Talk:Dadivank

Here are the pics of Dadivank, i don't know how to put a them here without uploading files to English Chapter: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Dadivank_Monastery.jpg http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Dadivank.jpg --D'Arahchjan (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you upload them to commons, all the projects could use them. Otherwise I don't think its possible to link it ru.wiki. VartanM (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Article states "In 1994 the monastery was reopened and is an operating monastery of Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church". Is this true? Very worring if it is (knowing the vandalisn that the Armenian Church has inflicted on so many historical monuments it has recently taken possesion of in Armenia). However, I've seen fairly recent pictures (late 1990s) that seem to show the monastery not being used. Just because it has been claimed by, or has been given to, the grasping hands of the Armenian Church, it does not mean that it is an operating monastery. Meowy 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is not executing judicial authority over Karvachar, therefore the term "de jure" does not apply in this case. And it is a disputed territory. Per Wiki's policy of neutrality (NPOV), we should make no judgment as to the present or future status or NKR and territories it controls. Present language just states the facts, with no bias. Also, no source of this biased info was included. Aptak (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Edele Hovnanian not Edil Hovnanian

{{editprotected}} "The works of restoration was sponsored by Armenian-American businessman Edil Hovnanian"

In the sentence above Edele Hovnanian's name is misspelled. Also, it is her not him, so she can't be a businessman. Here is the proposed version of the sentence.

"The works of restoration was sponsored by Armenian-American businesswoman Edele Hovnanian."

Reference: http://birthrightarmenia.org/pages.php?al=board_directors&re=our_people

--G0h4r (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

According to NPOV we should write both names and both states that pretend to possess the territory where the object is located. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani spelling clearly does not belong here (both for Dadivank and Gandzasar). The issue here is not a matter of presenting a neutral point of view. According to Wiki's rules, the foreign spelling must have some relevance to the article in question. This was a Christian Armenian monastery built by Armenians during a time when no Azerbaijani nationality existed. Just because it is in a land which as you believe temporarily is de jure part of Azerbaijan does not mean we add Azerbaijani to it as well. Thus, there is no meaning in adding this script. Also, remembering the fact that Azerbaijani historians have and continue to distort and erase the history of Armenian churches in not only Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, it seems dangerous to include the Azerbaijani spelling, causing readers to be mislead or to inadvertently misinterpret the facts. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You say "the foreign spelling" but it is not foreign. The territory is Azerbaijani (de-jure). There is another opinion that the teritory belongs to Armenians. Both opinions must be presented in the article. This is not the question of ethnicity of the monastery builders this the question of territory dispute. I see no danger in including Azerbaijani name here but I see danger in violating WP:NPOV by presenting the only POV.--Quantum666 (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For an Armenian monument of 9th century the Azeri spelling is off course foreign (we speak about a historical monument, the territorial claims are not the matter here). When you speak about 2 opinions about territory, its right, and we added both view's to the relevand article about the territory. If no question of ethnicity of the monastery builders, thats good. Because you know there is a great compaign on falsification of Armenian history in Azerbaijan (you can read V. Shnirelman's very interesting research on this, "The Albanian Myth" [1]). And unfortunately the Azeri Wiki is the only one calling Gandzasar an Albanian church, not Armenian [2]. Sorry, but 1. I don't find any sources on info you added (can you cite any?), and 2. I dont know any WP:NPOV rules for using of the naming of people who claim to owe the territory where the religious monument is situated (a citation will be appreciated). Andranikpasha (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

we speak about a historical monument - Yes it is a historical monument but it still exists and is located on the official territory of Azerbaijan (as well as on NKR's).

and we added both view's to the relevand article about the territory - Well if the question of territory is not disputed I see no reason to mention only NKR's claims for the territory where the monastery is located.

there is a great compaign on falsification of Armenian history in Azerbaijan - we are not discussing this question now.

WP:PLACE(section about lead): "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.......Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name." Since the Azerbaijanis used to inhabit the territories and the official Azerbaijani name still exists for the place I see no problem to use the Azerbaijani name. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666, Nagorno-Karabakh (especially the Martakert province with Gandzasar) is inhabited by Armenians. You know for the last about 20 years no even one Azeri lives there. No even sources if Azeris lived in 1900s in territories (region, mountain) where Gandzasar is situated, nor sources on info you're trying to add. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And FYI Gandzasar monastery is not a place or territory, it is a religious monastery (monument) irrelevant to WP:PLACE. There is a separate article dedicated to the place - Martakert. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NKR is inhabited by Armenians now but it used to be inhabited by Azerbaijanis before the occupation and is still considered to be Azerbaijani territory not only by Baku but the vast majority of states, international organisations and other sources.

Well, if you think that WP:PLACE cannot be applied here then which rule lets us mention the Armenian name? Let's remove it from the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum, so you have no sources! The Armenian name is included per WP:NAME: "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc.". Andranikpasha (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum, so you have no sources! - :-)

Why do you think Armenian name is significant and the Azerbaijani is not? --Quantum666 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No Azerbaijani name exists for both Armenian monastetries. It is just an Azeri transliteration (by the way, unsourced) of Armenian name. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Azerbaijani name is transliteration of Armenian or Armenian is transliteration of Azerbaijani but Azerbaijani name exists and you can find sources by using Google for Xudavəng and Khutavank. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[3] Andranikpasha (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] --Quantum666 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. [5] Andranikpasha (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. A few sources use Dadi-vank but not Դադի վանք. So we must leave Dadivank and remove Դադի վանք and Խութա վանք from the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're disruptive again. Google Books do not show Armenian letters but just shows the names of books in Armenian like this [6]. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for Armenian books? You are wrong. You should look for English books. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean? We're looking for the whole base of Google books. There are books both in English and Armenian (also Russian etc). Andranikpasha (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia rules more carefully. We use English here not Armenian. So we need English sources not Armenian for the names. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You can use Armenian (or Russian) name in Armenian (or Russian) wiki. English sources use Dadivank not Դադի վանք or Дадиванк. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

??? English books are using English, Armenian books- Armenian, etc. Its normal! English sources do not use the form of Bakı [7], but noone deletes it from Baku )) If you still believe you're right read WP:NAME: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc." Common practics, you seems don't like it...Andranikpasha (talk)

English books are using English, Armenian books- Armenian, etc. and Azerbaijani books use Azerbaijani names. So if you want to mention Armenian name for the monastery you must use the Azerbaijani name too since Azerbaiajn claims to possess it. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I want nothing! I just asked to represent any reliable sources (see WP:RS) according to which you started your editwarring and you failed to represent any. Thats all! We can do a lot of logical and illogical exercises, but if you have no reliable sources then nothing to discuss! Andranikpasha (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient. I requested third opinion. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

perspeculum (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Andranikpasha

I am of the belief that the Azerbaijani spelling does not belong on these two articles (Dadivank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery) for several reasons. The first is for the simple fact that this was an Armenian monastery that was constructed and completed at a time when the Azerbaijani nation and state (founded in 1918) did not exist. Consequently, no contemporary sources in Azerbaijani exist to argue for the inclusion of its spelling. I also dismiss the inclusion of the script on the basis of what territory the church is located on. It is now found, de facto, in the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is run by Armenians (and always was inhabited by Armenians); however Azerbaijan continues to claim this land as its own from Soviet times, which is not important for us since adding a name is not determined on whose territory it is located on but its significance to a certain culture or nation (WP:NAME). This church has nothing to do with Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis; and I find it even worse that Quantum666 is arguing for its inclusion at the very same time when Azerbaijani historians are writing in history books and saying that this monastery has nothing to do with Armenians (f.e. Azeri Wiki calls it an... Alban church). It would be dangerous to include it since it might mislead the reader to believe that the monastery has something to do with Azerbaijanis or some other culture. It does not and I have repeatedly asked Quantum666 to demonstrate sources on its relevance but he has not done so and has only repeated one point: that since the territory the monastery is located on is claimed by the Republic of Azerbaijan, the spelling should be included, which is an absurd argument to make. Andranikpasha (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Quantum666)

Facts:(I think Andranikpasha will not doubt them but if he does I will provide numerous sources)

1. The monastery is located on the disputed territory (by NKR and Azerbaijan)
2. According to UN, international organisations and other countries the territory belongs to Azerbaijan but is occupied by Armenians (Armenians say "liberated")
3. Before the occupation Azerbaijanis (as well as Kurds) used to live in Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent territories but were expelled as a result of Nagorno-Karabakh war.

My suggestions (you can see them in this diff)

1. Describing the location of the monastery we must mention both parties pretending to possess the territory, i.e. NKR and Azerbaijan and their administrative divisions (Kalbajar Rayon of Azerbaijan and Shahumian Region of NKR).
2. It should be applied to the all such articles about the ojects located on the disputed territory(e.g. Gandzasar monastery).
3. Since the territory is disputed I see no reason to leave only the Armenian names for the monastery (Դադիվանք and Խութավանք) and I suggest to add the Azerbaijani names too (Dədəvəng monastırı and Xudavəng monastır kompleksi) thus making the lead more neutral. If we see the articles about such buildings in Wikipedia English names are followed by names in languages of the states they are located in (in parantheses). De-jure the monastery is located in Azerbaijan and the official language is Azerbaijani so I see no reason not to mention Azerbaijani name here.
4. It should be applied to the all such articles about the ojects located on the disputed territory (e.g. Gandzasar monastery). --Quantum666 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666, please delete my name from your viewpoint. If I have no doubts on your version then why I'm participating here? Better if you represent your view without citing my name otherwise another discussion will start between us. I suggest to delete my name and add any sources to your text you think are necessary. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by perspeculum

First off, thanks for your patience guys - I'm not on here every day like some of my colleagues! I also appreciate you both summarising your respective viewpoints, it makes it much easier to track the conversation.
Essentially as I can see, this can be stripped down to the following argument: Quantum666 would like the Azerbaijani name included on the basis that the territory is in dispute with the Armenians. But ultimately from what Andranikpasha argues, there is no real cultural connection and no Azerbaijanis living there anymore. Even if there were a connection, I offer the following example: given that cities such as New York were built on land belonging to the American natives (and the land was bought for arguably well below its worth), should we therefore include the original native name for the land on the New York City page? Of course not.
I think that unless a modern-day connection (or significant historical one) can be demonstrated (I don't think either have been) and therefore sufficient reason to include it, especially given its script (making it unreadable to anyone who only speaks English, like the majority of this site), it should be omitted. Wikipedia is not here to sort out border disputes - if there is an Azerbaijani wiki portal then the name can be included on that.

Thanks for your opinion. What about p 1. and 2? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You mention that the UN amongst others agrees that this is Azerbaijan territory - do you have sources for this? ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 11:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You can see here and here. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, "articles on Wikipedia or on websites that mirror its content should not be used as sources." (WP:Verifiability) Andranikpasha (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha is correct. It must be a reliable, third party source. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 12:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant references in the articles. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

e.g. RESOLUTION 874. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! "There is an end-user problem." ))) Andranikpasha (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)--Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link does not work. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And what? It is a 17 year's old war-time document. It is issued before ceasefire of May 1994 signed by the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another UN resolution changing its opinion? --Quantum666 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but in addition to this, I cannot see any sentence in the document that affirms the region as belonging to Azerbaijan, only that it is in dispute and that the rights to territories of all nations, including Azerbaijan, should be upheld - these territories are not listed. If I have missed it, please feel free to point it out. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and of all other States in the region --Quantum666 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Expressing its serious concern that a continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic

And another resolution talking about the exact district where the monastery is located (Kalbadjar region of Azerbaijan)[8] Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and, in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But, as Andranikpasha pointed out, this is 17 years ago, before a ceasefire was signed. Is the region still considered under dispute by the UN? If not, which I suspect, then all you can really justify (perhaps) is mentioning in the main body that the site used to be within Azerbaijan and now it isn't. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

Habilium (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Dadivank is an Caucasian Albanian[2][3] monastery in the Kalbajar District of Azerbaijan. It was built between the 9th and 13th centuries.

Do you have sources? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Unsourced. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

Change typo "Davidank" to "Dadivank" (vid->div).

In this exact line:

In August 2017, Italian specialists who had previously conducted restoration operations at Davidank returned to continue their cleaning and restoration of the monastery. 51.52.172.98 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)