombs, churches, and fragments. It was a historic treasury of Armenian art, he asserted, that must remain in Armenian hands.

What claims does history have on the present? In what sense can Kelbajar be called "Armenian," when no Armenian had lived there for almost a hundred years? I said that I could not accept that Kelbajar was "liberated" territory, when all of its fifty thousand or so Azerbaijani or Kurdish inhabitants had been expelled. Surely, I argued, these people had the right to live in the homes in which they were born. But for Samvel, the past eclipsed the present: those people were "Turks" and interlopers. When he used to travel on buses in Azerbaijan, he would always end up losing his seat: "Every Turk or Azerbaijani asks you for a little land and says, 'Just give me a little land to live in!' But in a few years you end up with a tiny piece of land and he gets the lot.

The Armenian nationalists use two main devices to denigrate their neighbors. One is to suggest that because most of them were "nomads," they were a class lower than the settled village dwellers. Dismissing the claims of the people who used to live in Kelbajar, Samvel told me, “The people who lost their homes are third generation or fourth generation maximum. They were nomads, the tsar forced them to settle in those villages”. The other line of attack is that Azerbaijan is a recent twentieth-century creation and that its people therefore have fewer "historical rights."

My feelings toward this tireless historian veered between admiration and alarm. He was, an Armenian friend justly said, "a constructive ultranationalist." Whatever Samvel is seeking to prove, the general effect of his work will be to record for the wider world the treasures of medieval Christian art that are little known in the outside world and might otherwise be lost. Yet, if his political views were to predominate, would the Caucasus ever move out of its suspended animation in the medieval period?

Another quote:

An Armenian historian, A. S. Mnatsakanian, set out to rebut Buniatov's historical geography and relocated Caucasian Albania well to the northeast, toward the Caspian Sea. Mnatsakanian said that it had entirely disappeared by the tenth century; as for the medieval-era “Albania”, to the west and in and around Karabakh, he said this was “New Albania”, a region administered by Persia, of which the only Albanian component remaining was the name, but which was entirely populated by Armenians.

Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War.

If you check Karapetian and Ulubabian, you’ll see that they repeat the same claims about "New Albania". Considering Karapetian's extreme bias, he cannot be accepted as an impartial and objective scholar, whose judgment on this issue could be trusted. Grandmaster 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it, do you Grandmaster? You cannot just go around trashing and dismissing everything a particular person has written. You have to cite specific examples of errors in a particular source or in a specific work of a writer, or produce a argument that would suggest there are specific errors. If that is difficult for you to do, perhaps because you don't know the subject well-enough or don't have access to sources, then just leave this article alone. Meowy 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. If what this person says is true, it must have been written somewhere else too. Btw, I have a source that says the population of Kish during tsarist Russia rule was Udi. That’s an important aspect. Grandmaster 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There’s a very comprehensive article about udi people by the Russian scholar Igor Kuznetsov. He says, inter alia:

Ко времени прихода русских на Кавказ села, население которых продолжало осозновать себя удинами, были сконцентрированы в основ¬ном в пределах Шекинского ханства (вошло в Россию в 1805 г. как Нухинский уезд Елисаветпольской губернии: с. Варташен, Варданлы, Баян (ныне Огузский р-н), с. Нидж (ныне Кабалинский р-н), с. Киш (Шекинский р-н).

By the time of arrival of Russians to the Caucasus the villages, the population of which considered themselves to be udis, were mostly concentrated within Sheki khanate (which became a part of Russia in 1805 as Nukha uyezd of Elisavetpol governorate): villages of Vartashen, Vardanli, Bayan (currently in Oguz district), Nij (currently in Gabala district), Kish (Sheki district).

So much for Karapetian’s claim that Kish was a “historically Armenian” village. --Grandmaster 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have produced a proper argument that would suggest there is a specific error in that essay by Karapetian! Your problem here is that, as far as I recall, nobody in the actual wikipedia entry has been saying that Kish was a "historically Armenian village", I know I was particulary careful not to say that it was, or to even imply that it was. Kish was, as far as I am concerned, after looking at the published evidence and the geography and the architecture, originally a Christian Udi village whose population was, for parts of its history, a member of the Armenian Church, then the Georgian Church, and then the Armenian Church again, by which time they had become to identify themselves as actual Armenians. Your argument also does not give you the right to dismiss everything else in the Karapetian article, in particular all the specific facts that are backed up by proper references. I know a lot more about Karapetian than you - and it is actually very easy to separate out the facts from what are just his personal opinions and dogma. Meowy 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think Karapetian is worth of any trust after he falsified the ethnicity of the original inhabitants of the village. And udis did not identify themselves as Armenians, they are still a people with very distinct ethnicity, which survived through millennia. So the church is not Armenian, people ho attended it were udi. Btw, you would be surprised to know that Norwegians came to a conclusion that the church was Georgian. You apparently did not read their report. The existing church is neither Armenian nor Albanian, it is Georgian. But whether or not there was an old church at that location is a subject to dispute. Grandmaster 06:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"THE TRUTH"

I have not read all the discussion on this Talk Page but I have gathered from skimming it that part of the dispute is around which sources can be used and which cannot. I would like to remind everyone that Misplaced Pages's emphasis is not on determining what "THE TRUTH" is. There are often multiple Points of View about what "THE TRUTH" is. According to WP:NPOV, we should seek to represent all verifiable Points of View without giving undue weight to any of them or engaging in original research.

That said, if an Armenian or Azerbaijani source is a reputable scholar (like he has a Ph.D.) or is even a newspaper, magazine or book, then that source is sufficient to be a source. Now, you have to evaluate just how reliable the source is but the best thing to do is to characterize the source in such a way that the reader has enough information to make up his/her own mind about the reliability of the source.

It is not our job to tell the reader what to think about a controversial issue. It is our job to give him/her enough information to know where to research the issue further and then make up his/her own mind.

This sort of approach suggests that the path to compromise is to present all sides of the issue covering every assertion with citations and making clear who is asserting what.

Thus, instead of saying "X is true", say things like "According to source A, X is true. Source B challenges this assertion and asserts instead that Y is true." Then cite both statements.

--Richard 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Hetoum and Meowy have only one source to support their claims. This source is extremely nationalistic and ethnically biased. Extreme nationalism of the author is noted by third party sources, which I presented above, and is evident from this author's article as well. Now I don’t mind presenting the claims of both Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars, but I object to presenting the claims of Karapetian as absolute truth. If you noted, position of Karapetian is mentioned in the article as “according to Armenian commentator Karapetian”, etc. But that is not enough for Hetoum, he wants to write the whole article based on Karapetian’s position. Thus, his preferred version starts as "The Church of Kish (Armenian: Սուրբ Եղիշե Եկեղեցի, St. Yeghishe Church;Azerbaijani: Kiş kilsəsi) is a former Armenian Apostolic Church and now a museum.”, which is not accurate, since it is position of one person that contradicts all other sources. You cannot take one source with well known bias over others, especially third party ones that have no conflict of interest here. Meowy’s edit about Norwegians is original research and POV, and he was told by Francis that it has no place here. Still Meowy tried to restore it once again. That’s not the way it’s done here. --Grandmaster 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that, if your characterization of their edits is accurate, that is not the way it is done here.

OK, thanks for the summary. I was being lazy in not wanting to have to read everything that was written on this page. The article should present the mainstream opinion while making sure to represent all significant minority POVs, characterizing them as such to avoid giving them undue weight. If the topic is controversial enough that there is no dominant "mainstream" opinion, then that should be made clear to the reader. I'm probably telling you something you already know but I thought it would be useful to reiterate what policy is for all concerned.

In a different vein, if Hetoum I and Meowy will not pursue the dispute resolution process, then you might consider doing so yourself. Ask for a third opinion and, if necessary, issue a request for comment.

It is against Misplaced Pages policy to leave articles protected for long periods of time. The next step is to unprotect the page and block editors who edit in violation of consensus. However, you have to establish that consensus first or any blocking by an admin risks being called biased and arbitrary.

Consult WP:CONSENSUS. I consider a consensus to be one that is supported by two thirds of quorum that is at least 6-8 editors. Six is really low. Nine would be a better quorum but is still kind of low. Obviously, the more participants in the quorum, the better. That's why an RFC is really useful. It invites outside opinions to help resolve a dispute that cannot be resolved by the current editors of the page.

--Richard 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the problem with Armenian and Azerbaijani sources is that they are both engaged in a propaganda war as result of Karabakh conflict. Ph.D. or scientific degree is not enough for these sources to be considered reliable. I quoted above the book by Thomas de Waal, and he is highly critical of both Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars. Note the paragraph on Mnatsakanian above, for example. There are a number of other sources as well, which criticize the scholars in the two countries for using history as a political tool. That’s why I suggest to avoid using Armenian and Azerbaijani sources and rely on third party ones. It worked on other articles, it can work here as well. Grandmaster 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the subject matter, I would think it is better to use the Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars and then refute them using other third party scholars who have a more neutral POV. It is difficult and often inappropriate to squelch a POV, even if it is biased. It is better to allow the POV to be expressed and then neutralize it with the opposing POV. Assume the reader is intelligent enough to dismiss bias if given enough information that characterizes it as such. And, if the reader doesn't recognize and dismiss the bias after that, it could be that the reader was biased to begin with and you probably won't be able to change his mind. People will believe what they want to believe

--Richard 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to present both positions equally and also provide positions of third party sources. However, I object to basing the article on one source and presenting its claims as fact. This is what Hetoum tries to do. I actually did ask for third party opinion, Francis Tyers, who was mediating disputes between Armenian and Azerbaijani users for a long time has also provided his input, and it would be good if you could remain involved as well, if you can spare some time to this. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Richard and "The Truth". Richard, have you any concept of why this article should be "controversial"? Why a little insignificant church should provoke such argument? Has you any evidence to back up your implied assertion that every Armenian and every Azeri source is POV, and that there will actually exist ANY genuinely third-party sources? The Azeri "position" is not POV, it is the current political ideology of the Azerbaycan State. Those holding or expressing that ideology don't necessary believe what they are saying, they believe in the reasons behind having the ideology. Unless you find some way of presenting the ideology, and the ideology of the others involved (such as what I have attempted to do with presenting the Norwegian "Odin" connection) there is no way that a reader will ever be able to decide what is the "Truth". Meowy 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is "No". I have no idea why this article is controversial. I've read the article and it looks fine to me.

I don't personally believe that Armenian and Azerbaijani sources are POV and all other third party sources are neutral. I was just using the language that Grandmaster was using.

My belief is that all sources are inherently POV to some extent. Some sources are more POV than others. You don't get to an NPOV stance by quoting one NPOV source and ignoring the others. How would you determine if a source was NPOV? You get to an NPOV stance by quoting all POV sources and trying as best as you can to strike a neutral balance amongst them. Sometimes, this means that you have to say that one source is more biased than another. That can be the source of dispute.

So, I invite you to explain to me what the controversy is. Please do so in short sentences so I can understand. Please realize that most readers will be like me. They will not necessarily have all the background of historical and cultural disputes that seem to be associated with this little church.

--Richard 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Richard,

I completely agree with you! This is what I have proposed Grandmaster to do - I told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar. Where the problem lies is that the sources on the church of Kish are next to non-existent- they are very few. Therefore, the claim that I provide only one source makes no sense, especially since everything Karapetian states is backed by citations. Other than the existence of Kish, every other coverage will be made from the few sources which exist about the subject.

In this case what made me angered me is that Grandmaster has thrown mud on scholars by claiming they were Armenian. On the above he quotes some irrelevant racial slur. I actually had no problem with adding other sources - my problem was with him removing sources by claiming that the writer is Armenian, but, but he would keep a source by a religious figure from an institution in Azerbaijan. It is the sort of source which should be removed according to rules. It is like using as sole source on the American revolution some mathematician and not a historian. Not to mention, none of the information from opposing sources are backed by citations as Karapetian.

If you read Grandmaster’s replies you will see that he is still continuing slandering Armenian scholars. Only by being prejudicial will someone use another Armenian scholar to then generalize and attack the scholar which I have provided mostly because of his ethnicity. I am not the only user who told him to stop doing this, and he refuses to stop. Grandmaster is also claiming that both sides can use history as political tool and therefore he prefers avoiding both. By doing this he is actually avoiding Armenian scholars not both. Armenians over represent themselves on scholarly work on the region, while there are very few notable Azerbaijani scholars. If you scroll down this page, you will see that I have told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar and that he could quote him but he did not. He rather continued discrediting Armenian scholars with OR.

And to make things worst Ehud who I very strongly suspect to be Adil Baguirov, a banned user will do nothing to easy suspicion and pursue reverting. If you follow even the member (FrancisTyers) to whom Ehud reverted to, reported him suspecting him to be indeed Adil. So for those reasons, I prefer for now leaving dispute resolution and not contributing in this article because I have to admit that I could not assume good faith with Ehud and that Grandmaster will be using this as evidence to have me. So I will wait and see what the arbitrators will think of Ehud in ArbCom; if they believe there is not enough evidence to assume bad faith, I will assume good faith. I know this may seem awkward, but I hope you understand. If you want to mediate you are welcome to do so once the arbitration ends.

Thank you for your time. Hetoum I 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kish

Copying this here from my Talk Page as I don't really wish my page to be cluttered up by the long discussion that is sure to follow.

Grandmaster, can you respond to the points made by Hetoum I and also my comments below his?

--Richard 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Richard,

I completely agree with you! This is what I have proposed Grandmaster to do - I told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar. Where the problem lies is that the sources on the church of Kish are next to non-existent- they are very few. Therefore, the claim that I provide only one source makes no sense, especially since everything Karapetian states is backed by citations. Other than the existence of Kish, every other coverage will be made from the few sources which exist about the subject.

In this case what made me angered me is that Grandmaster has thrown mud on scholars by claiming they were Armenian. On the above he quotes some irrelevant racial slur. I actually had no problem with adding other sources - my problem was with him removing sources by claiming that the writer is Armenian, but, but he would keep a source by a religious figure from an institution in Azerbaijan. It is the sort of source which should be removed according to rules. It is like using as sole source on the American revolution some mathematician and not a historian. Not to mention, none of the information from opposing sources are backed by citations as Karapetian.

If you read Grandmaster’s replies you will see that he is still continuing slandering Armenian scholars. Only by being prejudicial will someone use another Armenian scholar to then generalize and attack the scholar which I have provided mostly because of his ethnicity. I am not the only user who told him to stop doing this, and he refuses to stop. Grandmaster is also claiming that both sides can use history as political tool and therefore he prefers avoiding both. By doing this he is actually avoiding Armenian scholars not both. Armenians over represent themselves on scholarly work on the region, while there are very few notable Azerbaijani scholars. If you scroll down this page, you will see that I have told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar and that he could quote him but he did not. He rather continued discrediting Armenian scholars with OR.

And to make things worst Ehud who I very strongly suspect to be Adil Baguirov, a banned user will do nothing to easy suspicion and pursue reverting. If you follow even the member (FrancisTyers) to whom Ehud reverted to, reported him suspecting him to be indeed Adil. So for those reasons, I prefer for now leaving dispute resolution and not contributing in this article because I have to admit that I could not assume good faith with Ehud and that Grandmaster will be using this as evidence to have me. So I will wait and see what the arbitrators will think of Ehud in ArbCom; if they believe there is not enough evidence to assume bad faith, I will assume good faith. I know this may seem awkward, but I hope you understand. If you want to mediate you are welcome to do so once the arbitration ends.

Thank you for your time. Hetoum I 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I still don't know what the substance of the dispute is. Is it possible to have the article say "There is a long-standing dispute between the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians over X. According to the Azerbaijani point of view, X is true. However, according to the Armenian point of view, Y is true."? And how do the Albanians fit into all this?

What I haven't managed to get at all from the article is that there is even a dispute, let alone what that dispute is, what its origin is and what the various sides of the dispute think about it. Answering these questions should be the job of an encyclopedic article. Please stop fighting about which side is right and try to agree on the fact that there are two opposing viewpoints, both of which should be presented.

Also, if there are no scholarly references, are there any popular references in newspaper and magazine articles? Speeches by politicians or church leaders?

--Richard 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Richard, there are actually a lot of facets to the various ideologies that are being inflicted on this little building. I have already tried to give the Norwegian angle in a previous edit.

The Azeri ideology seeks to eliminate all mention of Armenians having lived at any location or at any time-period within the current territory of Azerbaijan. This means disenfranchising or destroying the artefacts created by those Armenians. Part of the Azeri ideology involves stating that everything built by Armenians was actually built by "Caucasian Albanians". Unfortunately for Azerbaijan, there are no Caucasian Albanians: they disappeared from history 1000 years ago. Azerbaijan has got round that by claiming that the Udi are the last remnants of the Caucasian Albanians. In that they are probably right. However, Azerbaijan seeks to massively extend the original population range of the Udi, making out that all Armenian settlements, however far away from the present Udi hinterland, were originally Udi, and those Armenians are either recent arrivals or are not actually Armenians at all but were originally Udi.

Take a look at the wikipedia article on Julfa. There, Azerbaijan has claimed that that place too was created by those semi-mythical "Caucasian Albanians", even though it is many hundreds of miles from the lands of Caucasian Albania at their maximum extent. This ideology is not being expressed because it is believed by Azerbaijan, or even that Azerbaijan expects it to be believed by others. It is expressed so that articles like this can say, "an Azerbaijan source says this, an Armenian source says that". It is an artificially created POV.

As for Armenian sources. They try to make out that "Caucasian Albania" was actually a region, and not a distinctive ethnic population as such. There is some truth to that, but Armenians like Karapetian over-egg their pudding, making obvious errors and exagerations - like the one Grandmaster has pointed out. The Armenian Church is also completely intolerant towards other Churches, hence its obliteration of Caucasian Albania as an independant Church with its own particular liturgy, language, and history.

So, the controversy in this article arises from the fact that Azerbaijan cannot permit the mention of Armenia anywhere in the history of this church, and Armenia cannot permit the mention of "Caucasian Albania" anywhere in the history of this church. Meowy 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! A concise explanation that I was just not able to completely figure out from skimming the discussion higher up on this Talk Page. I had some idea that this was the gist of the dispute but I hadn't pieced it all together yet. Thanks, Meowy.

Now, ordinarily, one might ask why we can't put Meowy's explanation in the article but it should seem obvious that this is a huge digression from the discussion of one small church. Is the Church of Kish the only church over which this dispute is relevant? Or is it simply one instance that the various editors have chosen as the locus of the dispute?

What I'm really getting at is I wonder whether Meowy's explanation belongs in a separate article called something like Armenian-Azerbaijani controversy. If such an article existed, this article could then have a few short sentences that explained the role of this church in the larger dispute with a Wikilink to the article describing the dispute in greater detail.

P.S. I haven't figured out what the Norwegians have to do with this. Aren't they like really, really far away from this area?

--Richard 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The same ideological dispute will be found in any mention of the medieval monuments in Nagorno Karabagh, and closer to this region, in the recently-restored 19th-century former Armenian church at the Udi village of Nidj a little to the southeast of Kish. That restoration was done by the same Norwegian organisation that did the Kish church, and was accompanied by the erasing of a long and important building inscription in Armenian above its entrance and Armenian inscriptions on gravestones in the church's graveyard. The destruction was strongly condemned by Norway's ambassador to Azerbaijan, who refused to attend the church's reopening. However, the director of Norwegian Humaniterian Aid did attend and is reported on NHE's own website as "rejoicing" at the opening celebration of what NHE describes as an "Udi-Albanian church". Meowy 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Norway is in Azerbaijan because of its oil and gas resources. For example, the Norwegian company Statoil has a 25% stake in the largest gas field in Azerbaijan and has sole control of the new gas pipeline that runs from Azerbaijan to Turkey. Meowy 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sounds to me like the issue is encyclopedic as a separate topic from the Church of Kish. Can you suggest a name for an article about this issue? --Richard 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue we talk about I believe is covered to a certain extent in Nagorno-Karabakh article. --Grandmaster 06:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at that article briefly. But can you give me a concise explanation of how the Church of Kish is related to Nagorno-Karabakh? It seems the question is that there are a number of old churches whose provenance is unknown. Apparently, different sides of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh claim sovereignty based upon the "original" occupants of the land being Armenian or Azerbaijani. Thus, understanding how old the churches really are and who built them is considered relevant to the territorial dispute of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.

Did I get that right? If so, it would be really good to find citations to newspaper or magazine articles that actually make this assertion. Otherwise, the claim (and the dispute surrounding it here on Misplaced Pages) sounds like a lot of original research. In other words, is this really a bone of contention out in the real world or is it just a bunch of hotheads here at Misplaced Pages deciding that this is an important issue on which to flog their favorite hobbyhorse?

I understand that there is a real territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. What I'm looking for is some evidence that the age and origin of these churches is really considered relevant to that dispute "in the real world".

--Richard 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I realize that the last couple of sentence could be read as insulting and disrespectful. That was not my intent. If you read it that way, please accept my apologies.

My point was that, absent proof that the real world does care about this controversy, you might appear to be hotheads. So let's work on providing that proof. Grandmaster's citing of Ilya Chavchavadze is a step towards showing that the real world does care about this. However, that is one source from the 19th century. Are there any more contemporary sources from the 20th century?

IMO, a reliable source doesn't have to be right to be reliable. It just has to have a valid claim to expertise on the subject. Thus, if the Armenian scholars really are scholars (as opposed to unknown hotheads with a website or a blog), then their POV deserves to be presented. Is their work published in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals?

--Richard 15:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian scholars are really the only neutral and reliable source here. Some Armenian scholars are known for claiming that almost every ancient church that exists in the region is Armenian. This is a very old issue, which led to well-known conflicts with the neighboring people. Georgian classical writer Ilya Chavchavadze wrote a large essay on this topic called “Armenian wisemen and weeping stones” back in the 19th century. It is available online in Russian, I can provide a link if you can read Russian. --Grandmaster 06:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read Russian. Can you translate a few key passages for me?--Richard 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He described in very much detail how some Armenian scholars falsified writings on Georgian churches to claim that they were Armenian. The only reliable source here are Norwegian scholars, who conducted archeological excavation in and around the church and came to very interesting conclusions. Of course, their findings do not support the claims of Karapetian that the church is Armenian. That’s why people like Karapetian tried to dismiss this perfectly neutral source. There’s not a slightest evidence of any bias of Norwegian scientists. Yes, Norwegian oil companies work in Azerbaijan, but so do oil companies from all over the world (American, British, Japanese, German, Italian, etc). It does not mean that people from those countries have some bias in this issue. --Grandmaster 06:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Now let’s have a look at the section Meowy tries to readd. This section is POV and OR, and has nothing to do with the church and is nothing but a personal interpretation of unrelated facts by Meowy. Francis Tyers moved all this stuff to the respective articles about each person and organization mentioned, still for unknown reason Meowy tries to add it back without any consensus on talk. Please check the top of this section, this issue was discussed in much detail before, still Meowy adds back this irrelevant stuff without any agreement with other involved parties. --Grandmaster 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's interview with the Norwegian scholar who led the researches in Kish: I think it might be helpful for Richard to form an opinion about what is being discussed. --Grandmaster 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no "Norwegian scholars" involved in the Kish church. Storfjell is a propagator of pseudoarchaeology. His involvement with Heyerdahl in the Azov excavation indicates that he is a firm believer in Hayerdahl's laughable "Odin" theory. The content of his Thor Hayardal Research center website clearly indicates that continued believe in Heyerdahl's theory. Meowy 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Richards question about Kish and the Nagorno Karabagh churches. There is no actual cultural connection, but Azerbaijan seeks to make a connection by saying that all the medieval Armenian churches there were actually Caucasian Albanian churches. It isn't something that is taken seriously by anyone who knows about the architecture of this region. I don't know of any work that deals with the subject - so much of any proposed wikipedia article would be original research. Christina Maranci has written an interesting book "Medieval Armenian Architecture, Constructions of Race and Nation" that investigated the various identities that scholars - both foreign and Armenian - have seeked to impose on the architecture of this part of the World. However, there is nothing about the Azeri theories in it, presumably because she did not see those theories as legitimate theories worthy of serious examination. She does touch a bit on the disputes between the identities of and influences between Armenian and Georgian architecture. Meowy 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, your statement about Storfjell is your original research. It has no place here. As for churches in Karabakh, some of them indeed were Albanian, but that's absolutely irrelevant to this particular article. Kish is not in Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the church of Kish is not related to the conflict in Karabakh. Armenia never claimed this territory, so it is not a subject to any international dispute. However, some aggressively nationalistic Armenian scholars claim the entire heritage of Caucasian Albania as Armenian, even on territories that historically never were part of any Armenian state. Karapetian is one of such scholars. The book of Chavchavadze is available at this Georgian website:

It is a very large article, but the main point of his criticism is that certain Armenian scholars tried to claim that ancient Georgian churches and other monuments were Armenian. For these purposes they even removed original Georgian inscriptions and replaced them with Armenian ones. I do not draw any parallels here, but this is an evidence that some Armenian historians were as guilty of unscholarly actions as much they accuse others. There are plenty of modern sources about use of history as a political tool by Armenian scholars. For example, this is an excerpt from the book written by a professional Western archeologist:

No less problematic are heavily slanted interpretations of the Urartian kingdom, the first historically attested state in Transcaucasia (ninth to seventh centuries BC). Armenian chauvinists must explain why this state, a worthy adversary of the neo-Assyrian Empire of northern Mesopotamia and one that expanded over much of "historic Armenia," composed its royal cuneiform inscriptions in Urartian, a non Indo-European (i.e., non-Armenian) language, related to Hurrian and ancestral to the Northeastern Caucasian family of languages spoken today by different peoples in Daghestan, Chechenia, and Ingushetia (see Jankowska 1991:231). Reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom, and there is a real sense in which the Armenians are the cultural heirs of Urartu, but an essentialist view of Armenian culture which equates it precisely with the Urartian kingdom cannot be sustained.

One must distinguish between popular and professional Armenian interpretations of Urartu, the latter being subtler and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. More discriminating professional archaeologists, who may accept the reasonable theory that the ethnogenesis or formation of Armenian culture occurred during post-Urartian Achaemenid times, extol the might of the Urartians and see them exercising political control over most of eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and Transcaucasia; in this respect they remain the direct precursors of the Armenian kingdom under Tigran II.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395

As you can see the author even accuses some Armenian scholars of “chauvinism”, because they twist the facts about the ancient state of Urartu with the purpose of proving, as the above source says, that "Armenians always lived in and controlled "historic Armenia", which some of them extend to cover the whole territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. I provided above the quote from de Waal about Mnatsakanian, who went as far as creating “New Albania”, which he claimed had Armenian population. I’m not saying that Azerbaijani scholars are not guilty of similar things, therefore I believe that sources representing both sides should be used with caution. --Grandmaster 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think this is the most appropriate quote here:

Ironically, chauvinistic Azeri and Armenian archaeologists alike share a need to see their people as always present in the greater eastern Anatolian/northwest Iranian/Transcaucasian region.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395

And the point of that quote was? VartanM 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The point was to illustrate that sources representing both sides of the dispute should be used with caution. --Grandmaster 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job, now it doesn't look like you're misdirectly using racial slurs. VartanM 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if you could provide just one example of me making a racial slur. Otherwise, I expect an apology. --Grandmaster 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your childish posturing is getting out of hand. Information about the excavators and restorers of the Kish church would be a legitimate part of any article about the Kish church. This is the talk page about the Kish article; my statement that Storfjell is a propagator of pseudoarchaeology was saind in the talk page and for that reason is completely appropriate. Opinions are for the talk page, verifiable facts are for the actual entry. My opinion about Storfjell is based on published facts and statements easily found. You wish them removed from the actual Kish entry for the obvious reason that anyone reading those facts would come to the same opinion about Storfjell as I have come to.

Richard asked me a question whether Azerbaijan's irredentalist theories about "Caucasian Albania" were applicable to other places in addition to Kish. And I gave him details. Again, that is entirely appropriate for this talk page. However, your introduction of Urartu into the page is NOT justifieable. If Urartu is going to be your latest bugbear, then take it a page about Urartu. (But if you are going to do that, you will have to do better that some discussion about the long out-of-date and obsolete works of Piotrovskii on a minor site near Yerevan. 90% of Urartian sites are outside of Armenia, and 90% of modern research on Urartu is based on excavations of sites within present-day Turkey). Meowy 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Grandmaster's statement, "For these purposes they even removed original Georgian inscriptions and replaced them with Armenian ones". I demand that either he backs up that statment by facts or withdraws it. If he does neither, I accuse him of knowingly propagating blatant lies. Meowy 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, comment on content, not the contributor. “Childish posturing”, etc is not appropriate language here. Second, any information that is not related to the church should be added to the appropriated article. There’s no reliable source that criticizes Storfjell for “propagation of pseudoarchaeology”, so it is your original research in an attempt to discredit the source. You cannot do that. Francis already told you that it is not acceptable, yet you continue adding to the article information that has nothing to do with the church. As for Urartu, the info above is actually covered in the respective articles, I posted it here to show that Armenian scholars are guilty of twisting facts and using history for political purposes. It is true not only with regard to Urartu, but with regard to Caucasian Albania as well. I’m not proposing to add it to the article, I posted it just to illustrate my point. --Grandmaster 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the replacement of Georgian inscriptions, it is not my claim, this is what Chavchavadze said in the early 20th century. Here’s the quote:

Что армянские книжники-грамотеи упражняются и повинны в таких проделках, тоже ясно. А так как наступит время, когда исторические остатки и памятники заговорят о том, – кто занимал, и кто ныне занимает данные места, и так как камни, многочисленные постройки, монастыри, храмы вопиют, что с самых древних времен на этих местах обитали грузины – то, что и говорить, является необходимость зажать рот этим правдивым свидетелям грузин, не дать им возможности пикнуть слово. С этой целью они выкинули достойное похвалы коленце: взяли и, где только смогли и сумели, уничтожили всякий след.

Проделка не особенно головоломная, лишь бы была на это охота и податливая совесть. Ныне времена такие, когда для достижения своей цели ни пред какими средствами не останавливаются, – будет ли это достигнуто путем обмана, фальсификации, подлогов – безразлично. Достижение цели подобным путем считается ныне мерилом ума. Мы имеем немало примеров, что армяне силились стирать и уничтожать следы грузинского происхождения на грузинских храмах и монастырях, соскабливать или стирать с камней грузинские надписи, вынимать самые камни из построек и вставлять взамен их другие с армянскими надписями, о чем даже писалось в русских, и в грузинских газетах. Между прочим, покойный Д. Бакрадзе рассказывает об одном случае, указывающем нам на такую милую способность этой группы армян. В Артвине существует весьма старая церковь. Тамошние армяне возымели желание наготове присвоить себе этот храм. Но местные греки начали оспаривать его у них на том основании, что так как он с давних времен принадлежал грузинам, то, следовательно, мы, мол, как православные, имеем преимущество пред вам. В нем был вделан камень с грузинской надписью, а так как эта надпись служила доказательством принадлежности храма грузинам, то армяне изволили благоразумно «припрятать» этот камень.

Таким образом, вырвав эту церковь из рук православных, – армяне присвоили ее себе. Разве подобная проделка простолюдину-армянину придет в голову?! Даже если бы это и было дело рук простого армянина, то мысль, в подобных случаях, очевидно, внушена ему грамотеями и учеными. Поэтому мы имеем основание приписывать эту и подобные проделки только этой группе армян, но отнюдь не целому народу.

I have no time for translation, so I hope you can get it translated. Again, I’m only a messenger here, I draw no parallels with modern-day events. This is just something to consider. Grandmaster 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But in any case, all the info that is not about the church is irrelevant here. Meowy, can you please explain what particular issues you have with Storfjell’s research and findings, other than you believing him to be a “pseudo-archaeologist”? --Grandmaster 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you haven't the slightest idea of the events that went on in Georgia at the start of the 20th century. You quote from texts without knowing anything about the historical context of those texts, or why those texts were written. 100 years ago Georgian intellectuals and political activists were trying to re-invent Georgia. Part of that involved conciously excluding Armenians and writing blatantly anti-Armenian tracts. The reasons for that was because, at the time, most of Georgia's institutions and trade and intellectual life were in the hands of Armenians and the majority of the population of Tiflis was actually Armenian.

Thor Heyerdahl is recognised as being a pseudo-archaeologist and a pseudo-historian: his theories are discounted by all proper historians and archaeologists and have been consitantly been disproven. His most condemned theory was his final one, his "Odin theory". That is the one Storfjell believes in, and has been involved in propagating. That is why he also can be classed as a pseudo-archaeologist. Meowy 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erasing of Armenian inscriptions by Georgians (a recent news report) . Similar destruction, from the 1990s.. Erasure of Armenians inscriptions by Azerbaijan at the church of Nij, after a "restoration" done by the same Norwegian organisation that did Kish - you can see a photo of one of the gravestone inscriptions before its erasure here. Meowy 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There’s a difference between restoration in Kish and Nij. Norwegians were not involved in any works in Nij, while they took part in archeological research in Kish. Norwegian Humanitarian organization only funded the works in Nij (and did not actually do them, as you state), and they disapproved removal of Armenian inscriptions by local Udi community. This has no relation with the works in Kish, where Norwegian scholars were involved directly and oversaw all the works. There was no controversy of any sort in Kish, so any parallels are baseless. You failed to answer my question. Again, Meowy, can you please explain what particular issues you have with Storfjell’s research and findings, other than you believing him to be a “pseudo-archaeologist”? Do you have any particular objections to any of his findings, methods, etc? And do you have any reliable third party source that accuses Storfjell of being a pseudo-archaeologist? We cannot rely on your assumptions, we need an actual statement by some reliable source to support your claim. --Grandmaster 05:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if we assume that you are right and Storfjell indeed supported some extreme theories, it does not mean that he has no qualification to conduct an archeological research. If scientists did not support wild theories, many important discoveries would have never been made. The point in question is do we actually have any evidence to assume that Storfjell did not perform the research up to the good professional standards? If there’s such evidence, please present it, but making assumptions based on unrelated facts is not something we should do here. --Grandmaster 05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster continues mud-slinging and racial slurs

Are you done yet? Fueling Armenians and then adding their reaction in the evidence page. Ilia Chavchavadze is not an archaeologist, neither a historian. His argument is that Armenians not being Orthodox, their 'Orthodox' design can not be Armenian. The title of Chavchavadze work: The Crying stones was coined by Golmstrem, and he was answering the latter. It was right during the cold Russian revolution and the cold war between the Georgians and Armenians for the control of the regions serounding Lori, Meseti, and Klargeti as Georgians will call it. The event described in Chavchadze work relates to the last two decades of the 19th century and when each stones each monuments would have given advantage to one side against the other. Each side therefore started forging pictures with the arrival of photographic technology and then would be bringing archaeologists and historians to support their side. Each was ready for war checking each material published about archaeological advantage. Then there will be this journalist by the name of Golmstrem who will be taking the Armenian side by distinguishing between pictures and the actual stone who were crying the truth since they never lie. This made Ilia Chavchavadze furious, who countered back by accusing the Armenian side to replacing Georgian letters with Armenian ones, and then supporting it by claiming Armenians are not even Orthodox so they could not have possibly made such Orthodox design. Part of the event is described here not the last though.

By slinging mud at Armenian scholars this way, you are only discrediting yourself. I have really enough of your continued, frivolous, free accusations. In each answer you take the occasion to bash on Armenian academics. Using a Georgian revolutionary who was engaged in one side during a cold war to then generalize one particular event to discredit the whole Armenian academia is really of bad taste. Scratching that far to find some stuff unrelated to then trash at scholars is not only original research, it's disgusting. I don't see why I am even debating with you. To say the truth, I'm done with you.Hetoum I 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that link, Hetoum. It's disapointing that Georgian nationalistic ideology does not seem to have changed much in 100 years. Meowy 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m not going to get deep into the issues between Armenian and Georgian scholars, my point was to illustrate that Armenian scholars were engaged in a lot of controversy, and it is not something new. I have a lot more sources that criticize Armenian historians, they are all third party. I can present more of such evidence, but I see no point. I also presented criticism of the approach of some Armenian historians to the issue of ancient Caucasian Albania (see the quote from de Waal), and Meowy seemed to agree that such criticism was justified. This was my response to the point made earlier by Hetoum that Armenian sources were trustworthy, while Azerbaijani ones were not. In my opinion, both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources should be used with extreme caution due to an obvious conflict of interest. And Hetoum’s accusation of “racial slurs” is nothing but another assumption of bad faith. I never said anything bad about Armenian people, I only quoted some third party sources that criticized Armenian historians (and not people). How’s that a “racial slur”? I demand that Hetoum either provides an example of me making “racial slurs” or apologizes for baseless accusations. Grandmaster 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Let’s get back to discussing actual edits to the article. Hetoum, what particular edits do you propose to make to the article and what sources do you propose to back them up? --Grandmaster 05:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You can start by putting back Armenian name of the church. Hetoum I 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Territorial claims to Caucasian Albania

I'm confused and I'll admit that part of my confusion is probably due to not having spent enough time reading what has been written above. However, in my defense, it's really hard to read stuff that is written in a polemic argument where each side assumes that the reader already knows quite a bit about the topic.

I'm confused about Nagorno-Karabakh and its relevance to this dispute. Where is the Church of Kish? Is it in what was once Caucasian Albania?

Is it fair to say that the age and founding history of churches in Caucasian Albania are in dispute and this dispute is not just one of historical interest but is also used to fuel territorial claims by Armenia and Azerbaijan to the territory which was once Caucasian Albania?

Is this the essence of the dispute?

If it is, it would seem that the dispute boils down to whether the inhabitants of this region were ever Armenian or whether they were something else (Udi?). Is there an active territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

If we can answer these questions, then I think we can take steps towards documenting the answers in Misplaced Pages.

My current feeling is that this article should reference the dispute and explain the importance of the ancient history of these churches in that dispute. However, what we need is an article that describes the dispute in greater detail since it appears that this dispute is about more than just the history of this one church.

--Richard 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Church of Kish is located in Shaki (see the map in the respective article about the region). The region was part of ancient Caucasian Albania, but located far from Karabakh, on the border with Georgia. The dispute over Caucasian Albania has political context because the Armenian side tries to justify its claims to Karabakh by pushing the historical boundaries of Caucasian Albania to the East, towards the Caspian, thus extending the boundaries of historical Armenia, while Azerbaijani side does the opposite. I’m actually surprised that this article became such an issue in Misplaced Pages, because it is not a big issue in real life. Yes, some nationalistic Armenian scholars like Karapetian claim the church to be historically Armenian, but there’s no large dispute over its origin between the academia of two countries. I think the dispute over Caucasian Albania has no relevance to the article, it has no relevance even to the article about Caucasian Albania, as it is an issue of modern politics. I think the article should be about the church only, but be based on reliable sources. So far the best source is the research conducted by Norwegian archaeologists And you are right, one part of our dispute is whether the original inhabitants of the region were Armenian or Udi people, the latter being the only direct descendants of Albanians. I have sources to attest that Kish was populated by Udis, which I’m going to add to the article. The importance of this particular church is related to the fact that local tradition considers this church to be the first one in the Caucasus. --Grandmaster 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a way to reduce the dispute on this page to about a few lines that says something like "Most historians believe that the XYZ people built the Church of Kish. Some Aremenian scholars such as Karapetian claims the church to be historically Armenian. This is relevant to the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute."

The intent here is to neatly package up the relationship between the Church of Kish and the territorial dispute into a few lines that no one can argue with.

Presumably the territorial dispute is an encyclopedic topic unto itself. We can start an article about the dispute and present both sides of the issue there. The key question would be how much weight to give this part of the dispute and how much weight to give to Karapetian.

--Richard 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard if you compare with previous versions, I included their point of view how some Azeri scholars, media and ONE norwegian says this is church of KISH=GIS. BUT they do not say WHY 2 different names are the same. I then said how research has shown the 2 sites are not the same - detailed explanation published in soviet publication. I think I balanced the views, no Richard? Perhaps you should question Grandmaster's conduct here and why he has spend all this time trying to suppress and "Armenian Source" with "Racial slurs." Do you not think it would be right for him to apologize for this? Hetoum I 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making too much of this bit, Hetoum. There are more important things that should be worked on and I'm not sure why you are so worried about that bit of it. Kish and Gis are so similar in sound that that no explanation is needed as to why they could be thought of as the same places. The article should mention that the identification of Gis with Kish is not certain because the location of Kish does not seem to match the earliest description of the location of Gis. However, it is clear that for many hundreds of years Kish has been identified by everyone in the region as the traditional site of the saint's martyrdom. Meowy 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in the petty name-calling and personal feuding that has been going on here. You guys can go outside and settle this with pistols at dawn if that will help.

An admin's responsibility is only to protect pages and unprotect them as requested. However, since I do like to try and help settle disputes when I can, I thought I'd stick around and try. I am doing that just as an ordinary Wikipedian, not in my role as an admin.

This is a good time for everybody to abandon past grudges and try to observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's try to focus on the substantive issues and leave the namecalling, grudges and vengeance behind.

Please answer the question I asked earlier... am I on the right track? Have I captured the essence of the dispute accurately? Can this serve as the basis for a compromise?

If so, we might perhaps get this page unprotected and move forward.

If we can't move forward, the other solution is to pursue the dispute resolution process. The next step is a Request for comment. If that doesn't help, it might make more sense to block all the editors involved (Grandmaster, Hetoum I and Meowy) for disruption and then unprotect the page.

Try to make good use of the time that the page is protected to find a path to compromise.

--Richard 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, it is nothing to do with a territorial dispute. It is a racial dispute. Hitler did not have a territorial dispute with the Jews when he sent them off to the gas chambers. Azerbaijan did not have a territorial dispute with Armenia when it destroyed at Julfa thousands of medieval gravestones of Armenians who died 500 years ago. The only disruption here is from you. You disrupted the natural course of the argument by protecting the page, and then by asking loads of off-topic questions rather than exploring what the article could reasonably contain. The point of the talk page is to explore the content of the entry, not to try to educate you in a subject you knew nothing about, and still know almost nothing about. Maybe after 20-odd years of dealing with the subject like I have, you will begin to approach an understanding of it. You call for namecalling, grudges and vengeance to cease, then make slanderous statement that others have done the disrupting and should be blocked. In your ignorance, you can't decide what is right - so conclude everyone else must be wrong. It all once again just reflects the blind arrogance of your typical Misplaced Pages administrator. Meowy 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the personal attacks in the above message. Other less tolerant admins might have blocked Meowy after such a tirade.

I don't think that the argument whose "natural course" I interrupted was likely to produce a consensus but, if you wish, I will duck out and let the three of you continue wrangling, personal attacking and being incivil to each other until somebody else decides to block you.

The page will stay protected until consensus is reached, though.

--Richard 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I think you should be aware that all the parties to this dispute are also parties to the new arbcom case called Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. This and the previous case basically involve all active Armenian and Azerbaijani users. You may wish to provide your evidence to help arbitrators to pass the right decision. Here’s the evidence page:

Also, could you please remain involved with the article? It is very hard for me to deal with Hetoum and Meowy due to constant personal attacks and incivility by these 2 users. Meowy claims that you disrupted the natural course of the argument when you protected the article, however “the natural course” for them is nothing but edit warring, which already resulted in 3 protections of the article and 3RR block for Meowy. Hetoum claims that I made racial slurs by criticizing Armenian scholar Karapetian. As an impartial person, could you please address this issue? If I indeed made any racial slurs, I’m willing to apologize, but I do not think that pointing out an obvious bias of a source in this issue is a racial slur.

Now, regarding the issue itself, I believe the territorial dispute is not much relevant to this particular church, because Armenia does not claim this part of Azerbaijan. The disputes between Azerbaijani and Armenian scholars may indeed be a topic for a separate article. But I agree that we should present all the known and undisputed facts in an accurate fashion. As for the disputed aspects, we should also present them with proper attribution of each view. There’s no large dispute over this church, the only person challenging the established view is Karapetian. So we can present his position, but make it clear that it is opinion of this person. I will provide more details in my response to Meowy. --Grandmaster 05:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster tries to cover up racial slurs and mud slinging

If you see here, after we revealed truth behind another attempt by Grandmaster to discredit Armenian scholars with typical racism, he says “I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO IT DEEP.”

Then, I am accused of “ASSUMING BAD FAITH.” When Grandmaster throws mud and racial slurs why does he even bother saying I “ASSUME BAD FAITH.” How do I assume bad faith?

Then, Grandmaster lies again, as he lied several times on this talkpage. He says “ I NEVER SAID ANYTHING BAD AGAINST ARMENIAN PEOPLE.” He says PROVE OR APOLOGIZE!!!

GRANDMASTER IS RIGHT! I should apologize for HIS RACIAL SLURS AND MUD SLINGING LIKE:

• We are not interested in what Ulubabian and other modern Armenian sources claim.
• You cited no sources other than that Armenian website, which is not reliable.
• The Armenian website that they use as their sole source is not reliable and cannot be accepted.
• Whatever is written by Karapetian is not reliable
• This is from Karapetian and therefore not reliable. Quote the original document,

Grandmaster still continues throwing racial slurs, instead of providing Azerbaijani scholars. No Armenian user here has show racial slurs, but rather is waiting for Grandmaster to show Azeri scholars. Why is he mudslinging instead of providing reference?

I tried to balance both the sources Grandmaster used with one from RAA.Hetoum I 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How criticizing an aggressive nationalistic source is a racial slur? Please explain? Yes, Karapetian is not reliable due to his strong bias in this issue. So far you provided no third party sources to support your claims. And I'm not quoting Azeri sources because I believe we should stick to neutral ones. --Grandmaster 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A new start

Well, it's no fun to be called an ignoramus even if you are an ignoramus and know it. Meowy has basically called me an ignoramus on this topic and I readily admit my ignorance in this regard. If I have made an ass of myself by blundering about in my ignorance, I apologize.

I had hoped to find a compromise position by asking enough intelligent questions to understand the dispute and find a middle ground that everyone could agree on.

Meowy's comments above may be valid although a gentler tone could have been used.

For my part, I could have been gentler rather than throwing out the threat of a block. In my defense, I was getting frustrated at all the incivility and personal attacks that were flying back and forth without any indication that progress was being made.

Meowy's attempt below to "start again" looks like a good faith attempt to find a solution. Is it workable? If there are issues with it, can we discuss those concerns without personal attacks or incivility?

--Richard 06:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's start again. What should the entry contain?

Given that all of the previous talk has got nowhere. Meowy 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1/ the legendary origin of the church and the tradition attached to it should be detailed, but with the note that the identification of Gis with Kish is not certain, and the reason why.

2/ The history of the church should be detailed. This history is detailed in reference works cited by Karapetian. Regardless of whatever opinion editors have about Karapetian, it cannot reasonably be argued that factual historical information should be excluded just because they are contained in an article written by Karapetian. All periods of the history should to be mentioned if information is available.

3/ Some way should be found to express the fact that the church has had (and still has) multiple identities, and that phrases like "Armenian Church", "Georgian Church" express liturgy and not ethnicity, and "Armenian church", "Georgian church" express architectural styles/trends and not ethnicity. The probability that the church was built for and used by the Udi people should be clearly expressed. Some mention could be made of the "Caucasian Albania" controversy – but that should not be an important part of this article and is best dealt with elsewhere.

4/ There should be a proper architectural description of the church. Part of this could be got from the various articles by Storfjell – however his description is inexact and not very technical. More could be added by simply describing the church from its photographs (unless that is counted as original research).

5/ The recent excavation and restoration should be mentioned, and results of the excavation summarised. The background to that restoration (including the origin and reason for the Norwegian interest in the church) should be mentioned. Meowy 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree, but we should also explain that the only person challenging the location of Gis is Karapetian. Actually, this is what is done in the current version of the article.
2. We can use those sources, but we need to find original documents, and not Karapetian’s interpretations. I never had any problems with the original sources.
3. Yes, most probably the church was built for udi people who inhabited the region, and it was a Georgian church according to Storfjell. If you look at it, it looks nothing like Armenian church. Whether there was an older church at that location is a subject for dispute, but the existing building was constructed between 10-12 centuries. If we have any proper reference that at certain point this church was Armenian, this could be mentioned as well, but we need to know exactly when this church was Armenian? It was not originally built as such. And I agree that "Armenian church", "Georgian church" express architectural styles/trends and not ethnicity, because the region was inhabited by udi people.
4. I agree
5. I agree that Norwegian research should be included, but the original research about “origin and reason for the Norwegian interest in the church” should be kept out of the article. It is not relevant to the church and is a personal interpretation. --Grandmaster 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But still should there not be some mention of why some people want to cast it and other churches in the area as Armenian? And why Armenian inscriptions were allegedly erased? Based on what has been written before on this page, it seems to me that the dispute is not solely about "the location of Gis" but about other churches in the area and whether they were Armenian or not. I don't think a long discussion of this is appropriate here. That discussion probably belongs somewhere else with a link to it from this article.

Am I being an ignoramus again? I think the above arguments capture Hetoum I's perspective. It seems to me that he was arguing that Azerbaijanis were attempting to erase the memory of Armenian presence in this land. Did I get that right? And, if so, is it a legitimate argument?

--Richard 06:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)