Misplaced Pages

Ağoğlan is the name of the area not the name of the monastery. VartanM (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no area in Azerbaijan called Ağoğlan. Please avoid OR. Here are some Azerbaijani sources referring to this complex/monastery as Ağoğlan: . Parishan (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? See the first source (the only one thats in English) you provided, the river Agoglan. It say also Monastery on river Agoglan. It also conveniently places it as Albanian, like every other Armenian monument. Interesting and credible site indeed. We have here the Agoglan tower , Agoglan temple , Agoglan castle but most hits refer to the river Agoglan. There is no official Azerbaijani name for the place. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Content does not matter in this case. We are discussing the use of the term. The fact is, the term is encountered and used by Azeris to designate this particular monastery, and it is not like the phrase 'Agoglan monastery' is not used anywhere. The fact that it is also a name of a river does not prove a thing. There are rivers in Azerbaijan, called Ganja, Lankaran, Nakhchivan, Shamkir, Astara, etc. but it does not mean cities with the same names do not have official Azeri names. Parishan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lachin corridor connects occupied NK with Armenia, it was fought by Armenian forces in order to have this corridor to Armenia. If there really was "so called de-facto independent Karabakh" there would be no necessity to open a corridor to Armenia, would it? So VartanM, Andranikpasha, and other folks, please, adjust your POV and use the wording reflected in the relevant UN, PACE, and other documents. Atabek (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Atabek and other folks! Before doing radicalist POV edits its better to source a little existed material and to not change what we have with your own opinions on liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh and self-determination of its peaceful inhabitants terrorized by different forces since 1918. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And how your opinion about "liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh" is not POV? Grandmaster (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a POV too! The difference is that Im not putting that POV to the article, like Atabek done. And pls, do not change consensused variant with your preffered one as CIA is not the only source. Pls be civil and discuss it! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Name change?

Tzitzernavank Monastery - "vank" means monastery, so really there is no need to use the word monastery in the article's title. Nobody, including English speakers, would call it "Tzitzernavank Monastery" they would call it "Tzitzernavank". In addition, the use of the word "monastery" in such a position suggests that the church was built as a monastic church (which is not certain) or that it is still used as a monastery (which it is not). Meowy 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Non existing project tag removed . Replaced with Azerbaijan tag, as the monastery complex is located on internationally recognized and occupied part of Azerbaijan outside of even Nagorno-Karabakh. Atabek (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "top importance" tag just added by Atabek. There is no legitimate reason to think an article about a medieval Armenian church is of an importance equal, for example, to the Nagorno Karabagh war. Meowy 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought some clarification to situation of Lachin region, where it's located, controlled and renamed by who. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I put back the name "Kashatagh" - it is important to give the current de-facto name of the district as well as the de-jure one. Meowy 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was there, so I don't understand who you could put it back. I fixed obvious POV, since de-jure non-existent "NKR" has no authority to rename the territory of a de-facto state. Also, I removed the unsourced claim that "Kashatag" was medieval name of Lachin per WP:V. Grandmaster (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "fix POV", you reverted the whole edit, which included reverting to wording which had content which was clearly wrong (wording that implied that it was still being used as a monastery, for example). The name "Kashatag" wasn't invented out of thin air, it was the original name of the district, and was used from the 13th century onwards. Before that the name used was "Aghahejk" - but the older name was used to define a larger area than what is now Kashatag/Lachin. I've added a source. Your "no authority" claim is silly, those who live in or have territorial control over a place can call that place by whatever name they want, and in most cases de-facto names for obscure places should be given at least equal weight on Misplaced Pages. Meowy 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources, not Karapetyan. We have discussed this extreme nationalist before. And yes, "NKR" does not legally exist, therefore it has no authority to rename the territory of legally existing states. Grandmaster (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved to Tzitzernavank. "Vank" already means monastery in Armenian. How is Samvel Karapetian an extreme nationalist again? Hakob (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read his interview to de Waal, it is pretty obvious. Plus, it is not a third party source, as the rules require. Grandmaster (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule saying we have to abide by Thomas de Waal's label of Samvel Karapetyan being a nationalist. He is an expert on the architecture of the region and what some journalist's opinion of him (or yours, for that matter) is does not in any way negate the facts of the information on the church. Can you please direct us to which Misplaced Pages rule that specifies that only third-party sources must be used?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I thought you knew that by now. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. (Btw, this article so far has not used a single decent third party source).

Or Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_specific_source_types:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This one is also of interest: Misplaced Pages:Independent sources.

Karapetyan is neither reliable, nor third party, and nor third party published. As for him being a chauvinist, it is not just opinion of de Waal, everyone can read his interview to that author and see that Karapetyan expresses racist views about Azerbaijanis and Turks. How such a source could be considered reliable? And you would not be happy if I started using Azerbaijani sources here, they say things quite the opposite to what Armenians say. So please stick to neutral sources that have no conflict of interest on the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not spending time on this childishness. The source is perfectly acceptable, if you had access to the source you would know that its presentation of the name's history (it gives medieval examples which use that place name) removes any question of doubt. And if you knew anything about the region you would know the info about the placename was true and so obviously true that a source was never actually needed for that bit of info. Meowy 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For such controversial issues we should use neutral sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, okay, so can you please pinpoint exactly where in Karapetyan's book do we find inconsistencies and factual mistakes? His views on the Karabakh conflict and Azeris notwithstanding, where exactly do see the problems in what he claims? I doubt you can create an argument on the basis of simply claiming that because "A" holds this view, any and all conclusions he makes about "B" thus renders him unfit and unreliable as a source.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a neutral source, it has a strong bias in this issue and as such is not reliable. Simple as that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Historians, and all individuals in that case, naturally come with biases, some simply are far more subtle than others. You cannot dismiss an entire source simply on the grounds of their positions. You're going to have to start bringing out some concrete examples of unreliability. I'm curious, when you review a book, do you simply judge the book's usefulness and effectiveness solely on the positions of the author?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the wiki rules about the sources? I suggest you do. This article needs to be deleted altogether as it cites no third party sources at all. If you really want to improve it, find some. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And there we have it. Grandmster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Misplaced Pages a medium for the distribution of propaganda. Because this article goes contrary to that propaganda, he responds by saying it needs to be completely deleted. The very first entry on this talk page was one by Grandmaster about his desire to have the whole article deleted. His desire was rejected on that occasion on the grounds that Tzitzernavank is a notable monument. Six months later, the article contains much more interesting, informative, and properly cited material - reinforcing that original decision to keep the article. Meowy 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. Personal attacks like: "Grandmaster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Misplaced Pages a medium for the distribution of propaganda" are not acceptable, and it is very ironic that you make such claims, when this article in its current form is nothing but pro-Armenian propaganda. It is not "properly sourced", it relies only on Armenian sources, which have an obvious conflict of interest here. If you used proper sources, there would be no problems here. Grandmaster (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. The fact that the region was formerly called Kashatagh (and Aghahejk) and was not known as Lachin since time immemorial is pro-Armenian propaganda? I don't think Meowy was doing any "edit warring," he has been trying to improve the article - a simple glance at the history of his edits on this page would reveal that. Reporting him is only going to make things worse, just like recklessly adding all those contributors to the Arbcom did (what a colossal mistake). Sorry, but there is only so much good faith one can assume. Hakob (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, before this fracas was initiated, Meowy had proposed that the article be moved to Tzitzernavank. Everyone agree? Any disagreements? Hakob (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is to use reliable third party source, as per wiki rules. And I don't mind the article move. Grandmaster (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, assuming good faith has its limits. One should always assume good faith on first contact with someone's edits. However, if over time I feel there is evidence that good faith is lacking in many of an editor's edits and other activities on Misplaced Pages, then there is no need to continue assuming it exists. The sources used in this article are reliable. I don't think you are dismissing them because they are unreliable, or even because they are mostly Armenian, but because they disagree with aspects of a current propaganda-line emanating from Azerbaijan. Meowy 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search and Tsitsernavank seems to return more results than Tzitzernavank. Most of the sources cited in the article also seem to use this spelling. Hakob (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But Tzitzernavank may be closer to the actual pronounciation. I don't know since I've never actually heard anyone speaking the name! "Tsit" suggests the "t" and the "s" sounds are differentiated, but "Tz" is more like a single sound. Is the name is pronounced like "t-si-t-serna-vank", or more like "zzi-zzerna-vank"? Meowy 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the "z" sound isn't heard in its pronunciation. Western Armenians may begin the word with a "D" and, unintentionally, subsequently pronounce the "z" sound" but a close rendition of the sound could be seen in the Russian letter "Ц" (although the equivalent of this letter in Armenian would in fact be "Ց, ց", like the "ts" in "cats"). Divided into syllables, it would be "Tsi-tser-na-vank."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In English, "ts" at the end of a word is generally pronounced like that "ts" in "cats", but "ts" at the start of a word is not generally pronounced like that: they are mostly seen in foreign words and those words mostly start with a "z" sound like "tsar" - which wouldn't be correct in this case, would it? I don't know which would be best. Neither do the sources! Karapetian uses Tzitzernavank, Hasratyan uses Tsitsernavank, Donabedian uses Cicernavank'. But, since it's your language being rendered into English - you choose! Meowy 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well even the word "tsar" should not have a "z" sound to it (many erroneously use the form "czar") but I guess we should just go with precedent: the Tsitsernakaberd article uses the "Tsi" form so this is the best and most accurate rendition in English possible.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, those are all valid. Romanization of Armenian lists "ts" as well as "c" for Ծ. Hakob (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Someone, apparently by accident, created an article called Tsitsernavank. So we can probably move the content from this article to that one and simply make this page a redirect.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial Country

Acoording to the map created by United Nations, Nagorno Karabakh region is a part of Azerbaijan. Please, stop unhealthy nationalism and letting misinformation! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious: could you just tell me how to access the site once you're in Azerbaijan? Sardur (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an occupied region by Armenian and Russian troops. --Quzeyli 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quzeyli (talk • contribs)

I prefer the word "inhabited" (on their ancestral homeland). Serouj (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When will Azeris accept that the homeland of the Caucasian Albanians (their CHRISTIAN ancestors) was EAST of the Kura river? That is to say, it was NOT the mountainous region of Armenia!?! Open a historical atlas for crying out loud! Serouj (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region . or here
• They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad. or here
• Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced. or here

Please, check references.--144.122.135.88 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No link with the monastery. The article should represent the current knowledge and the current situation, and give the most useful informations. It should not be transformed into an irredentist article; do I have to remind you that your "Lachin Rayon" only exists on paper? Sardur (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• They are about location of monasteries which have been occupied.

"Current knowledge": Nagorno-Karabakh still is a part of Azerbaijan and near 1 million Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds are refugee from there. "Current situation": Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. see ref --144.122.135.88 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

They are about monasteries. Keep your point to the NKR article and stop your disruptive behaviour. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I proved and edited just formal location of monasteries, not historical and architectural info of these monasteries. Stop separatist propaganda! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tsitsernavank is not mentionned in any of your links. Sardur (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• They are about the location of monasteries which has been occupied. The monasteries are in the borders of Azerbaijan. --Hay-siken (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Open Your Blind Eyes

That monastery is located in AZERBAIJAN! Stop propaganda in WIKIPEDIA! --144.122.250.211 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. or here
• They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad. or here
• Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced. or here

Are`t they enough for you to believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan Republic? You just abuse confidence of Misplaced Pages for your separatist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dişi-BOZQURD (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Dişi-BOZQURD (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop slandering. This tactic will not work on me, I am not like others. If you try it again, I will do official apply to Misplaced Pages because you do it by organized way. Kardashians (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dear all, I have been asked to comment on this article most probably due to my involvement when it was almost deleted a few years ago. Please do not revert anymore changes until they have been discussed here, before anyone comments that it is the incorrect version, I would like you to read this about m:The Wrong Version. I have not currently protected the article and would like to suggest all editors from this point stop reverting backwards and forwards and tone down the rhetoric, there's too much talk of vandalism and abuse in edit summaries. I have seen little effort on these talk pages of dispute resolution just assertion of facts with few supporting sources, and then reciprocal assertions without basis.

We will sort this article using the tools at our disposal, i.e. discussion, reliable sources, verifibility and not original research or heresay. I fully appreciate the national interests in articles like this and though I'm not an expert in the subject I am neutral and to overcome my lack of expertise I would all parties when they reply to include the sources for their comments.

A few key points as I understand it please give references when disputing any statement, I've kept them simple to allow for yes or noes.

1) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not internationally recognised

2) The Nagorno-Karabakh region is currently within the borders of Azerbaijan

3) The Church of Caucasian Albania no longer exists

4) Historically this church was in Armenia, and it's construction has been compared to other Armenian churches and monastries of that time

Are any of the statements incorrect?

Cheers 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Just one comment: The Nagorno-Karabakh region is de-jure currently within the borders of Azerbaijan. De-facto this has almost nothing in common with the reality.

And one question: So what is your opinion on reverting Verman1's edits?

Thanks, -- Ashot  11:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that this monastery is inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory. Therefore, any kind of efforts trying to show this land as territory of another country is incorrect. Caucasian Albanian church doesn't exist any more, but it doesn't mean that this church is not Caucasian Albanian. Moreover, when "historically" this church was in Armenia? Verman1 (talk)

I have no opinion on reverting Verman1's edits until I see responses to my questions above, as I stated above there is always a wrong version. I have also just reverted back to the version when I left this message. I ask all editors involved to firstly answer the questions I have posed above and we will take the resolution from there, to work a middle ground. Please do not continually revert which will escalate the dispute, for a long term resolution sometimes the article must be left in a position the individual editors are uncomfortable with. Regards 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an experience of a huge discussion going nowhere (in terms of consensus). As you seem to have taken a role of mediating admin, could you please share your plan on how we will get to some reasonable point. Thanks. -- Ashot  14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My first point is to find a base position with verifiable information and sources and then take it from there to find a neutrally worded lede. So I've picked out a couple of key areas I see in the reversions, to find out which positions can be reliably sourced. If someone disagrees with it, this should be easy to show through sources and then we can look to see if the sources meet the guidelines. It's not too difficult to work out most of the actors position in this discussion from the boxes splashed across their page; I'd like to say though I'm interested in their viewpoints and I certainly don't understand the nuances, at the end of the day I'm interested in the status of the monastery now, and in the past and demonstrating this with as I've said previously sources that meets the guidelines. So ball is in your (collective) courts bring me your sources for perusal. Cheers 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to say the fact I am an admin is irrelevant, I'm am mediating as a neutral party who has certain insights in how[REDACTED] works, my only previous involvement with this article can be seen above and started from when I refused to speedy delete the article. And though Verman1 has asked for my involvement I have had no prior interaction with the editor and at this time do not hold any firm positions to either side of the discussion. 15:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

My concern is that this may become de-jure vs de-facto dispute (e.g. NKR map vs Azerbaijan map). Both sides will have mutually exclusive arguments. Any idea how to deal with this? -- Ashot  15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Firstly lets have a look at the questions and we'll see where we go from there :) Cheers 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh is perhaps a moot point because we already have a couple hundred or so articles which state the political status of the region. We should mention that Nagorno-Karabakh is currently a de facto independent republic which, to date, is not internationally recognized but almost mention that it is within Azerbaijan's de jure borders. The line regarding Caucasian Albania, however, is not so open to interpretation. Amaras was a monastery under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Apostolic Church and there's no evidence to indicate that the Caucasian Albanian Church had any control over it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear All,

I want you to consider this article regarding Caucasian Albanian churches in Karabakh. I also want to inform you that history of Caucasian Albanian church ended in 19th century when Russian Empire occupied Caucasus. Russian authorities forcibly abolished Caucasian Albanian Church and annexed to the Armenian Apostolic Church. As conclusion, it is easy for anyone to falsely claim Caucasian Albanian Church as an Armenian Church. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post the link. Just quickly looking through the article, it certainly doesn't appear to be what I would call neutral or a realiably sourced. The article Church of Caucasian Albania has a less biased approach to the writing though I would like someone's input on this article.

The affiliation question seems to be the inverse of the regional question. If one accepts that regions can and has change 'ownership' since the monastary was built, such as Armenian, Azeri, NKR etc then why is a church locked to it's affiliation of some 170 years ago? Some of you are saying the affiliation is what the church is now, and some are looking at it maybe how it was consecrated, would this be a fair assessment? Looking at the {{Infobox religious building}} states "info religious_affiliation — the religion and/or denomination the building is used for", though I will ask them for further clarification on the timing if that is present or originally. 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that is just a canard which is popular only in Azerbaijan, and enjoys no scholarly support outside of that republic. Tsitsernavank is just one of several dozen Armenian churches in and near Karabakh which Azerbaijani scholars have rechristened as "Caucasian Albanian", going so far as to falsify and distort primary sources to prove that these churches have no connection to Armenia nor Armenians. Caucasian Albania had lost all its ethnic and political connotations by the ninth century and while a Caucasian Albanian diocese existed up until the early nineteenth century, its members considered themselves as Armenians and nothing else.

Further, this is not a simple content dispute we are discussing but an attempt at distorting history and I have already lost count on how much talk pages I have repeated this argument on other related articles. Verman himself is unable to produce a single reliable source to support his claims and instead has resorted to edit warring on a massive scale to revert changes he disagrees with. The unreliability of sources published in or distributed by Azerbaijan, as well as online websites, has been mentioned elsewhere but it is worth repeating here. One of the most prominent historians on the matter, Robert Hewsen, has cautioned:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

I don't see this as a good-faith discussion and it's rather disconcerting to see that the one version which numerous editors have worked on, with complete references, reliable sourcing and neutral wording, has been replaced now with one which is packed with out-and-out lies and glaring omissions. I know that this is a standard practice among administrators who want to help mediate a matter, who often revert the article to the "wrong version", but some better discretion would have been desirable here. Leaving aside the de facto-de juro debate, which itself has been handled smoothly elsewhere, I really don't see much point in this discussion, when not a reasonable argument has not been brought up to warrant mediation. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your frustration but the minute I decide an arbitary point changes then I am taking one side over the other. I'm upset to see you don't see much point in continuing the disscussion, especially from someone who is clearly knowledgeable about how[REDACTED] works, all I can do is thank you for taking the time to answer the questions, the only person so far. I found the Atlas yesterday when I was looking for maps of the area at the time of the churches construction, which was the basis of one of two sources for the fourth point, though I haven't read the text though the quote is interesting. Thank you.

To the other editors though the questions might seem to too basic and doesn't capture a nuance or level of discussion you would like to see, once a baseline has been established it is then much easier to continue on to the trickier subjects. So I ask you to state your agreement with the points or refute with valid sources. Regards 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I note, the article was well-referenced and probably enough-discussed prior to edits of Verman1 (see the references section in the article and the discussion above). Furthermore, Verman1 even didn't bother himself to preliminary discuss his changes in the talkpage stating that some of his points are "not negotiable", which is probably not the correct conduct, is it?

Hence, I have a counter-proposal: revert the article to its initial condition and let Verman1 or any other editor simply put or notes where they think there are problematic points as per his/their opinion. -- Ashot  06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Four simple questions, I'm beginning to think both side are avoiding answering them. 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only I have answered, but also proposed a more accurate statement regarding the 2nd question. You also have responses regarding the 4th. You ask others to answer your questions, could you please be kind to argument why you do not accept my proposal? -- Ashot  07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I had already responded to it in my response to Marshall about the wrong version.

I can't see where you have agreed to my four statements. It's better to answer all of the questions and not pick which ones we wish to answer, that way there is no ambiguity later on when we try to look for a neutral and sourced wording. So can I take your response to be; 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes and 4) yes? Thanks in advance 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The geographical location of Caucasian Albania

As we know through the historical accounts that the territory of Caucasian Albania was located to the North of Kura River, bordering the Armenian historical territories of Utik and Artsakh the map of Caucasian Albania. Tsitsernavank Monastery is located within the Armenian historical territory of Syunik (not to be confused with the current province of Syunik of RA) the map of Syunik and Artsakh.--Kevorkmail (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The map that you have cited is made by Robert Hewsen, an american scholar with armenian origins. I don't think that this could be used as neutral source. Regards,--Verman1 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA05/ERES1416.htm
2. http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1247
3. http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?cid=1301