Category talk:Oshki

Category removal

The constant removal of the Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey has to stop, as the Armenian character of the place can be sourced; see this academic source for instance. Sardur (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a problem of definition/documentation; is the category related to en:Armenian architecture or to one of the en:Armenian Churches ? I guess that you don't mean en:Georgian architecture neather.--Foroa (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sardur, could you provide a non-armenian source stated that it's Armeno-Georgian monastery? One armenian source doesn't make it Armeno-Georgian when 8 sources (!) says it is Georgian! [1] By the way, all of them are non-georgian sources and some of them are western. See WP:WEIGHT. –BruTe ^Talk 09:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Rensselaer Armenian? Sardur (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer is a private institute. The link you provided gives to the readers an information about a book. Can't you see? "Source Parsegian, V.L.. Armenian Architecture (Zug, Switzerland; IDC, 1980)". So it cannot be considered as "academic". –BruTe ^Talk 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very particular way to see things, as both Rensselaer and Parsegian are recognised as reliable sources. But there are other sources, like Hovannisian, another recognised scholar.

Btw, I would like to see a reliable source stating that this place was not, partially or not, also Armenian. Sardur (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Parsegian and Hovhannisian are Armenians; my position is supported by western sources. I repeat my question: could you provide a non-armenian source? If you cannot I will remove that category using WP:WEIGHT. –BruTe ^Talk 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians or not, that's not important: what is important is that they are recognised and therefore reliable scholars. Trying to analyse this from a nationality point of view has no meaning.

In any case, I already provided two non-Armenian sources (and I'm not sure about Parsegian):

Rensselaer;
Hovannisian, an American scholar.

Sardur (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. First, Rensselaer uses Armenian source (It's not very hard to see) so that it cannot be considered as "non-armenian"; and second: do you really consider Hovannisian as non-armenian or you're only joking? –BruTe ^Talk 09:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as serious as you are when you refuse to take into account recognised and reliable scholars on the basis of an irrelevant criterium. And for your information, an American of Armenian descent is an American, not an Armenian.

Btw, whatever does Rensselaer, it is a source as such.

And I still have to see a source explicitely stating that the place is not Armenian, in part or as a whole. Sardur (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if one source says it's Armeno-Georgian, 16 sources say it's Georgian. I have to remove that category using WP:WEIGHT as your viewpoint seems to be a minority. –BruTe ^Talk 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRUTE, if this guy continues such behaviour, we will ave to ask administrators to do their job. A human, who has come here to put a category, and doesn't want to hear anything - it really funny. BTW, here is the answer on my letter about Oshki :

Hello George Mel:

My name is Jeanne Keefe and I am the Librarian responsible for adding
the Armenian Architecture Collection to the Rensselaer Digital
Collections database. The photos in that collection were taken from the
7 volume set of microfiche entitled Armenian Architecture published by
The InterDocumentation Company of Belgium during the 1980's. The source
material was directly quoted from that collection and written by Dr.
Lucy DerManuelain and Dr. Krikor Maksoudian, both Armenian scholars.

Since it is possible that their research is somewhat outdated at this
point, if you have more accurate information, from published sources
that can be easily authenticated, I would be happy to know about them
and I will consider updating the information presently listed.

Thank you for your interest in our material.

Jeanne M. Keefe
Media & Digital Assets Librarian
Architecture Library/Reference & Instructional Services
Greene Building, Rm 306
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180
Tel: 518-276-2727
Fax: 518-276-6753
E-mail: keefej@rpi.edu

-Gaeser (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are still talking about Rensselaer? :)--Gaeser (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaeser: of course, as this e-mail does not say that you are right ("I will consider").

Actually, the one who does not want to here anything is clearly identifiable and was almost blocked on WP:fr; remember?

@BRUTE: minority or not (and I still contest this: I already have 5 sources, and I'm sure I can find more), since when does WP:WEIGHT apply to categories on Commons?

You should both stop your nationalistic war (and no, I'm not Armenian). Sardur (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, the category was there since October 2009 and was removed by BRUTE in April 2010, so one should stop his misrepresentation of the facts. Sardur (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT. The talk is over.--Gaeser (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop this POV pushing, otherwise you may be blocked as pushing the marginal view of minority. (5 against 16, when from these 5 3 are Armenian and one isn't a source itself. On other hand, you have 4 Russian and American encyclopaedias. Your view is marginal and has forgotten nothing on Commons.--Gaeser (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk is certainly not over as you didn't answer to my arguments and just carried on repeating things I have already addressed. Stop this non-collaborative behaviour.

The PoV-pushing is not mine: I do what I can in order to have a categorisation which represents the current state of knowledge about this place (i.e. Iberian (Georgian) and/or Armenian), which is also the only way to explain the alternative name of the place (in particular the vank part, also used in Turkish).

On the other hand, you do what you can in order to represent only one side of the story (Georgian); btw, you're even not coherent as you already recognised on WP:fr that the place was used by Chalcedonian Armenians.

Your minority argument doesn't stand as I still have a lot of sources to consult (for instance, Jean-Michel Thierry is mentioned by one of the sources), and as you cannot referenced that there is a minority; in this way, your argument is nothing but OR.

And I still have to see a reliable source stating that the place is not at all Armenian, which none of you has provided so far, though I already asked for this twice.

A regular user would stop removing the category (which was for a long time on the article before BRUTE removed it) as long as the issue is not settled, but you chose to behave differently. In doing so, you're also desorganising the category tree.

Sardur (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, on "when from these 5 3 are Armenian and one isn't a source itself": stop misrepresenting the facts. Sardur (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is found out. We have a lot of international, neutral sources which tell us it is a Georgian temple. You have only four sources which claim it is armenian. The encyclopaedia Armeniana doens't even say it! It says only the temple was used by them. Thus, stop the POV pushing of this marginal view.--Gaeser (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed this, and you keep on not answering my arguments. Sardur (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not know who is wrong or right, I have used Category:Monasteries in Turkey until this issue is resolved. Please don't revert until there is some conclusion, or I'll have no choice but to protect the category for some time. Zoo Fari 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I insist that this monastery is Georgian. I'm supported by hundreds of sources - see [2].--Gaeser (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in short, I prefered to represent the current state of knowledge (based on reliable sources) about this place, according to which the place has been Armeno-Georgian, Georgian and/or Armenian. So far, Gaeser has not provided a single source stating that the place was neither Armeno-Georgian nor Armenian during its history. More detailed arguments can be read above, arguments Gaeser didn't address. Sardur (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to find sources stating what things are not, when most publications rather point out what things are. Zoo Fari 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but since I provided 5 reliable sources and could certainly provide more, I can only suppose that Gaeser saw something like that in order to reject these sources, or in order to ignore the fact that the Turkish name of the place uses an Armenian word, for instance. Sardur (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ignore Armenian sources - mr. Marytian and Ovanessian. I consider them as marginal. Also, please don't lie - only three from your sources claim it is armenian. The encyclopaedia Armeniana doesn't say it, and Ovanessian says it's Georgian armenian. I ignore them per MARG and WEIGHT.--Gaeser (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice personal attack. I'm not lying. And I don't know who is "Ovanessian". Are you talking about the internationaly recognised historian Hovannisian? Sardur (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who doesn't say it is an Armenian church.--Gaeser (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were reading correctly, you would realise I never said so: I said "I provided 5 reliable sources". I very well know what each of them is saying. Sardur (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, on Hovannisian: the author of the chapter is in fact Nina G. Garsoian, another internationaly recognised (and also American) historian. Sardur (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Armenians. I provided a lot of international sources - Lang, Encyclopaedia Americana, BIg soviet lots of others, international and neutral. And, btw, not Georgian.

Nationality is an irrelevant criterium, as long as the scholar is reliable. And in any case, no, not only Armenians. Sardur (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Armenian. And about Ren. institute you can read above - they themselves say they copied from Armenian book .--Gaeser (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated, addressed and wrong. "of Armenian descent" is not "Armenian", and these scholars are recognised and reliable unless you bring a reliable source stating that they are not. On Rensselaer, you can also read my answer above. Sardur (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEIGHT.--Gaeser (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very collaborative indeed. And already addressed. Sardur (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, as collaborative as your efforts to add marginal viewpoint.--Gaeser (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable - a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I guess. And already addressed. Sardur (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how Oshki can be Georgia-Armenian church. It can be Georgian or Armenian. Maybe I missing something. And second, Sardur, The source that you provide says that the church is Armenian not Georgian or Georgia-Armenian. Anyway it is the only source that you provide that I can check. Geagea (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armeno-Iberian is more correct than Armeno-Georgian actually, and it's not so difficult to understand given the situation of Tayk/Tao at that time, an "hybrid world" (quotation from Garsoian). And perhaps you don't know it, but Chalcedonian Armenians (or Tzatoi) were often called "Iberians" in Byzantian sources.

Other sources can be seen on this version on WP:en. Sardur (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my ignorance. Tayk is a historical province of Greater Armenia (190 BC–428). but this church is from 970s. Tao-Klarjeti where historic south-western Georgian principalities (9 century - 11 century). So you claim that the Georgian principalities where Armeno-Iberians ? Geagea (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's nice to have someone who's ready to discuss.

I don't claim, I just repeat what historians say about, quoting Garsoian again, "the bilingual and bicultural court of the curopalate David" for instance. That's also why I don't understand why Gaeser or BRUTE so much want to deny this. Sardur (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion the church belong to the Georgian Orthodox Church or to the Armenian Apostolic Church ? Geagea (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we talk about the time of the foundation, certainly not the latter as I can see in my sources that it was used by or it belonged to Chalcedonian Armenians; but I don't think they were "attached" to the former (still in case you don't know, Chalcedonian Armenians are still not very well known). So I have no opinion for that period.

For later periods, I have to say that I don't know the later history of the place.

Sardur (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Geagea, you're the one who added the "Armenian category" in 2009, aren't you? Sardur (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the category history it was me. But as I mentioned above I do not know much about it. Geagea (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I checked about the "Chalcedonians". According to the article about Armenian Apostolic Church it says that the Armenian Church rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. So who are the "Chalcedonian Armenians"? They where not part of the Armenian church? Geagea (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedonian Armenians are Armenians who adhered to the Chalcedonian creed, and who therefore belonged to the Greek rather than the Armenian church. Sardur (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Chalkedonians aren't well known in the west, but they are perfectly known in Georgian. And I still don't guess, why would Armenians wright in Georgian script? All writings in the church are in Georgian, including the inscription found by Brosse (He is also not well known in France, maybe?) about creation this church by Georgian ruler Adarnase. I don't see anything Armenian there, neither armenian script, nor any mention of Armenians. Do you?--Gaeser (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I was talking about Chalcedonian Armenians.

It was quite usual for Chalcedonian Armenians to use the Georgian script: examples of this are very well documented, as for instance at the Kobayr monastery. I guess you mean Brosset.

As for your "Georgian ruler Adarnase": what an oversimplification. See for instance what I have already quoted about his son David.

Sardur (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :)) The Armenians didn't have their alphabet and used Georgian. Do you think anyone will believe it?--Gaeser (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care what others believe or not: this is a well established fact, and scholars have written about it. Sardur (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

). Sure - you have nothing to say when are pointed at facts. Anyway, I'll comment you no more - as you don't care what others believe or not. I'll use WEIGHT rule and everything will be fine. Basta.--Gaeser (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me: you should not care what people believe either, as work on WP is not about writing what people believe or not, but about representing the current state of knowledge.

You're "WEIGHT" has already been addressed. Sardur (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you still haven't read it.--George Mel (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Mel?

Instead of thinking so, read how I addressed it. Sardur (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you how to address it. There is a rule, which you're ignoring. This is is playing with rules.--George Mel (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one playing with this rule. Sardur (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I can se the monastery in not Armenian and not Georgian it's Turkish :). Well the monastery placed in Turkey. And it also belonging to the Georgian Orthodox Church or to the Greek church or both (according to what you say Sardur) but not to the Armenian Apostolic Church (again according to what you say Sardur). Even the en.wikipedia article says that the only conneton of the "Chalcedonian Armenians" to the church was the y pray there (you can check the talk page to). So ZooFari I belive you can remove the extra category of monasteries in Turkey. And I think it will be good idea to Category:Georgian Orthodox Monasteries in Turkey, Category:Georgian Orthodox Churches in Turkey. Geagea (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree: "Armenian monastery" doesn't necessarily mean "Monastery belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church". The monastery is said to be Armenian or Armeno-Iberian by several sources, and that's all what is needed. Unlike your OR. Sardur (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historicly it was belonging to Tao Klerjeti not Armno-Iberians. And it already categorised with Tao Klerjeti Geagea (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? Sardur (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politically it Turkish, religiously it Georgian church and historicly it Tao Klarjeti. What else? Geagea (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else? sources claiming that's an Armenian or an Armenian-Iberian monastery. Why would the place have to be exclusively Georgian? Reminds a lot about what's happening to Armenian churches in Georgia nowadays. Sardur (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more this. Or Svetitskhoveli is also Svetitskhovelivank? :D--George M. (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'm talking about reliable sources, and you bring a... cd? Is it a joke? Also, remember what is the monastery at hand? Sardur (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geagea, what for are we talking with this POV pusher? If even after seeing this the human will be telling that this is Armenian, I'll consider him as a POV pusher of a marginal view. Especially when there are hundreds of neutral sources, which say it is a Georgian church. --George M. (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack, very nice indeed. And I'm not excluding the Georgian part, on the contrary, so make an educated guess as to who is the real PoV-pusher here. Sardur (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I'm summarising my arguments, which are still unanswered:

the basis is that Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey should be readded to the article, as it was the case before some users PoV-pushed it out, because there are sources claiming that the monastery was Armeno-Iberian or Armenian (i.e. not only Georgian)
- these sources are reliable (specialised and recognised historians / art historians) - the only answer I got is that "they are Armenian", (i) which is irrelevant if they are reliable, and (ii) which is even not true for several of them ("Armenian" and "of Armenian descent" is certainly not the same)
- they perhaps (it still has to be proved, as no source has been provided so far stating that they do) represent a minority viewpoint, but the viewpoint is certainly not insignificant, i.e. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here - and since when would WP:WEIGHT apply to categories on Commons?
no source has been provided stating that the place was not at least partly Armenian
my opponents already recognised that the place was used by Chalcedonian Armenians, so what is the problem with the Armenian category?

This should already have been enough, but my opponents raised OR arguments, which I addressed - and I'm still waiting for their answers:

on Gaeser's attempt with Rensselaer: the e-mail copied above does not say that he's right - and btw, the Rensselaer page remains unchanged since then, which prooves a contrario that he's wrong
the Armenian (partial or not) origin is the only way to explain the vank part of the alternative name of the place, which is still used nowadays in Turkey
Tayk/Tao at that time: an "hybrid world" + "the bilingual and bicultural court of the curopalate David" (quotation from Garsoian, a very well recognised and specialised scholar). And Chalcedonian Armenians (or Tzatoi) were often called "Iberians" in Byzantian sources
the monastery belonged to which Church: I can see in my sources that it was used by or it belonged to Chalcedonian Armenians; but I don't think they were "attached" to the Georgian Church (still in case you don't know, Chalcedonian Armenians are still not very well known)
"neither armenian script": it was quite usual for Chalcedonian Armenians to use the Georgian script: examples of this are very well documented, as for instance at the Kobayr monastery
"Armenian monastery" doesn't necessarily mean "Monastery belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church"

I finally want to repeat that I'm only trying to represent the current state of knowledge on the monastery, whithout excluding the Georgian category, and I'm still accused of being a PoV-pusher - Gaeser, who only wants the Georgian category, is of course an angel. Pot and kettle. Btw, it reminds a lot about what's happening to Armenian churches in Georgia nowadays.
Sardur (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more this. Or Svetitskhoveli is also Svetitskhovelivank? :D--George M. (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, see above. Sardur (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as far as my "PoV-pushing" is concerned... Sardur (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules, which you must obey.--George M. (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below. No need to repeat, once again. Sardur (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEIGHT, POINT. The knowledge of this monastery is so - there are Armenian POV pushers, with whom disagree hundreds of reliable, neutral sources, including 5 encyclopedias and well known scientists. --George M. (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POINT?? The other points are answered above, and you just keep repeating them, as usual. Sardur (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating rules and not writing ORISSes and POVs.--George M. (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed how much energy is put in this debate. Maybe use a Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey (disputed) category till someone comes around with a fresh point of view or arguments. --Foroa (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category oppose. There are hundreds of sources. Why must we show this marginal Armenian viewpoint?! I hope you know, that are breaking rules - WEIGHT and FRINGE? --George M. (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a really special category... but I'm open to such a compromise. At least as long as Gaeser/George M. is repeating the same dead-horse arguments, which I did address several times. Sardur (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On top, I would like to underline that such a behaviour is not helping. I'm open to discussion, but I have a wall in front of me. Sardur (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have. This wall is called RULES, which you must obey.--George M. (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather think that the wall is called rules-as-interpreted-by-Gaeser/George M., who still repeats the same without addressing my answers. Sardur (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least some answers from [3] and [4], which I copy-paste with my answers:

the basis is that Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey should be readded to the article, as it was the case before some users PoV-pushed it out, because there are sources claiming that the monastery was Armeno-Iberian or Armenian (i.e. not only Georgian)
No reliable source has been provided. only source of shown by Sardur, which is non-Armenian origin is Poly technical institute (A cool source in history, you know) who (They say it by themselves have copied it from Armenian book - the copy of the letter is shown in the discussion).
Not reliable says who? Gaeser? And amazing thought about Rensselaer. For "Armenian", see below. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- these sources are reliable (specialised and recognised historians / art historians) - the only answer I got is that "they are Armenian", (i) which is irrelevant if they are reliable, and (ii) which is even not true for several of them ("Armenian" and "of Armenian descent" is certainly not the same)
  They aren't neutral - that's quite clear. Armenian's have long time history by stealing Georgian heritage - this was reported by Ilia Chavchavadze in 19-th century and continues nowadays .
  You won't impress anybody with such "sources". I provided academic sources from Western universities. And you are still confused about "Armenian". Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  A lie. I have seen no sources from West - only Garsoian, Hovanisian and so on. I, on the contrary, have provided 5 russian and 1 american encyclopaedias, neutrality of which isn't disputed.--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Your fantasies. Garsoian and Hovannisian are recognised scholars - or do you have a reliable source stating they are not? Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- they perhaps (it still has to be proved, as no source has been provided so far stating that they do) represent a minority viewpoint, but the viewpoint is certainly not insignificant, i.e. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here - and since when would WP:WEIGHT apply to categories on Commons?
  This is a fringe and marginal viewpoint of quite known nationalists from one country.
  That's not answering my point. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no source has been provided stating that the place was not at least partly Armenian
166 sources are telling this monastery was Georgian. No mention about Armenians. Brings some thoughts, doesn't?
Lol, a mix of reliable and unreliable sources, secondary and third (tertiary? ternary?) sources, and none of them being specialised in Armenian history or history of Armenian art. My sources are, and therefore are not insignificant. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, according to WEIGHT all these sources must be taken in attention.--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says Gaeser - still not addressing my point. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my opponents already recognised that the place was used by Chalcedonian Armenians, so what is the problem with the Armenian category?

This should already have been enough, but my opponents raised OR arguments, which I addressed - and I'm still waiting for their answers:

When we come to Moscow we pray in Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour. Where is category Georgian monasteries in Russia? Same is here - if armenians prayed there this doesn't make the place armenian.
Off-topic: we are not talking about praying. Pikachu defense on top. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the place was used by Chalcedonian Armenians - if the example with Moscow temple isn't the answer what is? Anyone can come to Georgian church and pray. This doens't make the temple Armanian (A wonderful example of armenian architechture which wasn' built by armenians :D)
Misrepresentation of sources. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lie. I have already explained the ridiculoseness of your point.--George M. (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which was hardly convincing: this is not just about praying. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on Gaeser's attempt with Rensselaer: the e-mail copied above does not say that he's right - and btw, the Rensselaer page remains unchanged since then, which prooves a contrario that he's wrong
The poly technical institute can't be a reliable source in history. Anyway, it mustn't be looked as an independent source, ase they have copied this from an Armenian book, as is said in the email.
Already answered. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't.
Of course I did, see above. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Armenian (partial or not) origin is the only way to explain the vank part of the alternative name of the place, which is still used nowadays in Turkey
An ORISS. Without sources.
Check the website of the Turkish province, or an Armenian dictionary. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Turkey Ovis armeniana, due to recent Armeno-Azerbaijan conflict was renamed into Ovis Orientalis Anatolicus. In the world it is known as Ovis armeniana, shall we change the opinion of the whole world due to Turkish ideas?--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use English names? I don't understand your answer. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Latin. Google translate up to you.--George M. (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point as I'm not claiming that the category should be renamed. And I don't see what the etymology of "Ovis Orientalis Anatolicus" should or could changed anything about "Ovis armeniana" (btw, the change is not due to the Armeno-Azerbaijan conflict). Sardur (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tayk/Tao at that time: an "hybrid world" + "the bilingual and bicultural court of the curopalate David" (quotation from Garsoian, a very well recognised and specialised scholar). And Chalcedonian Armenians (or Tzatoi) were often called "Iberians" in Byzantian sources
Another "reliable Armenian." It's perfectly known by world historians, that David was a Georgian ruler. It is discussed by none, but mr. Garsoian.
Says Gaeser. Garsoian is highly recognised, I can provide sources on this. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of topic. David was a Georgian ruler, do you disagree with this?--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely on-topic, and yes I do if we are talking about nationality (what a non-sense in Xth century...). Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says Sardur and disagrees Eastmond, Anthony, Holmes, Catherine, Suny, Ronald Grigol, Reuter, T, and Britannica Concise Encyclopedia :). A wonderful illustration of your fringeness.--George M. (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation of sources (I just checked Eastmond and Suny) if we are still talking about nationality (I repeat it, a non-sense in Xth century). Sardur (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lie. Maybe you have checked Britannika too? --George M. (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody can check these scholars' writings. And what would you expect of a concise encyclopedia (a tertiary source on top)? Sardur (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Only Hovanisia is reliable! It's already absurd - for you even encyclopaedias become unreliable.--George M. (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so difficult to spell names correctly? And where on earth did you see that I said this encyclopedia is unreliable? With such a level of understanding of my posts, no wonder that we are still discussing. Sardur (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was territory of Georgian kingdom of David. Georgian kingdoms adopt Georgian church. It is as clear, as sun!--George M. (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for you, but not for reliable scholars. Sardur (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lie. Read Lang, Suny, Egge, Andersen. --George M. (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're again repeating yourself. Méthode Coué ? Sardur (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same what you are doing! As Gebbels said, I lie said thousand times becomes truth - you seem to be fullfiliing his theory.--George M. (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin point, congratulations. Sardur (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the monastery belonged to which Church: I can see in my sources that it was used by or it belonged to Chalcedonian Armenians; but I don't think they were "attached" to the Georgian Church (still in case you don't know, Chalcedonian Armenians are still not very well known)
A nonsense. The church was created on territory of Georgian Othodox church (As it is well known, territry of the church is almost always same to territories of the state)
Georgian fantasies, I can provide sources. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hush, in your version you just said that it was built by Chalkedonians. The only Chalkedonian church nearby was Georgian - is it a fantasy?--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please source what is the "territory" of the "Georgian Church" in the Xth century. Nationalistic non-sense. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? David was a Georgian prince. In 10-th century Georgian church already existed - read Skurat, Bessonov, many encyclopaeedias. Your point is really interesting - I don't guess what you are arguing about - that there existed Georgian Orthodox church during reign of David? Really, ridiculous. --George M. (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above on David. You didn't get my point on the Georgian Church: I'm of course not contesting its existence but what you call its "territory" in the Xth century. Territoriality of Churches in the Xth century, my goodness... Sardur (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.Javakhishvili. P.511, At the end of VI century [...] the administrative [...] division of both Georgian and Armenian churches were already divided - both territory and people were divided between two churches. If it was done in the VI century, do you have source whuch says this division was broken in X century? --George M. (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
?? I'm not talking about the division. Sardur (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you talking about then?! Even if we consider your theory as normal, Chalcedonian Armenians fled from territory of Armenian church and entered territory of Georgian church. Or maybe this is not so?--George M. (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing like "my theory", it's all about reliable sources. I'm questioning in particular Tao/Tayk being an exclusive territory of the Georgian Church in the Xth century. Sardur (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"neither armenian script": it was quite usual for Chalcedonian Armenians to use the Georgian script: examples of this are very well documented, as for instance at the Kobayr monastery
Sure, and they created bas reliefs of st. Nino - the saint most worshiped in Georgia.
Georgian fantasies, it is well documented. Sardur (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree bas reliefs of st. Nino are well documanted (Before someone destryed them a year ago - who might it be?)--George M. (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation of my point. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normal question - answer it, you seem to cinsider yourself specialist in Medieval Georgian history, so come on, answer why in "armenian" temple were bas reliefs of a saint, worshiped mostly in Georgia and nowadays Russia, but definitelu not in Armenia? And another question, for whom might it be useful to get rid of this bas reliefs? Not to those who are now sayin it's an "armenian" monastery?
What is the link with Oshki? And I'm not considering myself as a "specialist in Medieval Georgian history", where did you get that?? I rely on sources, nothing else. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On unneutral sources. I rely on American and Russian encyclopaedias and dictionaries - you on Armenians' monogrophies. And still you haven't explained how could a saint who isn't even worshiped in Armenia, and on the constrary is considered as one of greates saints of Georgia, appear on Armenian church? --George M. (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed your "Armenian" fantasies.

You obviously ignore that St. Nino is also a saint according to the Armenian Apostolic Church, as St. Nune. But that's completely off-topic here. Sardur (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, she isn't. Do you have source? Anyway, this doesn'r change the fact someone destryed this bas relief - and I have strong feeling it were thoso who say it's an armenian church.--George M. (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do (but I can't consult religious websites from my office).

You "have strong feeling"? That reveals a lot about your bias against Armenia(ns). You know we are not on a nationalist forum, don't you? Sardur (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deslike POV pushers, who bring sourves "made in Armenia" and with them are trying to hold a discussion. You are pushing Armenian nationalistic POV, relying only on Armenain sources and are talking about nationalism from me, who has brought lots of Russian and American encyclopaedias?! It's ridiculous.--George M. (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, FYI, I have nothing against Armenians - but against POV pushers and vandals who destroy bas reliefs to make a falsification - yes I do have with them.--George M. (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I was an Armenian PoV-pusher, I would have deleted the Georgian category, quod non. Your accusations are not coherent.

Already answered on "Armenian sources". Sardur (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you seem to agree that they aren't neutral and can't be used. You still haven't provided any reliable western sources - as you haven't and rely only on Armenian sources, you seem to be a POV pusher. --George M. (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enormous misrepresentation of my position. Garsoian, Hovannisian are for instance reliable Western scholars, published by established publishers, recognized by their peers, and professors in Western universities. Your position about them is untenable. Sardur (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Armenians, who are irrelevant as are unneutral! I have provided nonGeorgian and nonArmenian sources, which quite celarly say it is a Georgian church, and has no touch with Armenians. And don't lie Garsoian - has written nothing about Oshki cathedral. --George M. (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says Gaeser. Please provide a source stating they are irrelevant/"unneutral" and unreliable.

On top, I will repeat what Garsoian wrote: "The best example of this hybrid world was undoubtedly to be found in the border region of Tayk‘/Tao with its splendid churches, such as Oški (Oshki) and Išxan (Ishkhan), uniting Iberian and Armenian features, and most of all the bilingual and bicultural court of the curopalate David". See who is telling the truth. Sardur (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sardur, what Garsoian wrote means that these churches bear some features of Armenian design which might well be true as Georgians and Armenians had a long history of cultural interaction in that region. However, this does not make Oshki an Armenian church, you know. In the very heartland of Georgia there is a church called Ateni Sioni which was reconstructed several times, once by a master specially invited from Armenia. Does this make the Ateni church an Armenian one? An Armenian master designed the dome of Haghia Sophia in Constantinople. Does this make Haghia Sophia an Armenian church? Armenian and Georgian features have been identified in the design of several old Kievan Rus cathedrals. Are you going to add the Armenian and Georgian categories to these entries? --Kober (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Armenian monastery" does not only refer to religion, you know. Here, according to various reliable scholars specialised in Armenian history or history of Armenian arts, we have (partial) Armenian architectural features, "used" by or "belong[ing]" to (Chalcedonian) Armenians, etc., which is not just the same as Haghia Sophia for instance. Sardur (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garsoian, Hovanisian - very neutral sources.--George M. (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, professors of Western universities recognised by their peers.

Of Armenian origin. The rules ask us to search, whether they have their interest in this case. We can loudly say, that, YES, they have.--George M. (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source it then. Sardur (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, I still remember this. Sardur (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Kober (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that in last October, you did not seem to have a problem with Oshki being described as Armeno-Georgian in the lead of the article on WP:en. Nothing else. Sardur (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might well have been used by Chalcedonian Armenians or by any ethnic group of that confession. Still it does not change the fact that the primary architectural design of the Oshki church is of Georgian origin, it belonged to a Georgian princely dynasty and was administered by Georgian bishops. Then how come it is an Armenian church? Just because it was attended by some Armenian Chalcedonics? The proponents of the well-sponsored and propagated "Everything-Georgian-in-what-is-now-Turkey-is-in-fact-Armenian-Chalcedonic" theory have to answer a question: why these Chalcedonic Armenians left so many Georgian inscriptions on "their" churches? Georgian has never been an universal language of Chalcedonism. This does not mean that I deny the fact of the Armenian presence in the region, their cultural role and extremely fruitful interaction with their Georgian neighbors and co-believers. --Kober (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary? Garsoian (among others) does not say so. On the "Georgian princely dynasty", see the quote from Garsoian (bilingual, bicultural). And on "some" Armenian Chalcedonics: do you have a source?

I'm not a proponent of the theory you mentioned (I never tried to remove the Georgian category. On the inscriptions, I already answered: that's not unusual, see for instance Kobayr monastery.

Finally, I'm happy to agree with you on the "extremely fruitful interaction".Sardur (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any new element / counter-argument, and due to this uncollaborative behaviour and these unjustified, uncivil and repeated personal accusations, as well as the Godwin point, I won't answer for the moment. Sardur (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once again remove the Armenian category (readded by User:Foroa) and used Monasteries in Turkey instead. If arguments like this continue, Monasteries in Turkey will be used until some [other] expert comes along later. Zoo Fari 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Oshki

Category removal

Summary

Navigation menu

Search