Talk:Church of Kish

Dubious "See Also" articles

This article currently has two dubious See Also articles: Udi people and Caucasian Albania. Caucasian Albania had been extinct for around 700 years before the founding of this church in the 12-13th century, and there exist no evidence of the relation of the Udi people to this church. However, a better case may be made for the latter than the former (Caucasian Albania) which has no place here. Serouj (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The legend says that the church was founded by St. Elish, and was the mother of Eastern churches and the main church of Albania. If it is true, then the church was Albanian. While the present building was constructed in the 13th century, it is possible that it was built in place of an older building. Therefore, Albania it quite relevant. Grandmaster 04:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, i'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I never paid much attention to this article because it's full of utter bs and includes pathetic references (obscure eparchies and whatnot), but this is just utter hogwash. Elisha was a 9th century BC prophet. He could not have visited the Caucasus in the first century AD lol We've got all these pov ridden articles on the so-called Albanian Church (including the one created by Parishan) linking Elisha to it yet there is no mention of this in the Elisha article itself. Kaghankatvatsi's claim is just symbolic. It obviously should not be taken at face value. The claim that Elishe built a church there is just a legend, with a nill historical base. The legend was probably derived from the name of an Armenian monastery or Church in Kish. The current Church that this article designates as 'Church of Kish' was named after Elishe as seen here, so this article should be renamed and sourced properly.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The legend should be included in the article. We include the legends about Aran, Sisak, Hayk, etc to other articles. And there's not a single reliable source about this church ever being Armenian. Not even one. Grandmaster 04:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the Armeno-Musalmans mentioned in you source are actually Udis. Many of them converted to Islam, and there's a number of Muslim villages, which previously were Christian ones. Kish itself had Udi population, which assimilated with Azeris, so I do not understand why you removed Udi people from this article. They have a lot more to do with this church than Armenians. Grandmaster 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut the OR please. In 1833 the only Christians remaining there were Armenians: [1] Same in 1826: [2] They were not Udis, they were what the source says they were: native Armenians who converted to Islam. Probably some of your ancestors. Besides, Udi does not really mean non Armenian, there was even an Armenian Melik in Shaki, see here and at the time there were no culturally distinct non-Armenian Christians (if there ever were any). In the 19th century, after several conversions only Armenians remained which says quite a lot about the proportion of the Armenian population prior to Islam in the region. Lets not forget that the whole region was part of the Armenian Kingdom. The comparison with Aran, Sisak, Hayk does not add up, those names are part of a continuous cultural tradition in direct relation with the ethnogenesis of the autochthonous people, akin to Homeric Greek myths, they are quite different from a foreign Judeo-Christian prophet.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Old sources mistook Udis for Armenians, since they belonged to the same church. But the population of Kish was Udi, not Armenian. This is what Russian scholar Kuznetsov, who researched the history of Udi people, writes:

Ко времени прихода русских на Кавказ села, население которых продолжало осознавать себя удинами, были сконцентрированы в основ­ном 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). В с. Бум, Солтануха, Мирзабейли и Мухлугувак (современный Ка­балинский р-н) проживали семьи мусульман, осоз­нающих себя уже азербайджанцами, но еще по­мнящих удинский язык. [3]

By the time of arrival of Russians to the Caucasus the villages, the population of which still considered themselves as udis, were mostly concentrated in the territory of Sheki khanate (which became a part of Russia as Nukha uyezd of Elisavetpol governorate in 1805: villages of Vartashen, Vardanli, Bayan (presently in Oguz rayon), Nij (presently Gabala rayon), Kish (Sheki rayon). In the villages of Bum, Soltannukha, Mirzabeyli and Mukhluguvak (modern Gabala rayon) lived the families of Muslims, which perceived themselves as Azeris, but who still remembered the Udi language.

Obviously, the western sources of the 19th century had no idea who udis were, and referred to them as Armenians. Also, the region of Sheki has never been a part of any Armenian state, and the Armenian population arrived there after the times the church was built, see Robert H. Hewsen:

The Udi language appears to have been the Caucasian language prevalent north of the Kur until the nineteenth century, and the present Armenian population appears to be of relatively recent arrival. Many undoubtedly settled there fleeing the Turko-Mongolic invasions but many more entered the region with the coming of the Russians in the early nineteenth century.

Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chicago: 1982, 27-40.

Grandmaster 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Old sources mistook Udis for Armenians, since they belonged to the same church." That's OR. Provide a reliable source to back up that assertion. Hewsen does not deny the presence of native Armenians, he merely says that more moved to the area in the 19th century. I have provided sources that assert the presence of Armenians and another source that attested to the fact that modern Shaki was part of an Armenian Kingdom, you haven only offered us your pov by way of OR and not one source to back that up.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Kuznetsov. He says that Kish had Udi population. If so, then how the church could be Armenian, considering that the Armenian population is "of relatively recent arrival", according to Hewsen? Those Armenians who came to the region "fleeing the Turko-Mongolic invasions" arrived after the time the church was built, i.e. after the 12th century. Grandmaster 05:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Turko-Mongol invasions occured in the 11th century. You do the math. I already explained Hewsen's comment. Added disputed tag until I have the time to clean up the mess you created.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The church was built sometime between the 10th - 12th centuries. In any case, this was an udi populated village, so it is unlikely that it was built as an Armenian one. The excavations prove that. Grandmaster 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please, find independent sources. Samvel Karapetyan, NGO blogger from Armenia, isn't a scholarly source. Should we now also cite Azeri historians as to what happened to the territories of Erivan khanate? Atabəy (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm... Samvel Karapetyan is the foremost scholar on Armenian architectural historiography. His works are published by the Research on Armenian Architecture. Serouj (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, it is an impossibility that the church is Albanian because by the 12th-13th centuries when this church was erected, the Albanian people were long extinct for at least 500 years. Serouj (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Albanian Apostolic church was subjugated to Armenian by the order of Russian Czar only in 1836. So the claim above is already false and carries no basis. Karapetyan is an Armenian scholar (subject to analysis how much website creator is a scholar) on Armenian architecture. This church is on the territory of Azerbaijan, which is under aggression and barrage of territorial claims by Armenia. Hence, unless you can provide alternative sources which are NPOV, the Karapetyan references cannot be considered other than plain propaganda of one side, and thus unfit as a fact for the encyclopedic article on a monument.Atabəy (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Karapetyan is a scholar and not a "blogger" or "website creator" as you claim. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has no relevance here. It is established that this church is from the 12th-13th century; it has no relationship to Caucasian Albanians. Its written history of usage has been Armenian and Georgian. Serouj (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any grounds for the neutrality of this article to be disputed, simply because the history of this church does not point to Caucasian Albanians -- a conclusion that appeases your particular point of view. It is simply an impossibility. In addition, you have not provided any evidence to the contrary to make a grounds for dispute. Serouj (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here'a another source for you and if in agreeement, I can go ahead and do the changes: http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai111_folder/111_articles/111_kish_church.html

The church in discussion was built by Georgian church followers in the 11th century and it was proven by the archeological excavations and analyses in 2000-2001 done by a joint multidisciplinary team from Norway and Azerbaijan using carbon analyses dating method. The interview with the Norweigian historian/archeologist J. Bjornar Storfjell was published in a joint US/Azerbaijan magazine Azerbaijan International in 2003 (the magazine's editors are based in the US and all info in the magazine in unbiased as you will see from what I will write below). In early AD Sheki was part of Hereti - the northwestern periphery of Caucasian Albania became later incorporated into Georgia. The region changed hands between Caucasian Albania and ancient Georgia several times, was independent in 9-10 centuries but then finally became part of Georgia by late 10th century until it was taken back by Iranian Shah Abbas in the 17th century. Before 17th century the land was inhabited by Caucasian Albanians (Nakh speaking Ers/Hers)(here you can see when, how and why this hapenned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%88rs) and Lezgi speaking Udins (maybe by that time already partly Armenisised linguistically) until it was abandoned in 17th century due to the new Muslim rulers. During this time the region completed Azerization (became Turkic linguistically) with pockets of Georgians (former Hers/Udis) and original Udis remaining. Some of these Udins were partly Armenisised, i.e. they were following the Armenian Church since Caucasian Church was cancelled in the 18th century. Armenians arrived in the late 18 - early 19th century and took over the practically deserted church, refurbished it in mid 19th century. Although the church was built as duophysite originally because it was used by Armenian church followers it undergone architectural changes representing monophysism. The traces of the changes can be still seen. The full article can be seen in the link given by me at the beginning. I also want to not here that Azeris are not Turk racially but only linguistically, including hte Azeris who live in Sheki/Kish presently. DNA research has shown Azeris are predominantly carriers of the 2 Caucasian haplogroups G2a and J2, along with ancient European and much younger Near Eastern genes. Azeris in the entire Azerbaijan are turkicised Caucasians (effectively Caucasiam Albanian) and to a much lesser degree Iranic (not Persian) ppl who both lived in the region from 2 millenia before in BC. The local populations underwent Georgianisation, Armenisation and finally Azerisaiton (Turkification) and were always remaining the transformed Caucasian Albanian elements. Currently Georgia doesn't have any claims towards Sheki region nor does Armenia as the land is an ancient Caucasian Albanian property which was inherited by Azerbaijan and it's native Caucasian now Azeri speaking people. Aynur R-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingfortruth1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Name

No sources have been provided to drasticly change the name-used in the infobox aswell as in the article related to this church. Please discus first before making any edits. Baku87 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference is the one you deleted in your last edit!

Karapetian, Samvel. "Kish". Research on Armenian Architecture. Retrieved 2009-06-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Serouj (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The source you gave is a Armenian based source, so its not qualified as a objective source. Lets not turn this into a warzone between pro-Azerbaijani and pro-Armenian sources, lets keep it neutral and objective; for this reason I reverted back Atabey. RetlawSnellac (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

True that the source is Armenian. This does not mean it can't be included in this article just because he's Armenian. As I've stated for the umpteenth time, it is an impossibility that this church is Albanian because the Albanian people were extinct for centuries when this church was built in the 12th-13th century. Furthermore, there is more than enough evidence as to the usage of this church by both Armenians and Georgians at different periods during its history. Just because Azeris claim the church is "Albanian" without any supporting evidence does not make this a war between Armenians and Azeris. We must stick to our sources and not contradict historical truths even inside Wikipedia articles themselves (in other words, if this church were Albanian, then it would completely contradict the Wikipedia article on Caucasian Albania, wherein it is stated that the Albanian people became extinct starting from the 4th century, and certainly by the 8th century, not to mention the 12th century when this church was built!) Serouj (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your perspective but the native name is always the name of the monument, for example the ancient temples in Mexico are called the Aztec temples and not Mexican temples. So eventhough the Albanian people are extinct it doesnt mean this church is now part of the Georgian or Armenian churches. Also if we start including Armenian sources into such a controversial article as this one then everyone can include Azerbaijani and Georgian sources aswell. It would be best to exclude any Armenian, Azeri or Georgian sources all together or use all three sources, just using Armenian sources isnt fair. RetlawSnellac (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was able to communicate right. This church was never an Albanian one. There may have been another church on site before, but the structure standing today is from the 12th-13th century which means it cannot possibly be Albanian. Furthermore, I don't agree with you that Armenian sources should be excluded from this article. In this part of the world, there aren't much "third party" research that have been done. If there are any Georgian or Azeri sources, then they can be included. There is no Azeri counterargument here. It is baseless. If there were sources, then they would have appeared in the article. In a nutshell, it is a baseless claim that this church is Albanian. I am reverting your edit once again. Sorry... Serouj (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Serouj this article cannot be considered a neutral article if it only includes a Armenian source, I strongly recommend you find counter sources by Georgian and Azerbaijanis and take their perspectives into consideration aswell. I reverted you again because this is simply not objective and is very misleading for the article. RetlawSnellac (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way you said you couldnt find any Azeri counter sources for this, well I did only 5 min of research and here is an interesting soures according to Azerbaijani perspective: [4] and [5]. RetlawSnellac (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you not remove the source by the RAA. Serouj (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If RetlawSnellac wants to cut his research time down from 5 min to only a few seconds, just read the actual article - that url is already in the external links section! Meowy 19:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Church of Kish" is itself a strange title. If "Kish" were a person or an organisation it would make sense, but Kish is a place. Wouldn't the "church at Kish", or simply the "Kish church" be better? Meowy 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is because the Azeris don't know the "Albanian" name of this church. Why? Because it never was Albanian! This church has only been used by Georgians and Armenians in recorded history. In any case, the Azeris' belief that this church is Albanian is what has saved it from destruction, so we should be thankful for their belief :) Otherwise, this church would have suffered the fate of the dozens of Armenian churches in Nakhichevan, Northern Artsakh, and the Julfa cemetery: destruction. Serouj (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian name is not known for a simple reason that the scholars don't even know the name of the country of Caucasian Albania in the native langauge, as it has long been extinct. The present building dates to the 12th century, but the cite has been used for religious purposes for millennia, and the scholars think that it is possible that an older church could have existed in the place of the present one. There are Armenian churches in Azerbaijan, for instance in Baku, but this is not one of them. We have no reliable sources to support a claim that this church was Armenian. Grandmaster 07:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The historical record of the use of this church speaks for itself. Even the Norwegian and Azeri scholars imply that this church was long used by Armenians. You, too, obviously agree that the present structure (THIS church) which this article is about is from the 12th century and therefore it is an impossibility that it is Albanian! As to the claim that there may have been another church on site many centuries earlier -- that is speculation and it has been included in this article. So lets stop this nonsense argument and move on to improving the Baku article -- it needs a better skyline image. Serouj (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The church was used not by Armenians, who arrived to the region much later, but by Udis. See the sources above. And it cannot be built by Armenians either, in the 12th century the region was under the Georgian control, and architecturally it is similar to Georgian, not Armenian churches. So it was an Udi church, built under the Georgian influence. Grandmaster 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Out of curiosity, how are you differentiating between Georgian and Armenian architecture? Please be specific and cite examples.
2. No matter the origins (Georgian or Armenian), this church was certainly used by Armenians. As such, we treat it as we treated the Banak Cathedral, an originally Armenian church from the 7th century which was later renovated and used as a Georgian church: we cite its origins as well as its usage. There is no clear ruling as to the true origins of this church in the 12th century -- whether first Armenian or Georgian -- and there may never be. Serouj (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See Storfjell, he says that this church was not built as an Armenian one. And Georgian churches look different from Armenian, Armenian churches have slightly different proportions. If you compare a few, you will notice a difference. And finally, this church was attended by Udis, not Armenians. The village of Kish had udi population, not Armenian. Grandmaster 10:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have compared a few Georgian and Armeinan churches and I haven't seen any difference except for two exceptions:

1. There are some "multi-level" type churches that seem to be unique to Georgian churches. (e.g. Tbilisi Sameba Cathedral)
2. Circular churches are distinctly Armenian. (e.g. Zvartnots Cathedral, Banak Cathedral)

On the other hand, many of the churches in Tbilisi that are currently labeled "Georgian" were actually Armenian and there are historical records of their conversion (some taking place even today). Serouj (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They differ in form. Armenian churches look thinner, and Georgian ones wider. Plus, we have an opinion of Storfjell on this. Grandmaster 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But of course! Armenian churches "look thinner" and Georgian ones "wider" and "you'll know it when you see it." Or... Grandmaster will know it when he sees it... I haven't yet come across work comparing Armenian to Georgian architecture. There are so many TYPES of Armenian church floorplans and designs that it's difficult to make such overarching statements as "wide" and "thin". (I don't know... I don't see much difference in this Georgian church and this Armenian church, both in Georgia... Serouj (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Storfjell is a nutter, a well-known pseudo-archaeologist, and his "opinion" is worth about the same as any run-of-the-mill nutter. His "in North Syria, there are more than a hundred churches that bear close resemblance to this one in Kish that were constructed between the 4th and 7th centuries" opinion shows the level of his understanding of this region's architecture! Meowy 16:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is an OR. We have no reliable third party source that would criticize Storfjell. According to this author, the church was not built as Armenian, so I'm removing the claims from the intro, as Karapetian is a sole source claiming so, and he is not third party. I can cite Azerbaijani historians saying something completely opposite to what Karapetian says, but i think it is better to refer to third party sources, and not Azerbaijani or Armenian ones. Grandmaster 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenian source doesn't mean OR. Karapetian's sources are both Georgian and Armenian. The church was either Georgian or Armenian -- there are no other possibilities; has nothing to do with "Caucasian Albanian." Serouj (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But Karapetian also confirms that in the 10th century the region was under the Georgian control and that the church was run by the Georgian church at the time. He probably thought that it was older when claimed that it was Armenian, but since it was run by Georgians since the time of foundation, it seems quite reasonable that it was founded by them. And the population of the region was neither Armenian nor Georgian, it was udi (Albanian). Grandmaster 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better not to make any statements on the origin in the intro. It is better to present the known facts in the main body of the article. Grandmaster 07:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is interesting that Karapetian also suggests that the church was built at the cite of an older building. Grandmaster 08:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's to not do OR here! We have sources on it's Armenian origin, so please do not remove them. Gazifikator (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is disruption. Why did you remove large quotes from Storfjell and Kuznetsov? It is obvious from your comment that you did not even read what your reverted. We have no reliable sources on Armenian foundation, the research proves that the church was founded before the Armenians moved into the region. So any claims of Armenian foundation must be supported by reliable sources, preferably independent and without any political bias, like Karapetian, who claims that every church n the region is Armenian, even those in Georgia. I did not remove any source from the article, even such an outrageous one as Karapetian, I just removed any claims of foundation from the intro, as they don't belong there. Grandmaster 09:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better to not do OR like you, but use reliable, scientific materials. As for Karapetian, I discussed if anything's wrong with this scholar earlier, and except of your "he claims that every church n the region is Armenian, even those in Georgia", you have nothing to 'fight' this scholar. You need to learn civil, constructive behavior, as the consensuses, not the povpushing is the only style to work in Wikipedia. Nothing will be deleted from the intro, since there is only one user's personal feeling that's 'wrong' place for it. Gazifikator (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sick of the merde

I'd like to see some sources from well before the 20th century, before the nationalistic nonsense started. This continued nonsense from both sides is getting ridiculous. FYI people, it's a bloody church!!
1. Some need to check their egos at the door.
2. Some others need to realize that getting paid to edit wikipedia is just plain silly! Not to mention, that "some" of us aren't so compromised as to allow our editing to be bought!
3. As a historian, I'd like some sources that are reliable and not filled with some non-sensical nationalistic ranting.
4. Also, a "source" that rants about Armenians isn't going to convince anyone of anything![6]
Just the opinion of an editor that is sick of the idiocy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is just a church...

1. 2 -- who (do you think) is getting paid? (Can you clarify)? This is interesting.
2. 4 -- that's written in Russian. Can you clarify what that source is...

Serouj (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Karapetian is not a reliable source. It is an Armenian extreme chauvinist author, who promotes revisionist historical concepts, and is also a self-published source, which the rules do not recommend using. The only reliable source is the Norwegian archaeologist, who oversaw the research at this church. I don't think that Karapetian should be used as a source in this article, due to his obvious strong bias, and the fact that his article is not a peer reviewed academic publication. Grandmaster 07:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You like it or dislike, Samvel Karapetian is a respected reliable source, I can say one of the best ones in the region. And your decision on his 'bias' is a kind of chauvinism itself, because no any reliable sources even criticize him or write something on his 'extremism'. Seems the only reason for such a 'characterization' is his Armenian nationality, which is not good. Gazifikator (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I expect a reply here? As I have shown with third party sources dating back to 19th century, Samvel Karapetian is merely repeating what is already documented by apolitical sources.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Grandmaster 05:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Gazifikator removed sourced information. He reverted [[User:Grandmaster|Gransmaster]s edits and removed 2 sources, see here. I restored the sources and information. Neftchi (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Azerbaijani "name" of the church. It is absurd and insulting to provide Muslim and Turkic "names" of Christian religious monuments. Additionally, this "name" is not historical. If you want to use it, please provide a historical source where this Muslim-Turkic name is used. Lumberjak (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the modern name, and only one used. It is a museum now. And you seem to be an SPA, as your very first edit is edit warring on this article. If someone told you to come an rv, be aware that this is an arbitration covered area. Grandmaster 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It's not the only one used. This church was known by two different names at least in the 19th century when this church was used by Armenians. The current church "name" used in Azerbaijan only reflects the LOCATION of the church. The church had a REAL name that its flock used... We should also search for the name used by the Georgian Orthodox Church. Serouj (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kish is for sure the location. John Abercromby in his "A trip through the eastern Caucasus" (1889, Page 1) clearly calls it 'Armenian Church at Kish'. Gazifikator (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Gransmaster: My edits are not edit warring in any way. Your edits are. Lumberjak (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied text

The text was copied from this website; [7] so I removed the material. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Karapetian

Karapetian is not a reliable source. Karapetian is an Armenian extreme chauvinist author. Hi promotes revisionist historical concepts. Also he is a self-published source. The rules do not recommend using those sources. The only reliable source is the Norwegian archaeologist Dr. Bjornar Storfjell, who oversaw the research at this church. There is no any evidence that Karapetian should be used as a source in this article, due to his obvious strong bias. Also the article of Karapetian is not reviewed academic publication. Please don't return it back to the article untill consensus will be reached. And don't try to start edit war. First try to reach consensus here. --Interfase (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacks like "Karapetian is an Armenian extreme chauvinist author." You have been under sanctions more than once and I would advise you not to teach all others how to behave. Thanks. Hablabar (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:CONS? This information, which you returned, is based on author, whose reliability was disputed. You didn't have any rights to return this version without reaching a consensus, as it was disputed even in 2009 (see above). --Interfase (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not start a conversation with "You didn't have any rights." I rv-ed to a well established version. Hablabar (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it a bit concerning that an IP address from Azerbaijan is reverting additional times.

What exactly is the problem with Karapetian? And why shouldn't we report what both of them have to say? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Karapetian is not independent source. We know that Armenian "researchers" claim Albanian (Udi) churches in Azerbaijan "Armenian". More independent, Norwegian scholar doesn't mention this. In Wikipedia we should use independent and impartial sources. --Interfase (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought we all left behind the fruitless rant about "Albanian churches," no? Hablabar (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

obviously armenian

that church is obviously armenian. i'm not sure about all this azeri-armenian stuff, but that is obviously armenian in architecture, style, tradition and well location. the azeri rewriting of the history of this region does not change reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Kish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928153504/http://www.dqdk.gov.az/aze/articles/alban.html to http://www.dqdk.gov.az/aze/articles/alban.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608160350/http://www.baku-icc-2009.az/content.php?lang=az&page=24 to http://www.baku-icc-2009.az/content.php?lang=az&page=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031107072000/http://www.kvali.com/kvali/index.asp?obiektivi=show&n=392 to http://www.kvali.com/kvali/index.asp?obiektivi=show&n=392
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://udins.ru/index.php?option=com_datsogallery&Itemid=64&func=viewcategory&catid=14&startpage=1&lang=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of Kish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805032135/http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai111_folder/111_articles/111_kish_church.html to http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai111_folder/111_articles/111_kish_church.html%20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)