Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery

Protected

I've protected this article as well. Please confine your remarks to the talk page for the time being. BTW, I've never heard of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic but the New York Times tells me that this is genuine semi-independent disputed territory (see [1]). However this is just FYI and I hope you all can work it out. --rgpk (comment) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As you could see from the article, this territory is separatist region and was occupied by armenian army. Putting armenian names in this article is totally unacceptable. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said it is unacceptable, please re-read what I wrote above. ^Khukri 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is when you systematically write the word Armenian without capitilizing the first letter, while you do it, for any other language and ethnic group. Vidovler (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I too noticed that he did not capitalize 'Armenian'. This is not the 1st time either.--Moosh88 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Nagorno-Karabakh is a real place near Armenia, and which may or may not have been part of Armenia, but no, we can't have edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I was asked (I've been absent from the site for a few weeks), I would like to point out that this article is a part of a series of articles that have been tied up several times in Arbitration. I highly suggest checking those decisions and, if necessary, asking for enforcement. --Bobak (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding naming of monastery

Could anyone please explain why should Azerbaijani (thus de jure local) naming can not be demonstrated in the article? --Verman1 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Because such name is your own or someone else's nationalist fantasy. That's why. It never existed in history. Winterbliss (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How local name could become a "nationalist fantasy"? --Verman1 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A "local name" requires some locals that actually use it! However, a "fake nationalist fantasy that never existed in history" can still be inserted if sources are found that demonstrate its usage in propaganda statements. The propaganda statements are not RS so can't be used. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fake terms

Three editors have repeatedly restored fake content into the article: [2], [3], [4], and deceptively cited for that content two sources that do not even contain that content. "Armenian Apostolic" is not an architectural term, no monographs on Tsitsernavank Monastery uses that phrase to describe the architecture of the church or its builders (including the three that are cited in the lead to support its insertion in this article). Neither do any of the propaganda Azeri sources, including the two that are being cited to also support the usage of the phrase "Armenian Apostolic". The Azeri sources deny that the church was constructed by Armenians, period. They do not mention anything about it being or not being "Armenian Apostolic" (whatever that means) and their denial obviously does not refer to the MODERN-ERA religious affiliation of users of the church (the term "Armenia Apostolic" was not in existence at the time of this church's construction in the early-Christian era). Since we have 3 editors who can't even be bothered to look at sources, I am fact tagging the term "Apostolic". Unless sources are produced that use that specific term, I will delete it as unsourced. Restoring unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I will revisit in a month and see if sources have been found. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please place this in your edit summaries every time you make an edit, or bring this to the Talk page of an article earlier. What you're doing is Edit warring, and if you keep this sort of behavior up, an administrator's going to place a block on your IP address. I believe your intended edit would be accepted if it was sent to a talk page rather than constantly restored.

As a comment, please follow the guidelines posted here when your'e conversing. I feel that your comments are generally disrespectful to us as editors and can be seen as personal attacks, and the phrasing that you provide as placed on the last part evokes you are the sole arbitrator of how things are done here, which is absolutely not the case (i.e. "I will delete it this way"). You're openly stating that you are going to violate community consensus on the phrasing, and while I appreciate more formal ways of attempting to change consensus (such as in proposed move discussions), openly violating community consensus is the type of behavior that ends up resulting in blocks. I appreciate you coming on to the talk page to discuss these changes, and I understand where you are coming from, but you do tend to lose some of your merit or credibility when you're speaking to us in this manner. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Community consensus" does not usurp the requirement for content to be based on sources - and on what basis can there said to be a community consensus on the content of an obscure article like this? However, it is a Wikipedia-wide community consensus that unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging cannot be restored unless restored with accompanying sources.

It's an Armenian church per sources, what other affiliation can it have other than Armenian Apostolic? We don't need sources for obvious things. Stop doing unhelpful and disruptive tags. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"It's an Armenian church per sources, what other affiliation can it have other than Armenian Apostolic?" That is simply your POV. And based on what sources? Your comment just displays your ignorance of Armenian history. Let me shout it at you to try to make it clear to you, NONE OF THE SOURCES CITED use the term "Armenian Apostolic". "Armenian Apostolic" is a term coined in the modern-era, it did not exist when this church was constructed. "Armenian Apostolic" is also not a term that is ever used in academic sources dealing with medieval Armenian architecture. You will only find it in the context of 19th-C Armenian architecture, when churches are sometimes described as being Armenian Apostolic, or Armenian Catholic, or Armenian Protestant. And all content on Wikipedia must be supported by sources. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You started this thread with uncivil comments towards editors who reverted you Oodlescanoodles, InvadingInvader. You were asked to stop this and engage in conversations like a normal editor does on Wikipedia, but apparently, that's too much of a struggle for you based on the comment above; "That is simply your POV", "Your comment just displays your ignorance of Armenian history", "Let me shout it at you to try to make it clear to you, NONE OF THE SOURCES CITED" - This is not how you civilly conduct yourself here, if you still have major problems following WP:CIVIL, then go to twitter or somewhere else.

In regard to sources, they describe the monastery as Armenian [5]. Only Azeri source(s) deny this, which are WP:UNDUE. When it comes to apostolic, Armenians, which this church happens to belong to, clearly describe it as Armenian Apostolic [6], [7], [8]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@92.1.144.176: I recommend you read WP:OWN, but I’ll reference one important clause from it right here: “No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say”. Also, the Armenian Apolistic Church is the National Church of Armenia, and so every Christian church in Armenia or Armenian parts of countries can be assumed to be a member of that church. InvadingInvader (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)