Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changes to Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church

I've made a number of changes to the article:

1. The view that "Georgia is allotted to the Most Holy Mother of God" is clearly a POV of devout Orthodox Christian Georgians. I doubt if you'd find that, for instance, Muslim Georgians would support it.

2. Georgia is clearly part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition - the Eastern Orthodox Church article links back to the Georgian Church article. It was also definitely influenced by Byzantium - I've added some more information on this.

3. The Patriarch article includes a link to an (as yet unwritten) article on the Patriarch of All Georgia - this article needs to have a similar link for the sake of consistency.

4. I've added more historical detail, particularly for the medieval and Soviet periods.

-- ChrisO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user 03 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 January 2004‎ (UTC)

Answer from "Levzur"

Dear "ChrisO"

Please stop to intervene in the sphere, where your competence is highly doubtful. When we write about the Georgian Orthodox Church we are based on sufficient historical sources. It is enough also to say that we had gotten in touch with the Patriarchate of the Georgian Church.

Actually, it is not enough to say that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of, by, and for the Orthodox. We Orthodox cannot presume that everybody knows what we mean when we say something. To you and to me, simply mentioning the Catholicos-Patriarchate is enough--we already know. To most people who read Wikipedia, especially Americans, who are used to thousands of Christian sects that may or may not have any connection to each other, no matter how close the names might be, it is not obvious. Dogface 21:26, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As regards muslim Georgians, it is the perfectly different theme. Now we talk about the Orthodox Church. The above mentioned part of Georgian people became muslim by force. Gradually, of one's free will they return to Christianity.

Since 1010 the official title of the heads of the Georgian Orthodox Church is Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. To judge about the title of the Georgian Church, you must better acquinted with the official Web Site of the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user "Levzur")

Morwen and I have made some changes to the page to improve the grammar and to get it to fit the NPOV requirements. I'm sure you have "sufficient historical sources", but why do you object to providing a link to the page on the Georgian Orthodox Church on the Catholic Near East Welfare Association website? It seems to be a well-written and informative piece. Or do you object to Catholics commenting on an Orthodox Church?

Also, I don't understand why you removed the statements about Georgian Orthodoxy being influenced by the Byzantine rite. Surely that's a matter of established historical fact? You've said yourself that the Georgian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of Antioch, a Byzantine see. -- ChrisO 23:03, 20 January 2004 (UTC)

Please stop!

Please stop to intervene in this article. It is article about the Georgian Orthodox Church, not about the "religious freedom in Georgia" (article about the religious freedom is already published on the page Georgia (country)).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levzur (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 January 2004‎ (UTC)

Discuss this article, or it will be locked

As usual, you're not bothering to answer questions or discuss your edits, and you keep reverting back to badly written POV edits. So let me put you on the spot.

The material that I have added is based on the history at http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-orthodox-georgia.htm . What is factually incorrect about these additions? Why do you keep deleting that link? Do you believe that a Catholic-written history of the Georgian Church is invalid?

If you continue this behaviour, I will ask for this page to be locked to prevent further abusive editing. -- ChrisO 08:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

YES! I BELIEVE THAT A CATHOLIC-WRITTEN HISTORY OF THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS INVALID! I AM GEORGIAN HISTORIAN IN THE FIELD OF "SOURCE STUDIES" AND ALL MY EDITS ARE BASED ON THE SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF THE GEORGIAN CHURCH AND HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN GEORGIA. Levzur 23 Jan 2004

Thank you for confirming that - as I suspected - your edits have been motivated by nothing more than religious bigotry. I notice that once again you've refused to discuss the factual basis of the content. I've reverted most of your deletions and asked for the page to be locked. -- ChrisO 08:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is article about the Georgian Orthodox Church, not about the religious freedom in Georgia. -- Levzur 26 Jan 2004

Speaking as an Orthodox Christian with no connection to Georgia, I will say that, as a group, we Orthodox find Roman Catholic statements about our Church to be highly suspect until proven otherwise. For centuries, there has been the problem of the Unia, wherein Rome tries to claim that their Uniate followers are "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Now, unless Rome changes her doctrines to fit those of Orthodoxy, this sort of claim is quite absurd--one cannot be both "Orthodox" in the sense they use it (Eastern Orthodox) AND in communion with Rome. Nevertheless, questionable claims like this seem to be stock-in-trade whenever Roman Catholics start to write about the Orthodox Church. Thus, even a less biased Roman Catholic source will have a higher bar to hurdle to pass muster among Orthodox readers. It's unfair, but the impediment is in reaction against past and ongoing informational abuse by Roman Catholics. -- Dogface 23:23, 4 Feb 2004

I can understand your wariness, but I'd also ask you to evaluate the source on its factual merits - i.e. is it right or wrong - rather than simply on the basis of who or what the source is. If the information is factually wrong then it's wrong whoever is saying it, whether they're Roman Catholic or Orthodox. -- ChrisO 00:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've already done so, I'm explaining why others might not be so willing. It is very easy to sit back in comfort and judge those who live in places like former Soviet satellites. Advocating tolerance comes easy to those of us who have always led comfortable lives. However, when this easygoing mindset then becomes arrogance, becomes lecturing, becomes namecalling (I seem to recall the word "bigot" used by someone), then one has actually harmed the cause of toleration. Indeed, one could not imagine a better way to encourage people to become more entrenched and vehement in their positions than to pull out charges like "bigotry". Dogface 21:23, 6 February 2004 (UTC)

What language in used in the Georgian Church?

Is it modern Georgian, or some kind of Old Georgian, or something else? — Monedula 13:56, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

Modern Georgian. -- Levzur May 6, 2005

History and legend

founded in the 1st century by the Apostle Andrew.Is it really so certain UrmasU

It seems most unlikely to me that, of Our Lord's twelve apostles, with the whole of the world to evangelize, five preached in Georgia and two are buried there! Having said that, the apostles certainly did go out and preach, and they all must have been buried somewhere; but a lot of countries, having become Christian in the third, fourth, or fifth century, developed traditions of apostolic or near-apostolic foundation (even Britain claimed St Joseph of Arimathaea). According to Eusebius, Saint Andrew preached in Asia Minor and Scythia, east as far as the Volga. That could conceivably include territory now in Georgia. 193.63.239.165 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For that I thought correct of making a separate paragraph about "traditions" Aregakn 22:22 11.02.2010 GMT

Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates vs. Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia vs. Category:Georgian Orthodox Church

Category:Georgian Orthodox Church is a category within Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia which is in turn a category within Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

An Oriental Orthodox church

I'm reading the official site of the ArmenianApostolic Church where they make the claim that the Georgian church was for atime in communion with the Armenian church and that they collectively rejectedthe Council of Chalcedon in 506 and that the Georgian church only returned tothe Chalcedonian fold ~100 years later in 609. Is there truth in this? If so,should it not be mentioned in the article that the Georgian church was once anOriental Orthodox church? Deusveritasest (talk)00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deusveritasest, yes thereis. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35284/Armenian-Apostolic-Churchwill help prove what you read in the official website of the Armenian Apostolic Church.Aregakn (talk) 04:40, 05/02/2010 (GMT)

Aregakn not only tries to make us believe that Georgian Church depended on the Armenian one but he even goes further. He declares that Georgians try to `clear the history from those traces`, Georgians violate Armenian churches and cemetaries. This is a lie. Armenians began removing the stones with Georgian inscription from Georgian churches in 19th century. About 12-15 years ago there was a dispute about a church between Armenians and Georgians in the region compactly populated by Armenians who arrived in Georgia in the 19th century. Georgians proved that the church belonged to us. This is not the first time some Armenians have insulted us. I`ll write about Georgians` tolerance towards other religions and nationalities some other time. Someone blamed Kober of having `Nazistic approach.` (Read the last comment but one .) I am sure that person didn`t like Armenians to be called megalomaniacs. Kober didn`t mean all the Armenians, of course. Let`s see if he was right to use this term. Some Armenian sources claim that an Armenian created Georgian alphabet. Some Armenian sources claim the Bagrationi (Georgian kings) were of Armenian origin. Some Armenian historians such as Emin, Koudabashov claimed in the 19th century that Klardjeti, Taoskari, Shavsheti, Adjara, Samtkhe and other Georgian regions and Georgian churches belonged to Armenians. In 19th century Prof. Patkanov claimed Georgians didn`t have a history till 17the century and it was an Armenian who wrote their history. In 1877 the French magazine `Le Temps` sent a journalist to Caucasus. When he arrived in Tbilisi, his hosts were Armenians. Do you know what they told him? In Tbilisi there were only Armenian shcools, Armenian churches, Armenian philosophers and scientists. They never said a kind word about Georgians. But when at a party, the French journalist asked them why their women had big noses, they answered:`Those women were Georgians` All this is published in `Temps` magazine. In 1971 Paruir Mouradian published an article in Armenian `Herald of Social Science` No 4 that the ending -is of Georgian toponyms (Tbilisi, Bolnisi, Rouisi Datvisi and many others)is of Armenian origin (See p. 30-31). But Mr. Mouradian does not say that the ending -is in toponyms in western Georgia (Phasisi, Egrisi)is of Armenian origin. Why? Just check how many toponyms (names of cities and villages ending in -is ) there are in Armenian. Only a few. But Mr. Mouradian isn`t bothered by it. About 10 years ago, an Armenian scholar declared that Shota Rustaveli, who is one of the greatest poets in the world was Armenian. Now tell me, what do you call that? I hope Aregakn writes me a reply. Nina iberi (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So shouldn't it be mentioned in this article thatthe Georgian church was once and Oriental Orthodox church and that it once hada jurisdictionally dependent relationship with the Armenian church?Deusveritasest (talk)22:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should be, if we wish to keep theobjectiveness. the problem here is, that the Georgia, in fact, tries it's bestto clear the history from those traces. It doesn't pass by the GOC. The desirereached the point, that, using the special Constitutional status the church,having the government's support, violates the cemeteries and churches ofArmenians and captures them, remaking under Georgian Orthodox. I saw it myselfand it is appallingly vandal. The thing is, that NO OTHER CHURCH has theright to register itself as officially acting in the Republic of Georgia. The current law allows the religious institutions to only become NGO's, which is ridiculous, and deprives of all others having a property, so the other churches can be easily be taken by the only official religious unit - the GOC, or destroyed. Tell me if in this situation the GOC would allow the mentioning of it's belonging to the Oriental Orthodox which is associated to dependence on the Armenian Apostolic Church. So willingly or unwillingly we have many "activists" here that try their best to preserve the article in it's old version and even deleting the links of highly respected sources and changes that are made. You can see, that even when rising the issue of preservation by one of the "activists", that was entering, checking and reduing the changes literally every day, "disappeared" because of having no just reason. Neither did (s)he answer in the discussion, when asked what the reasons and bases were.

I would like to request your assistance in thisissue too. I shall be working in this direction from now on. Thanks!Aregakn (talk) 01:48, 11/02/2010 (GMT)

I`ve just read comments about Armenian Church. In one of the comments Aregakn writes: `Don`t bring a belief or legend as a proof.` I am asking you, Aregakn, what proof do you have that Georgian Orthodox Church `had a jurisdictionally dependent relationship with the Armenian church`? Britannica does not say that. Please, double check your sources. You must know that some sources are very unreliable. For example, in `L`Arménie. La Magie de l`écrit` edited by Claude Mutafian, there is an article about an old copy of the Gospel. See page 84. The colophon of the manuscript had the date of 415 AD. and it was thought the copy was made soon after Armenians translated the Bible. BUT the manuscript was studied carefully and it turned out that the AD was written on top of the original `de l'ère Arménienne.` One doesn`t have to know French well to guess the meaning of it but I`ll translate: `since Armenian era.` So, the real date of the copy was establised: 966 AD. You see, someone tried to falsify the date of the manuscript. Someone wanted it to be very old. who would have wanted it? Now, don`t accuse Georgians of doing that. Nina Iberi. April 8, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all you speak of several issues in one. NOTA BENNE: Your interpretation of how you see it is not an issue to discuss. Your indirect nationalistic accusations of Armenians in general falsifying documentations (since the 10th C) should be dealt strongly according to the Wiki rules, I want to warn you about that.

Britannica says both, that the Georgian orthodox broke away and that the Georgian church was dependent on Armenia. The issue is referenced. Those are both of the articles of Britannica, about the Armenian Apostolic and the Georgian Orthodox. If you read other sources (I can bring if needed), you can see the same description. Interpretation of sources in your manner is unacceptable. And as you see that isn't a legend I cite but encyclopedia.

I you are also arguing that Georgians didn't fight for independence from the Armenian Church. What is it that made you think I said or thought of it? You seem to comment emotionally...

As a comment, you must also be unaware, that the ecumenical councils taking place before had not proclaimed the Monophysism of the Lord and that it was accepted only by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Not only Armenians, but also other Orthodox Churches, nowadays called Oriental Orthodox, INCLUDING GEORGIANS (not anymore "Oriental Orthodox"), did not accept the ruleing of that council back then. Only afterwards, be it for political, identical or doctrinal reasons, it did. Aregakn (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all I do not make any nationalistic accusations, you do. I write about the facts, which I see you do not like at all. Second, I know well about Oriental Orthodox churches. One more thing, read again Kober`s comments and stop threatening me. Nina Iberi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina iberi (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am responsible for any and every word I put in and so I shall hold you. U call me a liar but I can prove me being true and my claim that the georgian orthodox church captures armenian churches is something based on independent reliable sources, leave alone what I've seen myself.

Once again, I repeat, you are making nationalistic comments and put such wording in regard to Armenians and it will be easily proven by me, if you continue so, at a report to Admins. Be cool Aregakn (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannica says the following: `` Georgian Orthodox Church remained in the ecclesiastic sphere of Antioch and also under the influence of neighboring Armenia. Its autocephaly was probably granted by the eastern Roman Emperor Zeno (474-491) with the consent of the Patriarhc of Antioch, Peter the Fuller. The head of the Georgian Church have since borne the title of Catholicos``. Autocephaly means independance. So, it was granted to the Georgian church in the fifth century. Britannica also says that: Armenian Apostolic Church soon struck a course independent of the founding church at Caesarea in Cappadocia, though it developed in close relationship with the Syrians, who provided it with scriptures and liturgy and much of its basic institutional terminology... When the Georgian Church broke away from the Armenian Church and reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the Coptic and Syrian Jacobite churches``. I would love to know more about what kind of influence the Armenian Church had on the Georgian church. Can anyone provide me with the reliable sources? As we see, the Georgian Church was reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church in the 7th century. Does it mean it was no longer independent? I have read something very interesting in `Histoire des Armeniens.` Sous la direction de Gerard Dedayan. According to this book, in 555, when Armenians rejectied the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon, they did not know well what they were rejecting. They had not read neither the work of Leon nor other documents they ( Armenians) were condemning. The ambiguity of this kind of condemnation had unfavourable effect on Armenia for the next two centuries and on the relations with Georgians and Albanians, who had been dependent on the Catholicos of the Armenian Church. On the same page we learn that Movses, Bishop of Tsourtav in Georgia, accused Kiourion, Patriarch of Georgians of the heresy. Kiourion answered with written dogmatic documents which were the first written statements of the Chalcedonian doctrine the Armenian theologians ever had (see page 176) I wonder, how come that Georgians knew more about Chalcedonian doctrine than Armenians? Why the Georgian Church, if it was dependent on the Armenian Church, did not discuss the Chalcedonian doctrine with Catholicos of the Armenian Church right away? Does anyone have more information about that? Now, I want to address Aregakn. Nationalism means 1) devotion to one`s nation, 2) excessive, narrow or jingoist patriotism. Can you please, tell me what nationalistic comments have I made? How about that person, who blamed Kober of having `Nazistic approach?` Why didn`t you make a comment on that statement? One more thing, I am married to a man whose grandfather was Armenian. What I wrote about the claims that SOME Armenians have are facts. I wrote that Georgian inscriptions were removed from Georgian churches by Armenians in the 19th century not `since 10th century.` You see how easy it is to make a mistake? As you have guessed I was not born in the 19th century, so I have not seen those acts myself. Ilia Chavchavadze and Dimitri Bakradze wrote about them. Other people also wrote about those acts in Russian and Georgian press of the 19th century. This act is a crime regardless who does it, Georgians or Armenians. I kindly ask you to let me know of the names of the Armenian churches captured by the Georgian Church; in which region they are situated, which century they were built and what sources prove their being Armenian. It should be easy for you. I am going to let Georgian people know about those facts. Thanks in advance. Nina Iberi may 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to use wikipedia and it's talk-pages for talking to public and expressing your ideas, assumptions and conclusions, open a blog. If you want to be part of wikipedia, talk about the content of the articles. If you want to be read and understood, talk of as few subjects as you can and think needed at the same time, keep it short and clear. And... don't change the citations (ad words, change terms etc) of WP:RS where you see it convenient for you. Aregakn (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Aregakn, thank you for your advice. I`ll take it into consideration. I have three questions to ask of you: 1)Which citations have I changed? 2)Why have not you named the Armenian churches `captured by Georgians`? It was you who wrote about that on this very page. I am just offering my help. You should have been pleased. And the last question: Why have not you made any comment on the fact that someone blamed Kober of having `` Nazistic approach``? This was written on this very page as well. One more thing, it`s on page 176 of ``Histoire des Arménians`` that I found that interesting infromation about Georgian and Armenian churches. Nina Iberi 14 May 2010

Nina jan (Georgians use this term, don't they?), I have a few more notes to make about your discussion. Pls do not change your comments made previously. If you have forgotten to tell something, then just add it anew. Otherwise it might seem that the answering party has not addressed them. I am not telling it's done on purpose by you, but just for the future.

Also, when quoting or referring to smth, it would be constructive to link it fromhere, so it can be viewed and not "stay in the air".

• Kober issue:

If you read a little more careful once again, on this page I did not accuse Kober. I mentioned that it was him to accuse me; quote: "I do understand that issues related to nation and country can be picky but it was not me calling other editors and/or sources (like reliable Britannica) having gross nationalist Armenian point of view." [1] It was Kober to call my edits based on Britannica, quote: " But the claim that the Georgian church was part of the Armenian church and gained independence from it in 607 is a wild exaggeration funned by Armenian megalomaniac nationalists." [2] In any case, he did accuse me and Britannica (and other sources that say it) just at once, when the change was made, in representing Armenian megalomaniacal nationalistic exaggerator in a wild manner. After which (you can see chronologically) my comments were made to show, that such agressively and through strong wording expressed opinion, at the very first moment seeing the change, and the preservtion of articles (not the first time in this manner) is a nationalistic/racistic approach by himself while he accuses others. Clear?

• Citation change:

1) Your quoting: "Georgian Orthodox Church remained in the ecclesiastic sphere of Antioch and also under the influence of neighboring Armenia."

Briannica quote: "Thereafter, Georgia remained in the ecclesiastical sphere of Antioch and also under the influence of neighboring Armenia."

Let the quotes be quotes, as changing the quote to "Orthodox Church" implies the idea that it was already called diffrent.

2) Your quote: "Armenian Apostolic Church soon struck a course independent of ..." It refered to the early 4th century and was about the funding of the church. Has nothing to do with the context we are discussing.

3) Your quote: "When the Georgian Church broke away from the Armenian Church and reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the Coptic and Syrian Jacobite churches"

Britannica quote: "When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches."

I hope you see the differences presented in your quotes. Orienta Orthodox though inclusive but are not limited to those 2 other churches you mentioned. (Those are the Oldest churches representing Orthodox Christianity and, as just my feelings, it is a pity for me not to see the Georgian Church in their lines anymore... but anyway).

• An important note to you, as you are constructive now, I see. There are different levels of independence in A church. There are Catholicoses, which might not necessarily be Patriarchs and being a Patriarch is THE independence you talk about , but, not less important, it is not the independence of the church, but the person baring the title. The independence of a Church means being not the same church but different, separate, with a separate doctrine, canons, etc. Not only administrative system, that a Catholicos or Patriarchs represent. For instance, the Armenian Apostolic Church has 2 Catholicoses and 4 Patriarchs presently. Surprised?
• If you live in Tiflis, I can name you churches to visit. Though, this issue is spread in all Georgia, and not only the capital. One, at this very moment, is in the process of capture. Norashen! Visit to note of the PROCESS. I can call others that are accomplished. To make clear how legitimately it is possible; you do know/remember, that no other religious groups is allowed to register as such by your laws, don't you? So cannot have property. And as those belong to the Ministry of Culture, they are being presented to the GOC for use.
• I am not aware of the information you say to have found and neither do I know how it is said, in what context and what exactly. But even if the detailed official papers were not seen, I can assure you, that it has no impact on making a decision on such an important issue as the "Nature of (Christian) God" is. You do not need to see the details to understand, if the new doctrine of Christ having 2 separate natures: a body as Human and God only after the reserection is acceptable for the council of your church.
• I do not see it worths to discuss an issue of a churchs' decisions on wikipedia. We have gone too far. This is a page to discuss impovements to the article and not exchanging ideas about what based the churches make their rulings.
• And the last, but not the least, you are pointing out wrong about when Armenians "arrived" to the current territory that Georgia occupies. As you know, there were separate Kingdoms there on different lands during thousands of years. The territories belonging also changed. In the lands to the south, Armenians lived for those many thousands of years I noted (more or less). What you say might be relevant to Abkhazia and the shore of the Black sea due to Ottoman period's forced migration, as Christians (Georgians inclusive) were persecuted. Also Armenians rose in number in Tiflis during that. You can chronologically see, that this very period (when Armenians became a majority in Tiflis) lies in the period of the pick of the city's rise in all senses (cultural, political etc.) I also hope this is something you are grateful for.
• But onc again, I wouldn't like to be discussing issues not relevant to the article on their talk-pages. It makes them look as being used for undesirable purposes.

My warm regards, Aregakn (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Aregakn, thanks for clarifying many things. I understand what an independent church means now.

I liked the way you`ve addressed me - ``Nino-jan``, though it isn`t Georgian at all. If you read `Kite Runners`, you`ll learn that the even the Afgans use it. This word might be of Persian origin.

As for my comments, please get Britannica Micro or Macropaedia editid in 1992 (15th edition), check the info. about Georgian Orthodox Church and you`ll see that I have not changed anything. I`m sure you didn`t change any quotes yourself. You`ve read a different edition of the Britannica. So, we are both right. I agree with you that it is not a place to discuss the topics not related to this article. I just want to let you know that I took the problem of Armenian churches close to my heart. I`m checking the info. I cannot rely on one source, espec. according to which almost all of the churches in Georgian are Armenaina. As I`ve told you in 19th century Geogians and even some Russian scholars such as Serebiakov, Nickolski, wrote in Georgian and Russian newspapers that some Armenians had Armenianized Georgian churches. I`m going to Georgia this summer (I`ve been living abroad for a couple of years) which will make it easy to learn more about it and let Georgian people know of this problem. I want to inform you of sth very important regarding Norashen: Armenian site says Norashen was built on the present spot in Tbilisi in 1740. Jean Chardin, who travelled in Georgia from about 1671 till 1673 mentioned Norashen. See his `Voyage du Chevalier Chardin en Perse`, volume 2, p. 78. Jean Chardin even translates what Norashen means -``l'ouvrage neuf``. The problem is that he died in 1713. It is very strange, is it not? I know that lots of Armenians have lived in Tbilisi and other parts of Georgia for a long time. They have found shelter there and no one denies they have contributed to it as other nationalities, e.g Jewish peoples contribution to Georgia is immense. Akaki Bakradze, whom we call the conscience of our nation, wrote that we have to study the contribution of different nationalites, the Armenians, the Jews, the Germans, the Poles, the Kurds, etc. to Georgia. I am grateful to all of them. If you check the discussion on the article about Tbilisi, you`ll find some interesting information there. Best regards. Nina Iberi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding Norashen. I guess there was a mistake in one of the articles about this church. I found out that it was founed in the 15th. century. Nina Iberi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the word "jan" that it is used "all over" and I do believe that the origins are niether Persian nor other "national", but Aryan, as the root "stan" (land) is for instance. They are also used in the middle-asia etc. As for my use, I said I thought Georgians used it too :).

Now Britannica. The problem is thta you quoted it and I had links to it. Was logical to think you were quoting from the webside that was reered to, that's why I told it. I don't know about the other editions though.

You know, Armenian churches are usually established as one smal structure for prayers (and candles). I don't know how they are called exactly in English, but they are real small (a few square meters only). And then they develop into churches or church complexes. Because those small structures were usually built by people without the involvment of the Church as an institution and only then the Church got involved, the dates will quite often differ. I don't know if it's the case for Norashen, but in Armenia it's a commen "procedure" if I can call it so. At any case, the complex is/was Armenian and it is being captured. Don't forget to Visit Javakhk either and ask the people how things are. A month and a half ago another Armenian church in Akhltskha was destroyed, as the land was sold. Write me an e-mail, if you wish to get more info (you have to log in for this and have an e-mail in wikipedia yourself). In Tiflis you can just approach the Patriarch, if you truely want to study. Maybe they'll be afraid to tell all the details then. I can let you contact with some NGOs then. As for the architecture of the churches, the Georgian churches have small architectural differences with the Armenian. Sometimes the "renovation" and "reconstruction" is claimed by the authorities and the architecture is changed to be claimed Georgian.

Contact me and if you are really into objective study, then good, I shall help with sources or contacts.

At any case, opposition as such of peoples with such close ties is unacceptable for me and I hope the state policies will be wiser, than they are now. Aregakn (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Aregakn, sorry for my long silence. I`m still abroad. I`ve been reading a lot about Georgian and Armenian architecture, e.g The Armenians, 2ooo Years of Art and Architecture by Adriano Alpago Novello, Giulio Jeni, Agopik Manoukian, Alberto Pensa, etc. The Armenian Art, Culture and Religion by Nira and Michael Stone; Miroire de L`ivisible. Penture Murales et Architecture de la Georgie by T. Velmans, Adriano Alpago Novello and lots of others. I advise everyone to read them, or at least to have a look at the photos of the masterpieces that Armenians and Georgians have created. While checking the info. about Norashen on the Internet I found out, to my distress, that there is lots of hatred between Georgians and Armenians. They even swear at one another. Some Armenians believe that Javakheti belongs to Armenia, someone writes that he hopes that soon Batumi becomes part of Armenia, etc. We, Georgians believe in absolutely opposite. The conflict about Norashen and other churches deepens this hatred. What I believe to be done is the following: 1) A special commission should be created to study the case of Norashen and other churces. There was a talk about it but I`m not sure it was done. Is it true that there were 29 Armenian Churches in Tbilisi by the beginning of the 20th century? Were there 3 Armeninan churches in Telavi? If there were it means that in this small but old city (which I know very well) there was only one small church before Armenians began to settle in in the 19th century. It`s scholars like Alpago, Jeni and others should be invited to do the research. 2)Georgian scholars claimed that some Armenians armenianized Georgian churches in the 19th century. The same commission should study this case. Though some Georgian and Armenian churches resemble one another there is still the difference among them. 3) Though lots of articles are written about Georgian and Armenian relationship, but this subject must be studied carefully by historians. Dear Aregakn, you write to me:`if you are really into objective study, then good, I shall help with sources or contacts.` I think I am into objective study. I hope the same is true with you. Please, provide me with the reliable sources that will help establish the truth regarding Norashen or other churches. Nina Iberi July 22, 2010142.243.254.224 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Preservation of the article by Kober

Dear Kober, Please explain the partial deletion of the section with information from Britannica Encyclopedia about the Georgian Orthodox Church and the link to it. What were your reasons and the goal. Thank you. Aregakn 22:51, 3 February 2010‎ (UTC)

Oldest Georgian Church

In the article it says: "The oldest Georgian church was constructed in the beginning of the 3rd century, in the village Nastakisi (Kartli province of Eastern Georgia)."

However there is no reference and it seems to me really farfetched. Has anyone the sources for this statement? If not then what IS the oldest Georgian church (structure)???

I suggest this sentence to be deleted if there is NO source (for the time being). Just writing things is not academic. thanks!HeroMetrix

Let's hope, that somebody will support us with some issues. It has to be in the UNESCO list of world heritage as a MINIMUM, I guess. In those days the churches were usually wooden (if were at all existing). The problem is, that there could be no church, as it would be found and destroyed at once even not having been constructed. The Christian meetings and discussions were made in an open area usually. Let's see if in an adequate timing somebody can present anything. It's also interesting to have heard, that a Eparchy was established back then... But that shall be a different question. Aregakn (talk) 08:26, 11/02/2010 (GMT)

Unfortunately there have been no comments and facts so far. I think we can review the article when new facts accur. Aregakn (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first "EPARCHY" by Apostle Andrew (?)

Dear Kober and Iberielli, let`s inform everyone that some (Pay attention I say some) Armenians removed stones with Georgian inscritions from Georgian churches and replaced them with the stones with Armenian inscriptionsin in the nineteenth century. Let them know that Ilia Chavchavadze, Georgian writer and public figure and Dimitri Bakradze, also a public figure wrote about those incidents in 19th century in Georgian and Russian newspapers. Let`s inform people that there have been some Armenian `schollars` who have claimed Georgian lands together with our churches. We should write in details about those facts. Then Armenians might start to double-check their sources. Nina Iberi

Dear Users and Editors, I have to question the very part of establishment of a Eparchy when Christianity was not yet institucionalised. The claim of this solely is redundant. How could a Eparchy be established at all, when there was no institution or large communities of Christians with their head of churches and bishops to unite into a Eparchy?! This is, of course, a rhetoric question. It is the term used for administrative division of an established church with structure and hierarchy, which obviously couldn't be the case back then. I'd like somebody to put in a word to explain or support the preposition of deletion of the ridiculous claim that the 1st Eparchy was established by Apostle Andrew! Aregakn (talk) 10:55, 11/02/2010 (GMT)

Yet there are no comments and offers in this regard. The idea of Eparchy being established when there was no church as an institution is not fitting any logic. I offer to change it to "According to the tradition, the first Christian COMMUNITIES were established by Apostil Andrew while his arrival to the Kingdome of Iberia." I thought of keeping the idea with only changing the term "Eparchy" and not deleting the whole sentense. I shall change the text and if there are better offers, let us discuss in this discussion. Aregakn (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Georgian and Armenian churches had been in communion before 607 and at some point Armenian hierarchical influence was probably more pronounced. But the claim that the Georgian church was part of the Armenian church and gained independence from it in 607 is a wild exaggeration funned by Armenian megalomaniac nationalists. Regarding the formulation of St. Andrew’s activities in Georgia, I do agree with you. --Kober^Talk 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would we change the citation and add comments of how much of influence had the AAC (Arm. Ap. Ch.)? And what makes you think that Britannica Encyclopedia is a carrier of wildly exaggerated, as you said, "Armenian megalomaniac nationalist" ideas? I shall quote the 3rd reference: "When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches." What is "braking way" then?Aregakn (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the Council of Dvin, when that happened, took place in 609-610.Aregakn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

Dear Armenian friend, you should avoid chauvinistic attacks on Georgian articles and engage in more constructive edits rather than carrying out blizkrig on Georgian history related articles. I can do the same with your Armenian articles but like Kober, i'm a constructive editor who respects civil exchange of information. Me and Kober have seen numerous attacks on Georgia related articles, you are not the first one. So before you get carried away, I would suggest to adopt a more constructive approach and avoid rfemoving of information from articles, unnecessary tagging, POV pushing, etc. Also refer to wiki guidelines on NPOV. Iberieli (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As your "friend" Kober said, one should comment not on editors. Do you agree? As for being constructive, I am mostly. What your constructive friend Kober was doing is deleting all the changes and references to reliable sources made with no proper reason. If this is called constructive, then I am sorry for doubting it. As for the threats about "MY" Armenian articles, you are welcome to edit anything you wish and I would suggest you not to call them mine, as they do belong to all of us and have nothing in particular to do with me. I am only married to an Armenian, if it comes to personal. I have not been attacking any articles, dear. My work is constructive and I met great opposition to objectiveness in numerous articles. My offers to Kober to send him personally additional information about the issues received no positive response, though. What I edited was always guided by references and was not a POV. If the question was about, let us say, a Georgian churc in, for instance, Russia being destroyed, what do you think, would any other sources receive, spread and act on this issue if not only Georgian? I do understand that issues related to nation and country can be picky but it was not me calling other editors and/or sources (like reliable Britannica) having gross nationalist Armenian point of view. If both of you are really willing to have a constructive work I will agree to it with greatest (!) pleasure and offer for us to discuss issues on discussion pages and/or mail then make any changes we agree on. I'd like to see you both commenting on this, if possible.Aregakn (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great so we are on the same page. I have tons of essay work to do so my time is limited. However, i will commence with references and sources and will insert them accordingly. Again, I have plenty of sources from numerous scholarly publications, please bear with me and allow me to insert them step by step. Iberieli (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% sure there are! I wrote at the history page already so let's pass the history part there. What about the Church case?Aregakn (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor made a correct note and reference to a very respected source of Britannica. Indeed, it is literally said in britannica that the Georgian church broke away from the armenian church. In other encyclopedias it is also mentioned that the georgian church "broke away" or "split" from the Armeian church. It is obvious to have been a united 1 church and then Georgians split. In this case it is also obvious that Aregakn wasn't the meglomaniac but Kober has deep complications having deleted a relibly referenced edit (leaving alone his own clearly nazistic approaches). If this continues i would suggest opening a suspention case from georgian artcles. Good luck all217.76.2.224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

`The Georgian church broke away from the Armenian church`. You don`t understand what it means at all. It`s all about different dogms. Armenians opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the existance of two disticnt natures (one wholy divine, the other wholly human in Christ). Georgian Church did not fight for the independence from Armnenian Church. At the Council of Dwin, Armenian priests cursed Georgian Catholicos and forbade Armenians to have any relationship with Georgians apart from the trade. One more thing, do you really believe you have insulted Kober blaming him for having `nazistic approach?` You should be ashamed of yourself. I want to let the reader know that this is not the only controversial topic. Armenian sources claim that an Armenian created Georgian alphabet. Some Armenian historians try to prove that the Bagrationi, Georgian kings, were of Armenian origin. In 19th century some Armenian shcollars, Emin, Khudabashov and others have been claiming that some old Georgina regions: Djavakheti, Klardjeti, Adjara belonged to Armenia. In 1971, Paruir Mouradian published an article in `Herald of Social Science No 4`, Erevan that Georgian toponyms edning in is (like Tbilisi, Ruisi, Bolnisi. Tukharisi) are of Armenian origin. See P. 30-31. Some Armenians even claimed Shota Rustaveli was Armenian. The list is long. I`ll write more about that. Nina Iberi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered and commented in above paragraphs and your user-page. Aregakn (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eastern European calendar: Naming proposal

On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot.

Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option)

Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended)

Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended)

Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended)

To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of Option 1.

The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the shorthand of medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n.

This is not the place to vote. Click on this link Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name, read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others.

Uma Paschoa muito feliz a todos. O povo unido jamais sera vencido. 212.85.12.219 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Aregakn, you gotta stop yout edit war. The sources you present does not say that Georgian church got independence from Armenian church. The sources are not credible so you should stop edit war immediately. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear GeorgianJorjadze, I have informed you several times on your talk page about the issue and asked to get familiar with the rules. Your deletions were of referenced information and I was bringing them back. Edit warring is something else. The sources do say both, that the Georgian Orthodox Church was under influence of the Armenian Apostolic and then it "broke away". These are clear statements of dependence and fraction afterwords, as said in the sources, in the early 7th century. That happened after the Council of Dvin which took place at the mentioned date.

Please reread the sources once again, if you have already read them. If you do not agree with a referenced content like that, discuss it and explain before the deletion of it.

RegardsAregakn (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In light of this dispute, it may be an option to take things to dispute resolutions to prevent edit warring. And as such, until an mutual consensus can be found between all parties involved, it is best to leave the article as it stands (per WP:PREFER, and that means GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) you should refrain from removing the content that you are in disagreement with. Perhaps inserting a {{POV}} tag on the article, to make other editors aware there is a dispute would be appropriate too, thus allowing other to discuss amicably about the disputed context. Wesley☀Mouse 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a {{POV}} tag to the article. Everyone, please remember that edit-warring is not acceptable in a content dispute, even if you are convinced that you are right and the other editor(s) is/are wrong. — Richwales 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work, Rich. I've added this page, along with any users currently involved to my watchlist; just in case ;-) Wesley☀Mouse 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Created the discussion on this talk and informed the user on his.

This discussion has already been settled once as can be seen above, by the way, and I wouldn't say that Britannica is a POV but let it be so :).

Aregakn (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the tag means that Britannica is a POV. It basically means that one or more editors may have a different POV from others, which has resulted in edit warring. As a consequence, it is best to tag the article with POV, so that people who are not aware, can avoid accidentally edit warring the same disputed content. Wesley☀Mouse 00:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes true.Aregakn (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Independence from AAC

GeorgianJorjadze here is your chance, so to say. Aregakn (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I shall make the entry then.

1) The Britannica Encyclopedia in the Article about the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAP) it is written: "When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches." This deliberately implies the dependence of what is now the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) from the AAC, if not being one same church with different heads, like it is until today in the AAP (2 Catholicoses + 2 Independent Patriarchs).

2) Britannica also tells in the Article about the GOC: "Georgia remained in the ecclesiastical sphere of Antioch and also under the influence of neighboring Armenia."

3) In the 3rd link CNEWA - Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church, that I had once decided to take away from the "Independence" division it is mentioned likewise: "The Georgians and Armenians split definitively at the Third Council of Dvin in 607." Aregakn (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't have any "involvement" in this dispute, but rather someone who has stepped in to assist in a peaceful resolution. It may be logical for me to cast a fresh set of eyes on this!? If I may, I shall take some time to read the sources in detail, and work out exactly what they are trying to imply. Aregakn, we cannot stipulate that the Britannica Encyclopaedia have "deliberately implied" anything. An encyclopaedia is an informative book, they publish material by choice, not publish deliberately. Also Britannic doesn't "tell" something in an article, it "reads" or "informs". Anyhow, I will read everything from the sources, and breakdown what I think they are trying to portray across to the researcher. Wesley☀Mouse 15:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I have gathered so far, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, have contradicted themselves in both the AAC and GOC articles. While they state on their AAC article that Georgia broke away from Armenian's, to reunite with Eastern Orthodoxy. Britannica also state on the GOC that Georgia was only influenced by Armenia, and doesn't state anything about unification between the two churches. A definition of "declaration of independence" is for a multitude of unified groups to decide to go their separate/individual ways. The confusion is Britannica stipulating Georgia was influenced by Armenia in one article, while implying they were "united" in an other. If this article is to use details from Britannica, then it would be idealogical to figure out which side of their contradiction is correct. This can be done by means of deeper research from other reliable sources. If more sources point in the direction of "unification" then we are correct to assume independence between the two churches took place. The same case would be if more sources point towards the "influence" side of things. Until then, it may be a wise choice to omit the information from the main article(s) due to contradicted details from one source. Wesley☀Mouse 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:HOT (which gives a list of Encyclopaedia Britannica articles that have yet to be covered) there is an additional list of online encyclopaedias which may also be used. Of those listed, I have searched for both GOC and AAC to see what they come up with, and to be perfectly honest, they provide better information than the one being "quoted" on the article currently. Hutchinson's Encyclopaedia gives a brief detail on Orthodox Churches in general, and mentions Georgia, Armenia, and other countries in the "orthodox" community. The Encyclopedia of the Orient (aka Looklex Encyclopaedia) provides a reasonable detailed history on both churches, including a timeline of events. Perhaps if all parties involved in this dispute would like to read through those, and come to a mutual agreement on what should be published on this article, would be a good way to resolve the dispute. Also find ways to incorporate the new sources into the refs would be another step forward to resolving things amicably. Wesley☀Mouse 16:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct Wesley. There are more sources for the issue than the 2 that I mentioned. For instance, as the Encyclopedia of the Orient tells, "7th century: The Georgian branch breaks away from the Armenian Church, and joins the Greek Orthodox Church." The problem is that I did not want to bring too many of those sources. Presuming good faith in editors' approach, I considered that it would have been enough. I also thought bringing too many sources about 1 issue is really unneeded when there is no referenced opposition to it. It would also seem a pattern of defending a point by editors not assuming good faith. There are editors appearing from time-to-time just to make these changes or delete them.

I think the same issue is with the Georgian alphabet the edit-history of which I will have to have a look at next... Aregakn (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point on over-sourcing. However, when circumstance arise like this, in which other editors start to question details from the only sourced being used, then it is always best to use other sources to, to clarify the facts. There is no wrong or right on how many sources are used to clarify a factual detail. Guidance at WP:CITE and WP:CITEBUNDLE states that it would be preferable to cite many reliable sources about one thing, rather than having one source that may have editors question the contents of the specific citation. Take for example the article Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Several pieces of context use citations from more than one source, to add a touch of volume verifiability to its context. This is a good way to show that more than one source agrees on what is being quoted. Wesley☀Mouse 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The other factor in this is, that Britannica have contradicted themselves in 2 articles. Therefore to clear up contradiction, it would be advisable to use other sources as a reflink too, thus clearing up any confusion. The fact that this hasn't already been done, and this current dispute, prove that one source alone has confused at least 2 editors - yourself and GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs). Using the other sources too, clears up that confusion. You mention that you though it was better to use just the one source, in order to presume the good faith in other editors' approach to the matter. While that is a good idea, one must also remember that good faith assumptions are a two-way thing; so other editors' should also be presuming your good faith in citing more sources too. Wesley☀Mouse 17:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand user Aregakn and his desire to question everything what is of Georgian origin. We aren't surprised by it as he seems to be a fellow Armenian which we know in an ideal way what they always seek to claim on every Georgian topics. So no big deal about it. We have an understanding what Armenians always try to prove on every Georgian topics. As for this case, the "independence from Armenia" should be removed immediately as the source does NOT say so. The source is misleading and an Armenian user tries to use it into his interests. The source he presented doesn't say anything about whether Georgia got independence from Armenia in Church affairs. The Georgians and Armenians faith was devided upon dogmas of church and that's the case here not the user claims to be. Georgian church was never part of Armenian church or anything close to it and the sources are just ridiculous to claim as if Georgia got independece from Armenia. Can you please tell me where in the world do you read that quote where Georgia got independent from Armenia or its church? Dear Wesley Mouse, can you please tell me where do you see that qoute in the source and why aren't you removing presented sources by Armengakn? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly GeorgianJorjadze, no content from the article can be removed at the moment, especially while a dispute discussion is in progress. If content was removed, then the editor removing it could be sanctions with account blocks. So with that in mind, I urge you NOT to starting thinking of removing the content as it stands, until a consensus is found, to decide otherwise. Secondly, it does appear that you are misinterpreting the meanings of words in regards to "independence". The definition of the word autocephalous means "independence", so when the sources stipulate that Georgian Orthodox Churches gained a type of "autocephalous rights" from Armenian churches, then it does imply that a form of independence took place. However, the fact of the matter is that Britannica contradict facts in 2 different articles concerning the same thing. Whereas, other sources that I have read on this subject, all point towards a form of independence, or segregation between Armenian and Georgian Orthodox Churches. So Aregakn, is technically correct when using the phrase "independence", due to A) the definition of certain words, and B) the facts published across various sources. Wesley☀Mouse 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit war on Wikipedia, that's first. The second is that Georgian and Armenian churches went into different directions as they differed on church dogmas and that's the only case here. Independence from something means that as if once Georgian church was under some other church's control. It was but not under Armenian one and none of the sources state that Georgia got independece from Armenia as such. The differences upon some church dogmas in Christendom is normal and that was the case. Georgians and Armenians didn't agree on dogmas of church but the claim of the Armenian user is absurd and not sourced. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry GeorgianJorjadze, but when you made this revert after an editor contacted you on your talk page to commence a civil discussion about it, then you started the edit war first - even the edit summary details with you wrote, point towards yourself engaging in an edit war first. And it does appear that you are getting confused with the meaning of the word "independence". Independence from something doesn't mean "A" was under control by "B", independence can also mean two parties no longer wishing to work collectively in an unified manner. In theory both Georgian and Armenian churches are 'orthodox', which groups them under one category. However, in their history, both churches worked in unison - neither of them controlling the other, but working together as a team. From reading the evidence from various sources, it shows at some stage in the Georgian Orthodox history, Georgia no longer wanted to collaborate as a "team", and therefore went on their own, and left Armenian Churches to go about their own ways of religious operations. That itself is a form of independence, and using the word independence is neither right or wrong. Another thing that seems to me here is that you are trying to take ownership of an article based on your own opinions, rather than work collectively as a team, in order to improve articles. By removing something that you feel is incorrect is very wrong. There's an old proverb that I strongly believe in, which I shall share with you. There is no I in TEAM - bear that one in mind my friend, as it could prove to be something useful in the long-term, that is if you wish to avoid similar disputes like this arising in the future. Wesley☀Mouse 19:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, before the discussion there were 3 articles from 2 different sources about the issue.

To be true, I did not see a contradiction between the 2 articles of Britannica. To me it was just a milder approach to the same history. But I guess it could be a matter of interpretation from our sides. I think being under influence does not exempt being the same church with different groups in it. As a parallel, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and of Constantinople as well as the Cilician Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church are not under direct control of the Catholicos of all Armenians of the AAC - the supreme head of it. But they are influenced. So I made this parallel between these.

The Patriarch of Georgia was first elected to the rank of a Catholicos in the 5th century and yet the Church was the same. The same way there was the Catholicos of the Caucasian Albania. The latter, unlike the Georgian, did not brake away from AAC. Similar issue is with the Alphabets. The Georgian was changed 2 more times after the "invention" by the same author - Saint Mesrop Mashtots. The Caucasian Albanian - not.

Assuming good faith, it is not easy to forget, that for a proud heir of proud and ancient nations, as Iberian, Colchian and others (that were located on the current and also historical territories of Georgia) were, it might be difficult to acknowledge being under such essential cultural-political influence of the neighbouring nation. The same way as for many Armenians it would be difficult to acknowledge the conquest and dependence of some North-central-Eastern parts of the Greater Armenia during the reign of Queen Tamara from the Georgian/Kartvelian kingdom. By some assessments, by the way, this quite helped to preserve these parts of Armenia, as for that period a "conquest" of those parts by a Christian nation from destructive Turkic Sultanates could be seen as a rescue.

I do not know how it is now, but when I did a research more than 10 years ago in the history class-books of Armenia this period was called "Yervandite reign" and there was not much about how really the political situation was then. The same way it is, to my knowledge, in Georgia. Being a country of many Caucasian (and not only) ethnic groups/subgroups, divided and/or united by language(s), common history etc., there is a strong need to keep it up with a united and independent stance. This, I would call, complication can be difficult for many to overcome and thus even disbelieve in encyclopaedias is easier than facing the reality.

I do have good faith but I also do have understanding for these individuals/groups. Aregakn (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn, you may want to avoid over-citing AGF all the time, as this in itself can be portrayed as an act of bad faith . As you pointed out you did not see a contradiction between the 2 articles; which is reasonable enough - not everyone sees things in the same way as others. Something which may be common knowledge to one person, may not necessarily be common knowledge to the other. The dispute is a perfect example of what is and isn't common knowledge. You have beliefs in one conception of the sources based on your "knowledge"; whilst Georgian Jorjadze has a different conception of the same source, based on his "knowledge" of the subject. This is where the two of you need to share civilly your "knowledges", and see if anything between both sides stands out as "combined knowledge" - I'm 99.9% certain between you both that the knowledge you hold has got common ground that can be used as a compromise input for the article. But for the pair of you to be sitting here and trying to say you're right, and the other is wrong; isn't the way forward to resolving matters.

What I am thinking of doing, is something similar to WP:DRR but with less hassle of going to them directly. In that I mean, the pair of you putting down your own beliefs and conceptions of the sources; and then we review them, and see what pieces of detail appear in both sides. Would this be OK with both parties here? If this exercise, does fail, then the final option would be to put forward everything to DRR and allow them to have the final say on the matter, which may or may not please either of you. Wesley☀Mouse 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but somebody "judged" me assuming a national belonging here so I do not see my answer as overciting AGF. But again, it might be a matter of interpretation.

What comes to the article and disagreement by GeorgianJorjadze to the current version of the article, I still see only a personal belief based on judging editors on presumptions of national or ethnic belonging and not WP:RS. Of course the schisms happen because of doctrine (and maybe possible political reasons). Whatever the official reason, I see the expression of "becoming independent" a very mild rephrase of what the sited sources say. 2 of the encyclopedias call the Georgian (branch) braking away from the Armenian church. One other source calls it splitting.

I call on a constructive discussion based on RS, not accusations based on belonging to A ethnicity and taking ownership of an article because of belonging to another. Aregakn (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response makes some sort of sense, albeit vague in some areas. But nevertheless it doesn't appear to make progress on the whole issue. Remember that I hold no knowledge in this subject, and therefore that lack of knowledge may play an advantage in resolving the issue, as I'm able to see things from outside the box, rather than being cooped inside a box and getting fogged by rationales of potential nationalisms over who/what is right and wrong. I'm going to suggest starting afresh on this, and allowing both yourself and GorgianJorjadze the chance to put forward your interpretation of what the sources say. Then, perhaps put forward your own personal beliefs on this subject. Once that is accomplished, we can start to investigate the difference and similarities between both sides, and see what compromises (if any) can be achieved. In hindsight, the sooner this dispute gets resolved, the better - thus restoring a bit of peace all round. Wesley☀Mouse 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GOC and AAC independence dispute resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In knowledge that there is a vast amount of confusion surrounding content from a variety of reliable sources, in regards to "independence" matters between Georgian Orthodox Church and Armenian Apostolic Church. I hereby invite both Aregakn (talk · contribs) and GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) to put forward their interpretation of what the reliable sources portray, along with any personal beliefs on the subject. Once both sides have put forward their thesis on the subject, then we can look at the differences and similarities between both sides, and work towards a common ground that keeps everyone happy in the long-term. Wesley☀Mouse

• Note: Wesley is not considered by me as neutral due to multiple attacks on my personality. Aregakn (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn's thesis

I will refrain myself from judging WP:RS as encyclopedias or unenvolved 3rd party RSs. The purpose of WP is not that. I am not willing to discuss when Georgia as a state was dependent from Armenia. There was even no country called Georgia as a state back then and it is a matter of a different article.

Concentrating on our case, below are the quotes from RS:

1) The Britannica Encyclopedia: "When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches."[3]

2) The Encyclopedia of the Orient: "7th century: The Georgian branch breaks away from the Armenian Church, and joins the Greek Orthodox Church."[4]

3) Britannica also tells that becoming autocephalous: "Georgia remained in the ecclesiastical sphere of Antioch and also under the influence of neighboring Armenia."[5] Being written in the article about the GOC clearly refers to the GOC and religious affairs and not Iberia (Georgia) or Armenia as states.

4) The Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA) from the data of the Catholic church - quote: "The Georgians and Armenians split definitively at the Third Council of Dvin...[6]

I would like to hear the interpretation of the phrases "the Georgian church broke away" or "The Georgian branch breaks away" from GeorgianJorjadze to understand his stance. Aregakn (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Aregakn. Providing a selection of para-quotes from the sources wasn't quite what I expected. Those quotes don't really show your interpretation of the sources, they only show what the sources are saying. I have written my own interpretation on a notepad, to use in comparison with what the pair of you also provide. 'Tis always good practice to participate in the same exercise, to see if everyone is "singing from the same hymn sheet" (for choice of expression). Would you be so kind as to provide your interpretation of the sources, and not copy/paste quotes from them? Thanks buddy - Wesley☀Mouse 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did state it several times before :). but if I have to repeat it here again... In short, what I se from the sources is: one church - in the 5th century Georgian branch got autocephaly (autonomy). 7th century, it broke away and became fully independent, a different church.

The wording can be compromised on. Aregakn (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its quite alright Aregakn. I forgot the parts you mentioned earlier on, and reviewed them anyway. If you notice, I made a thesis myself; and I have noticed that both yourself and GeorgianJorjadze, appear to be getting the definition of one word confused; and hence this dispute has occurred. You appear to believe that autocephaly means independence, which is correct if it was in relation to a person - as autocephaly is a type of independence declaration from a bishop. However, the sources and also the content which you have rightfully pointed out are all in connection to a church and not a person. Therefore the definition of the word autocephaly changes completely. I've provided both definitions of the word below; and also explained the contexts to which each definition would refer to. All that remains now is an agreement on the definitions, and deciding which context autocephaly is suppose to be in relation to. Once that is settled, then I can safely say that we're on the horizon of reaching a peaceful conclusion. Wesley☀Mouse 10:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Resume of Aregakn's thesis

I would like to underline again, that the dispute is about the dependence of the Kartvelian Church (the forefather of the Georgian) from the Armenian Apostolic Church and independence from it afterwords after the council of Dvin.

Sources for:

1) The Encyclopedia of the Orient: "7th century: The Georgian branch breaks away from the Armenian Church, and joins the Greek Orthodox Church."[7]

2) The Britannica Encyclopedia: "When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with Eastern Orthodoxy in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches."[8]

3) The Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA) from the data of the Catholic church - quote: "The Georgians and Armenians split definitively at the Third Council of Dvin..."[9]

4) Secondary source from Meowy - 1999 book "National Treasures of Georgia", chapter "Medieval Christian Georgia", author: Stephen Rapp (an academician): "In the opening years of the 7th century the Kartvelian katalikos Kwrion broke with the Armenian christology that reigned supreme throughout Caucasia and embraced the Byzantine view." and "The Armenian prelate condemned Kwrion and set in motion a formal schism between the Khartvelian and Armenian Churches".

A formal schism - means formally there was no schism, no separation before. Braking with Armenian Christology that reigned supreme throughout Caucasia - means dependence from the AAC christology, as a minimum from this chapter.

5) And the word autocephalous, that causes misunderstanding from Wesley's side. In religious affairs it does not necessarily imply full independence: "The Armenian Apostolic Church consists of four autocephalous centers: Catholicosates of Etchmiadzin and Cilicia, Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople."[10]

Consensus Offer

To change the wording in the text describing dependence of the GOC in hierarchy from the Armenian Church and Antioch before the 5th century and leave only a chapter/sentence on dependence from the Armenian christology. Describe the 7th century as of full independence from the AAC and schism between it and the newly formed independent christologically and hierarchically Kartvelian (proto-Georgian) Church.

NOTA BENNE

I am not going to be able to participate each and every day so forgive me for the delays.

GeorgianJorjadze's thesis

As Georgia or Georgian church was never part of Armenia or its church claiming that Georgia got independence from Armenia in 7th century is totally absurd. There is no such a thing said in the source and such source does not exist. The fact that actually happened is that the church dogmas were split in the Christendom and Georgian church recognized Orthodoxy and two natures of Jesus while Armenia went into heresy of Chuch affairs and chose the dogmas what is now called as Oriental Orthodoxy what is thought to be the heresy in Christendom. Georgia chose Orthodox Christianity and claiming that just because one independent sovereign nation and state chose its own dogmas does not make Georgia independent from its neighbor. Georgia never was part of Armenia when Armenia actually was part of Georgian kingdom quite some time more than centuries. If you put this case into this parallel that Armenian church and Georgian church as neighbors chose different ways of church dogmas and thus Georgia became "independent" from Armenia, if you go this way in the Armenian Apostolic Church topic on wiki should also stated that it became "independent" from Georgia as well. If Georgia became free from Armenia, then Armenia became free and got independence from Georgia as well. How in the world could Georgian church get independent if it was never part of Armenian church. The source is misleading and absurd. And the part of independence from Armenia should be immediately removed from the topic as it does not reflect the reality. Dear Wesley Mouse, this is my point. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting forward your interpretation Georgian. I must say too, that I am most impressed in the way you kept your comments civil and within good faith towards others too. Well done! Wesley☀Mouse 10:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would just interject here that (per NPOV) we should not refer to the Armenian church or its beliefs/teachings as constituting "heresy" in the article. We should describe issues of doctrine, succession, "independence", or whatever without taking a position in the article's text as to which (if any) of these represent "the truth". I don't believe the article is currently trying to adopt a POV on these points, but I just want to be sure this doesn't happen. — Richwales 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rich has got a valid point there too. Based on the research that I did on this subject (and believe me I didn't catch a night's sleep through extensive research) both the GOC and AAC were, and still are "sister establishments", as they both proclaim themselves as "daughters of the Anitoch Church". Now we all know that it would be impossible for two siblings to declare a type of "independence" from each other, because regardless of the fact they chose to separate, they are still sister's at the end of it all. The misconception appears to have come from two people's interpretation of the word "autocephalous"; a word which has two definitions depending on the context in which the words is being used to refer something/someone.

The disputed paragraph within the article, is referring to autocephalous, as in the bishop of a church, when in fact it should be noting the autocephalous of the church itself. The evidence from sources, albeit vague if overlooked, points to the GOC no longer wishing to follow the path of having to go to a higher authority, whereas their sister establishment AAC continued to take "orders" from a higher authority. GOC decided to become autocephalous by being governed by their own synods (hierarchy/bishops). It is those synods (or bishops) in retrospect also became autocephalous, by removing themselves from a chain of command, and self-proclaiming themselves as "the end of the pecking order" The article alone is discussion autocephalous in the respect of the church, but directing to the article autocephaly which is in respect of a person, not a building.

My conclusion would be that neither Aregakn or GeorgianJorjadze are correct, but neither are wrong either. Yes both churches went their separate ways, but not in the context of independently, but rather than in the context of one (AAC) choosing to remain taking orders from a higher chain of command, while the other (GOC) decided that they would make the final decision for their own churches. Wesley☀Mouse 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wesley's thesis

Both the GOC and AAC still fall under the category of Orthodox Churches, but with different ways that they go about assigning religious methods. On the other hand, an Autocephalous Church in Orthodoxy terms, is an independent church, administratively separate from other churches. But again, the term "independent" shouldn't be confused, as it isn't referring to the devolution of a unification of entities (in this case Georgian and Armenian churches) - more that it is referring to how one church (GOC) operates their business in a different method to those of the other church (AAC).

The Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) Tradition: Fourteen regional Churches followed the Byzantine Liturgical Rite but have their own variations and history. Those regional areas are; Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lebanon, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.

The Georgian Church adopted Christianity early in the 4th century through the ministry of a woman, St. Nino. Originally it was a daughter church of Antioch but decided to adopt its own methods in 467. It gradually came under the influence of Constantinople. The church originally rejected the council of Ephesus but accepted it in 607. The establishment of communion with the Catholic Church has not been successful. In 1905 a group of 5000 was established as the Georgian Catholic Church. Today there are about one million Georgian Orthodox, possibly more.

The Armenian Church's traditions attribute the evangelization of the Armenian area to the Apostles Jude and Bartholomew. Ancient Armenia lay outside the borders of the Roman Empire (in what is today Eastern Turkey) and between the Black and Caspian Seas and the bordering areas of Iran. In the 10th century the area of Cilicia was also populated by Armenians. Armenia became the first State to adopt Christianity in 303 AD after King Tiridates III was converted to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator (who came from Cappadocia). The Armenian Church was a daughter church of Antioch.

For theological, political and cultural reasons the Church of Armenia rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and split from the rest of the Catholic body. During the Crusades the Armenian Orthodox (known as Armenian Apostolic) Church of Cilicia established communion with Rome, but when both the Crusader Kingdom and the Armenian Kingdom collapsed, communion was broken. At the Council of Florence in 1439 a decree of reunion was published but did not materialize. Catholic missionary work intensified and in 1740 an Armenian Catholic Patriarch was elected and later became established in Lebanon. The brutal massacres by the Turks during World War I greatly reduced the number of Armenians and scattered them all over the world.

The Armenian Liturgy combines elements of the Byzantine and Syrian traditions. Of the approximately 3.7 million Armenian Christians, about 7% are Armenian Catholic and are spread throughout the world.

Now in all that research it has been established that both GOC and AAC where "daughter churches" to the Antioch Church (which would basically make the Antioch Church the "Mother Church"). But like any children as they "grow older", they separated themselves from their parent church, to start "living" by their own means and ways. To put that into a different context; when you decide to leave the parental home, in order to start your own life - would you define that as an "independence" or define it as a "natural way forward"?

Hopefully, all that hard work I've put into this thesis, may assist in a peaceful outcome to this dispute. Wesley☀Mouse 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thesis of other editors

Meowy

Encyclopedias are not usually meant to be used as sources for content on Wikipedia. What sources are being cited by these encyclopaedias for their content on the Georgian Orthodox Church? It is those sources that should be being consulted, not general works like encyclopaedias. However, specialised sources need to be chosen carefully. Unfortunately, many modern publications derived from Georgia are propagandistic in nature, and sources by (or sponsored by) the Georgian state or the Georgian Church are suspect.

The propaganda is often difficult to detect. For example, the 1999 book "National Treasures of Georgia" has an interesting chapter titled "Medieval Christian Georgia" written by the academic Stephen Rapp. It would appear to have a lot of content that could be relevant to this article. However, Rapp has stated that his article was "highly re-edited without my permission" (http://www.hist.unibe.ch/unibe/philhist/hist/content/e267/e6546/e6547/publikationen/datei/datei/publikationen-rapp_ger.pdf). The rest of the book contains a lot of Georgian nationalistic propaganda, so I think we can assume that content which did not agree with that propaganda was excised from Rapp's article.

That said, passages from Rapp's article seems useful to quote here: in the 4th century AD "there was no single 'Georgia' and no monarch governing all Georgians". Rapp goes on to mention the Georgian kingdom of Kartli, in eastern Georgia, and that it was the language of this kingdom, Kartvelian, that was to become the written idiom of the Georgian family of languages. Eastern Georgia was withing the Pesian sphere of influence, western Georgia was within the Byzantine sphere of influence. When Kartli converted to Christianity it developed a distinctive Kartvelian form - in particular the use of the Kartvelian (i.e. "Georgian") alphabet. Kingdoms in Western Georgia also converted to Christianity, but did not take on such a specific "Georgian" form - they did not use the Kartvelian alphabet, they used the Greek alphabet and were influenced by the Byzantine Church. Rapp says that the early church in Karti "was dominated by foreigners: Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, even Christian Persians" and that in early Kartvelian texts "generic Christian rather than ethnic affiliation was the key consideration".

The Kartli kingdom was abolished by the Persians. The Byzantines then appointed their own puppet rulers, who often changed sides and supported Persia. As the Muslims replaced the Zoroastrian Persians, there was an increasing military and political alliance with the Byzantine empire, and increasing religious contacts from the Greek Church - this led to the Christian hierarchy in Karti to move closer to the Byzantine view of what Christianity should be. "In the opening years of the 7th century the Kartvelian katalikos Kwrion broke with the Armenian christology that reigned supreme throughout Caucasia and embraced the Byzantine view". In response, at the Third Council of Dvin (608-9) "the Armenian prelate condemned Kwrion and set in motion a formal schism between the Khartvelian and Armenian Churches".

So what we seem to have is a "Kartvelian Church" (not a "Georgian Church") operating within the sphere of the Armenian Church until the 609 schism, then the Kartvelian Church becomes completely separate from the Armenian Church, and becomes structurally independent though now firmly attached to Byzantine orthodoxy. It is a result of that schism that the Georgian Orthodox Church emerges as a true national Church covering all of Georgia. (It must have meant that the Armenian Church also became much more "national" and "Armenian"). Rapp goes on to say that after the Arab invasions, the nobility and church hierarchy in Karti fled into other regions of Georgia, evolving the Christianity in those regions match the Church in Karti - so Kartvelian Christianity spread throughout Georgia. Meowy 21:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I must say Meowy, I am most impressed with your interpretation on the matter. By looking at what you've written above, it would appear we both read the same research articles available on the web. Although, your analysis goes much deeper into the subject, whereas I tried to stray away from such complexity, and worded things in a more simplified manner, in order to clear the current confusion between 2 editors. Buy yeah, you basically hit the same spot as I did with my research. Give yourself a pat of the back from me for a job well done. On a different note, WP:HOT suggests that Britannica Encyclopaedia is sufficient enough as a source. When Wikipedia say not to use an encyclopaedia as sourcing, I think they are referring to online encyclopaedia that copy Wiki's layout. Whereas Wiki, have based a lot of their articles from material originally published by Britannica. Wesley☀Mouse 21:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that what I said about encyclopaedias was too sweeping - [11]. But I think I am correct in saying that they are not suitable for arguing about very detailed points like this because their content will always be too general for that. We need specialised secondary sources. Though there is a very detailed multi-volume encyclopaedia (I forget its name right now) that deals just with Byzantine-related subjects which could be useful to consult. The first line of this article "Since the 4th century AD, Georgian Orthodoxy has been the state religion of Georgia" is not correct if the Rapp text is to be accepted. There needs to be a greater emphasis that the Georgian Orthodox Church evolved over many centuries into what it now is. The trouble is that that the Georgian Church, like many religious organisations (including the Armenian Church), derives much of its present authority from its past, and so it will exaggerate and extend that past beyond what is historically accurate. Meowy 22:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That could be a different subject away from this current dispute though Meowy; one that would need to be looked into once a conclusion on this current allegation of the interpretation of "independence" between two churches. When I used a search engine (such as Goggle and Bling) and looked up GOC and AAC, the results where mainly of encyclopaedic material. However, when I define my search to "Did GOC declare a state of independence from AAC" and vice versa, the results where very much different. Mainly "specialised" sources came up, and very few encyclopaedic ones. A specific word has been used in the disputed paragraph of this article. That word has been interpretated with two different definitions by two different editors. Both editors are claiming the other is incorrect; when in reality neither of them are incorrect; yet neither of them are correct either. The disputed word "autocephalous" has two meanings, and depending the context a person refers the word to, alters its definition. If "autocephalous" is being used to refer to a building, then it means "a church which is governed by its own national synods and appointing its own patriarchs or prelates". Yet if "autocephalous" is being referred to in the context of a person, then its definition changes to "a bishop independent of any higher governing body". Both Aregakn and GeorgianJorjadze have established in their own words that the article and its context is in regards to a church and not a person. Therefore the current definition (as written in the article) is incorrect, as the term "autocephalous" is referring to a person, and not defining a building. To conclude, the paragraph alone needs some careful re-writing, paying extreme attention to the actual definitions of the word "autocephalous". If addition sources are required, then I would gladly provide the sources to which I used to base my findings on this matter. Wesley☀Mouse 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rapp says (on p85 of the book I mentioned above) that during the reign of King Parsman VI (561-?) of Kartli the Kartvelian aristocrats "Siezed the office of Katalikos, the chief ecclesiastical post. Now the Kartvelian church became virtually autocephalous." But who did they "seize it" from? And was this Katalikos (before the "seizure") just Katalikos of the Kartvelian church or of a wider region covering more of Georgia? And who appointed the Katalikos before the "seizure"? Rapp says that this event was a stage in the Kartvelian church's development into "one of several 'national' churches" (Rapp, btw, doesn't ever capitalise "Church", which I think is incorrect). Rapp seems to use the word "autocephalous" as applying to the whole Kartvelian Church. Meowy 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are stating about Rapp. However, Meowy, I feel that you may be straying away from the actual dispute here. The details about Rapp are not strongly connected to the dispute over what "autocephalous" means. It is this disputed word that has caused this discussion to commence in the first place. Adding details on a different matter which bears some relation to the article, but not the dispute; may be seen as adding confusion into the mixture. Perhaps once a conclusion of this current dispute is reached, then a new discussion into the details of Rapp can then be discussed amicably as a separate debate? Wesley☀Mouse 22:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that the despute is about one word. Here is a dispute about a concept and not wording yet.

One editor says that GOC was never anyhow dependent from the Armenian and the other, me, says that, according to the sources, it was dependent from the AAC, if not was the same church and broke away, as some of the sources say, from it.

Once again, I wanted to see interpretation of the sources by the other editor and never saw it. He/she was claiming that the sources I site do not say anything like the contenct of the current article. Aregakn (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The comparisons between editor's thesis

I have spent hours of reading a variety of sources in order to write up this thesis, based on my interpretation of facts presented regarding the alleged "independence" between GOC and AAC. A lot of the confusion appears to surround the interpretation of the word autocephalous. While one editor assumes it means independence, another editor dispute that very interpretation. Neither editor's are right, nor are they wrong. Autocephalous has 2 definitions, depending on the context it is being used. If the context is referring to a church building, then its definition is "a church which is governed by its own national synods and appointing its own patriarchs or prelates". A Synod is "A council or an assembly of church officials or churches; an ecclesiastical council". This would be the interpretation that GeorgianJorjadze appears to portray, based on his various comments regarding this dispute. However, if the word autocephalous is being used in ecclesiastical terms (that is living persons, and not a building), then its definition becomes "a bishop independent of any higher governing body". Seeing as the Britannica Encyclopaedia, and other sources are referring to a building and not a person, then the correct definition of autocephalous which should be used is in regards to the building context. Thus meaning, GOC never gained independence in the lateral meaning of the term, but decided to assign their own assembly of patriarchs, in a completely different way to which the AAC assign their patriarchs. Wesley☀Mouse 15:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I will try to explain it again and keep it simple. I mentioned it several times that in the AAC there are 2 Catholicosses (the Catholicos of all Armenians and the Cilician Catholicos) and each has their own Synod and their own decisions apsolutely independently. Even the elections are conducted in the Cilician Catholicosate independently. But yet it is one same Church.

The Evangelical Church, for example, is also a Church can have different heads and be fully autocephalous in each country. That does not make them to be a different church.

But if a branch of it starts accepting different new decisions, for example: "Jesus was only a human" of course there will be a Schism between these.

I want to underline, "authocephalous" is not the discussion here but the dependence and what the sources say. Aregakn (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn, sorry to say, but it is seeming like a huge misconception somewhere. The reason this dispute started, was because GeorgianJorjadze removed a paragraph from the article, stating that "independence" of a church couldn't have occurred. You argued the fact by paraphrasing information from Britannica, emphasising the autocephalous side of things. You even stated yourself that autocephalous means "independence", so therefore stating the paragraph concerning autocephalous is correct. From the thesis that GJ and yourself wrote, you both agree on the main concept and how history unravelled itself. But your difference of opinions are that you state independence happened, while GJ says it never. It is from that, that a clear conclusion can be found in each of your interpretations of the word autocephalous, and its definition. Wesley☀Mouse 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The other thing worth noting is the detailed analytic research that I did from a wide variety of sources available on the internet. Information for GOC and AAC both state they were "daughter churches" to Antioch. Genealogy therefore shows that if AAC is a "daughter church" of Antioch, and GOC is also a "daughter church"; then GOC and AAC are sister churches - making them connected with each. However, GOC wanted to "go it alone" without having to take orders from a hierarchy; and hence became "autocephalous" from its shared connections with AAC. AAC on the otherhand, didn't want to follow the path of its sister church, and so remained its loyalty to the circle is was associated with. GOC's "break away" doesn't imply a state of independence as in two nations dividing, but independence as in the no longer felt they needed to "depend" on the "sisterhood" ties which they once shared with AAC. I fully understand the definition of autocephalous, as I have studied lexicography at university, and therefore know the definitions of words, and also which definition would be correct to use, depending on the context it is being used. Wesley☀Mouse 13:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wesley, I must say that your interpretation is perfect and well-understood. I cannot add anything to your perfect thesis about this case and I'd support your position. Case seems to be difficult one to understand but if you look deep into the matter everything would seem way more easy. My position about opposing the word "independence from Armenia" stands and I see it as not founded and misleading absurd which should be removed from the content. Though I think the relations between the two Churches of GOC and AAC and their ties with Antioch should also be mentioned. Thank you. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, you may call me by my informal name Wes (I don't mind). I will admit, it wasn't an easy task; and during part of my research I personally felt as though I was actually revising for a University Diploma on the subject. The other confusion I noticed was when I searched specifically for Georgian Orthodox Church, and AAC, then the results defined one side of things. However, when I defined the searched more specific using the words "did GOC become independent from AAC" the the information found was completely different; although it was more detailed and went deeper into the matter. That was when I fully understood that GOC and AAC at some stage in their time shared the same "mother" church. So when GOC decided it no longer depended on its mothers decisions; then it broke away. That "break away" though, doesn't mean it gained a type of independence. I suppose another analytic approach to this would be to look at things in a different prospective. Take for example the United Kingdom. That is one nation, which comprises of 4 different nations (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales). Even though the government of the UK can make an overall decision on things, each of those 4 sub-nations also have regional assemblies and can also make regional decisions of their own. That doesn't mean that each of those 4 nations are "independent". They still depend on some decisions made by the UK, but they are also capable of making decisions of their own. Now when you took that concept, and changed it into GOC and AAC; then yes - they where once "one group" and took decisions from a higher authority. However, one of them (GOC) gained confidence to make their own choices (autocephaly); while the other (AAC) still felt it needed a higher authority to depend on. Wesley☀Mouse 14:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I could see you confusing the word "sister" with family ties. It is only a metaphore. The Coptic Church is also a sister church though having nothing to do with Antioch in this concept. There is neither any church called mother church, as you called Antioch. Your claim for the AAC to be found on 303 also shows some concentration on A research you read as the number is varying starting from 301, especially in the older researches.

Now I see many words from you about vast research you made. I would request links and see what those are from.

And once again, the issue is the concept of being dependent and becoming fully an independent church.

No, I did not paraphrase the autocephalous word, I paraphrased the wording of 2, I underline once again, 2 sources (the 3rd was added by Mioewy), which I sited before too, that the GOC broke away from the AAC.

Other secondary sources also site the dependence on the AAC (whatever it was) and the full schism with it in the 7th century. This is what is sited and sourced.

As I also noted several times, a structure can be self-governing or autocephalous being part of 1 same entity. This is what I agreed on. Self-governing, autonomous, autocephalous does not mean independent.

The wording brake away branch, what my paraphrasing derives from (not the word autocephalous) is essential to be understood correct. Nowadays this phrase "brake away" is used, if not mainly, then fastly about the regions constituting one entity (a state, in this case) and declaring their independence afterwords. Those are called "brake-away regions/countries/states. And again, we talk about the churches, not states, but it is important to understand what those words constitute. That is why the thesis of the editors about the GOC not being dependent on the AAC is dismissed simply by those sources. Aregakn (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aregakn, I'm by no means getting confused. I did point out that I have studied lexicography. Do you know what a lexicographer is? A person who studies words, and what they mean. Basically a human dictionary. So to assume that I have got the word "sister" confused, is very poor on your part I'm afraid to say. Meowy's thesis covered exactly the same concepts as mine, with exception that he went into more complex detail. Both Meowy and GeorgianJorjadze, appear to have understood my interpretation very clearly. However, it is starting to look as though you may be disregarding that, as it may not be what you expected the way things would pan out. Everything is a collaboration, and at times we have to agree to disagree, even if it means making compromises that we personally feel shouldn't happen.

If you also note, GJ has pointed out that the disputed paragraph is fine, but does need improving to avoid the current confusion; which is why I suggested in the conclusion below that it would be reasonable to work together on a rewrite, making sure to avoid any words that could be disputed or misinterpreted. It does feel now that the content dispute is progressing to a final conclusion, and I would higher advise that the points I have raised in my conclusion speech be taken into serious consideration. Wesley☀Mouse 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from calling my opinion poor. I will repeat again, whatever you studied does not matter here because it is seen as your interpretation. Maybe you can read once again that it has nothing to do with lexicography and it is a metaphore.

I would not say that Meowy agreed with you. I would say the source he brought confirms the dependence from the AAC.

Now I will tell that you clearly disregard assuming good faith. If my opinion, which is clearly sourced, differs from your opinion unsourced (you never sited any sources that show the opposite of mine) you tell me I didn't get what I wanted and this is why I disagree. Based on the latter, I consider you a participating party in this discussion and not neutral and your conclusion also as such. Aregakn (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't mean "poor" literally; slight typo error there. That line should have read "that may be a poor judgemental on your part" (meaning possible misconception). When I referred to "sister", "daughter" and "mother" they where metaphors, and in good faith, I thought you would have noticed that I was simplifying the complexity by using metaphors. I didn't want to sound pedantic by boldly pointing out they where metaphors. I haven't stated that this topic has anything to do with lexicography, and I cannot see how you think I have implied that. I mentioned lexicography, to example that I have an extensive knowledge of word definitions, and to show that I grasped with ease the two meanings of autocephalous.

You do say that this has nothing to do with a misconception of a word, right? If that is the case, then could you explain why reverted GJ's removal of content that was discussing "independence"? And furthermore, you kept stressing that "autocephalous means independence". That does show the dispute isn't over the entire paragraph, but just a specific word used within it. After a lengthy discussion and the 4 thesis posted; GJ agreed that the paragraph is fine, just that one reference to "autocephaly meaning independence" being incorrect. Just because Britannica uses the phrase "break away", doesn't necessarily mean they broke away to gain independence. We cannot interpret a "break" without knowing exactly what is meant by it. Who's to determine how far a "break" has to be for it to mean "independence"? The fact that we know the sources are referring "autocephalous" in respect to the church and not a person; and also from looking into the two definitions of that word, we can safely figure out "independence" isn't what the sources where trying to imply.

Also you implied that I am "making my own opinion" from unsourced material. That I do apologise for, as I thought I had included the sources, and that you may have missed them. But reviewing my thesis, it does appear those links were missed. So with that in mind, I rectify that problem by attaching them now. 1, 2, 3, 4, and definitions of "autocephalous". Wesley☀Mouse 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A compromising conclusion

It has been established that once certain paragraph, which reads: "According to Britannica Encyclopedia, Georgia remained under the influence of neighbouring Armenia (the Armenian Apostolic Church) and in the ecclesiastical sphere of the Apostolic See of Antioch. The Georgian Orthodox Church became autocephalous (independent), granted by the Eastern Roman emperor Zeno (474–491) with the consent of the patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller. In 466 when the Patriarchate of Antioch elevated the Bishop of Mtskheta to the rank of Catholicos of Kartli. Total independence from the Armenian Apostolic Church was reached in the 7th century, after which it joined the Eastern Orthodoxy and has become part of the wider Eastern Orthodox Church and was historically influenced by the church of the Byzantine Empire. In 1010, the Catholicos of Kartli was elevated to the honor of Patriarch. From then on, the premier hierarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church carried the official title of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia." is the disputed content of the article, and the reason this process has taken place. While the paragraph itself is perfectly reasonable and warrants an inclusion into the article; it should be noted that some of the wording can be misleading, and results in a misunderstanding of the concept of the actual events.

A suggestive compromise would be to review the wording, and change accordingly, to reflect the topic appropriately, but with less misunderstanding and misconception of the way events took place. Using the word "autocephalous" and then referring it as "independent" in brackets, appears to be the only misleading factor. If one was to mention the facts that GOC and AAC both shared the same "mother church" (Antioch) would reflect the true nature of events, and also to further detail the definition of autocephaly more correctly too would be a logical solution. On that note, both parties involved need to sit down (albeit in a cyberspace capacity) and work collaboratively on how the rewording needs to be paraphrased, to reflect things more accurately, rather than keeping a vague recollection of events based on what one source portrays. Use several sources if necessary, as that would further enhance the content, and allow readers the chance to read a simpler version of events (as portrayed by Britannica), or a more details account (as portrayed by a wide variety of other reliable sources). Wesley☀Mouse 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Would like to tell I am braking apart to be able to edit and participate here so please wait more before conclusions and do not hurry in the process as I do not have enough time to be here permanently. The discussions are not finished yet. Aregakn (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read above my comment about the phrases sister church, "mother", as you called it, church, autocephaly, independence and braking away. Aregakn (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See Aregakn, you're now demonstrating here as you have in other areas, that you are misconstruing context of others. Just because this section is headed as "a compromising conclusion" doesn't mean the dispute is by far finished. It is starting to appear that you may be getting confusion over words and their correct definitions depending on the context in which they are used. If comprehensive grammar is a struggle to grasp, then perhaps this debate isn't the way forward for yourself. I have remained, and still am impartial to this dispute. As I have pointed out several times, I have no knowledge in this topic, and have had to research into so much depth to gain a grasp of the entire topic. I wrote down my interpretations of what I have read above. Yourself, GJ, and Meowy also wrote thesis of what each of you thought the sources where trying to imply. Out of the 4 written interpretations, 3 of them are basically covering the same meanings; whereas your version seems to be getting tangled up by possible misunderstandings of lexicon definitions, and in which concept a word's definition would refer to. So in that respect, if 75% of the people who have provided information are all collaborating on the same meanings, and 25% aren't; then that majority would create a consensus. You asked for help on this matter; I have taken time out of a busy Olympic schedule to assist in this matter. Perhaps you seriously do need to think about compromising on this matter, so that everyone can get back to working together peacefully and collaboratively. Wesley☀Mouse 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One more absence of good faith from your side. You preferred to misunderstand a request to slow down fully different and bring up accusations against me. ALthough the other policy you conduct is putting positive banners on others' talkpages to make it seem different. Aregakn (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I insist you are partial and you make conclusions wrong about participating parties. You are not seen as neutral by me and your accusations of my English knowledge will not change that. I consider these attacks of yours as fully de-structive and will involve other parties for opinions on the matter. Aregakn (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Aregakn, you're doing it again. Why? I am sticking to good faith in all my responses; yet you are now making bad faith judgemental assumptions that I am being partial. I taken into account what everyone has said, and there is a clear majority on how things are being portrayed by editors, in comparison to the only counter-portrayal which is your version of understandings. Yes, I have pointed out areas that I see as users possibly misunderstanding context, and I am within my right to point out those areas, in case people are overseeing them unknowingly. There are no accusations made against you by anyone. Pointing out a fact that you may be misunderstanding things is perfectly reasonable and in good faith too. People are prone to misunderstanding words, and I fully understand if a person were to argue against it - its natural; as nobody likes to admit they are wrong. I posted civility barnstars to yourself, Meowy, and GJ; because at the time the 3 of you had acted in a civil manner, which rewarding that manner is another act of good faith. With the complexity of this debate, it could have easily turned into a battlefield; but thankfully it hasn't. Looking at the history of other disputes relating to this same paragraph #Please_stop.21, and #An_Oriental_Orthodox_church; several editors have also pointed out the same meanings as those that Meowy and GJ have mentioned. Yet each time, you appear to stomp your ground as if to gain your own way of how things should be portrayed. That my friend, isn't being constructive, nor is it compromising with others. We need to listen (well read really, as everything here is written) carefully, and try our best not to get words or meanings confused. Wesley☀Mouse 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could "delete" (strike-through) in the above text in this division, that you said "may". You now confirm here that I am right and you had not said it so. Maybe you consider apologising for attacking me here and here for giving evaluations to personal qualities, also for asking sarcastically if I know what lexicography is. Maybe you could also confess you did not pay attention when I said "..the phrase sister churches is used as a metaphor", although now you are telling that yourself here. Maybe you might also confess that you did not read my notes properly to notice I was asking for sources for several times but you noticed it only now; I was writing statements and explanations but from the responses received from you was asking myself afterwords if you have really read them.

And maybe it would also be better to ask Meowy about his/her opinion instead of claiming he/she agreed. I see no such agreement statement by her/him. What I see is him bringing another source that does speak of dependence and a schism of the Kartvelian Church from AAC in the 7th century. This is what I am sourcing too.

As for the 4 sources you bring up, Wesley, unfortunately they are either off-topic containing no information about our dispute or/and do not comply to a number of wiki criteria: IRS, SPS etc. If you disagree to this, I can go 1-by-1 and explain which is what. Aregakn (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reread what Meowy said not to confuse he agreed with your thesis: "So what we seem to have is a "Kartvelian Church" (not a "Georgian Church") operating within the sphere of the Armenian Church until the 609 schism, then the Kartvelian Church becomes completely separate from the Armenian Church, and becomes structurally independent though now firmly attached to Byzantine orthodoxy." Hope it is clear now.

Wesley, would you say "autonomous" means "independent" too? Aregakn (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute outcome

After some lengthy discussion, and latterly heated debates over what has been misinterpreted; I took the bold step in requesting an uninvolved member of the admin team to review this entire discussion; to make sure that nothing untoward had taken place. Their views are that everything appears to have run correctly, although they did raise concern over an editor making a "you're Armenian/you're Georgian" remark. However, as that remark never resurfaced again, then they were satisfied in the way proceeding have been carried out. They noted that as 4 editors mutually agreed to write their own interpretations of what the Britannica sources published; and out of those four, 3 of them resembled each other very closely; then a majority consensus has been reached. Despite the disagreement of the fourth remaining participant, a majority consensus would stand; and that a carefully re-written paragraph bearing close (but not exactly word for word copied) to the 3 written thesis, would need to be boldly implemented to the article. So on that basis, if any editor is willing to re-write the disputed paragraph, then by all means, they are free to do so. Wesley☀Mouse 00:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that there is one indisputable fact that the above discussion has shown - we need more sources. Wes was incorrect in characterising my comments as a "thesis" - all I was doing was stating what an alternative source was saying, a source which is a more detailed and specialist work than the general encyclopaedias. And I was also pointing out that the source (Rapp's article) can't be totally trusted because it was rewritten without the author's consent. I think the gaps in the story Rapp tells might be a result of the unauthorised rewrite. Until we find credible sources that talk in detail about the history of Christianity in Georgia, this discussion is not going to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Meowy 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I can wholeheartedly agree with Meowy on the indisputable fact of needing more sources. As it has already proven, one source alone isn't given much insight into the topic. And a few other sources appear to be contradicting details from the Britannica source which is currently being used. The word thesis though, could be a little deep; as a thesis is a written piece of work to gain a diploma in a subject. Perhaps the correct choice of word would be essay or comments. Although, the invite was for an editor to write down in their own words, how they interpreted the sources; so essay/thesis/dissertation/comments would easily describe that action. Rapp's article does indeed cover the information in more depth, and one worth considering when rewording the paragraph. My only concern is this minor quarrel over "independence". While some say it happened, and some argue that fact - leaves thing in a foggy confusion. Britannica uses the phrase "break away", which to some would imply a form of independence. But like one editor informed myself, how far of a break away does it take for that phrase to be conceived as an act of independence? The only way that may be determine is by looking at the definitions of words, and deciding in which context the definition is suppose to be referring to. Its like I pointed out several times; autocephalous can mean "an act of independence by a bishop" if it is in relation to a person; or "a church which is governed by its own national synods" if it is in relation to a building. From what the article is in regards to, and also what the sources are referring to, it does imply that everything is about a building and not a person, so in that theory a misinterpretation of one word does look like a possible source of confusion. Would it be worth copying the contexts from all the sources onto your own word/notepad documents; and then restructure it accordingly to avoid copyvio issues? That itself may provide a clearer picture of how events panned out on this topic. Wesley☀Mouse 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wesley, how long should we wait that you will remove the wording "independence from Armenia" from the infobox? The consensus is not reached and why is such kind of wording still into the infobox? It should be removed from the infobox immediately as it does not reflect the rightful fact and is completely wrong in its sense. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be removed yet until a consensus has been reached. Any attempts to remove it may be classified as "disruptive editing" and could face a block. Please be patient, as dispute cases can take as long as they need, there is not deadline in how things should be complete. Wesley☀Mouse 10:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but removing needs consensus and putting this rather untrue statement of "independence from X" doesn't need consensus? Where is neutrality in this way? Removing needs consensus, and putting this kind of statements into infobox doesn't need any consensus? It doesn't make any sense. Remove it from the infobox, get the infobox neutral and then we can discuss put it in or not and in what kind of meaning. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As the policy set out under WP:PREFER the version currently in use must remain until a resolution has been reached as to how a revised wording should resemble. This is your last warning, do not be removing the content until this dispute has been resolved. Wesley☀Mouse 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, last warning? Do you see me edit warring here? I am asking you again when will this case be resolved? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're asking a question that is impossible for anyone to answer. Its like asking "How long is a piece of string? - It is can be as long as the person wishes it to be". So to ask how long until this case is resolved - is impossible to determine. There are no time limits on Wikipedia, perhaps familiarising yourself with the policies at WP:NORUSH will help you determine how long something may or may not last. Wesley☀Mouse 10:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear GeorgianJorjadze, are you now referring to the infobox on the right-hand side of the article, and particular the line that reads "independence"? If so, that line can't be purely changed on the article itself, as it is a pre-coded template, which can be found at Template:Infobox Orthodox Church. Altering it would disrupt the entire template. You may wish to read the guidance at template messageboard, or raise your concerns and a review of the template at templates for discussion or at the technical village pump where someone will be able to assist you. Wesley☀Mouse 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? All this time I was opposing that wording in the infobox which says as if GOC got its independence from Armenia. What do you mean you can't remove it? The wording is absurd as GOC never was part of Armenia or its church and such kind of wording should be into the infobox? This is ridiculous. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there are third-party secondary sources supporting Britannica's claim. You know secondary sources are always preferable over the tertiary sources. Without any doubt, the Georgian and Armenian churches had been in full communion prior to 607/9 and the Armenian catholicos was considered to be primus inter pares at some point in the Christian Caucasus, but the exact hierarchical relationship between the two churches have never been clarified and is a subject of dispute. I'll bring more sources as time permits.--Kober^Talk 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And I was wondering where you have been all this time, Kober, having left the same discussion with no answers to the questions and comment directed to you 3 years ago. Regardless that, welcome back. Aregakn (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I you can check my contribs if you are that interested where I have been all this time. Forgive me, a Nazi, for having abandoned you for three years.--Kober^Talk 15:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me GeorgianJorjadze, but in your original concern which initiated this dispute, you was referring to the reference of "independence" in paragraph of the article Georgian Orthodox Church#Christianity in ancient and feudal Georgia. When I was under the impression about that paragraph, then yes I agreed that the term "independence" should be reviewed. However, you only a few moments ago now stated it is in fact the infobox on the right-hand side of the article that you are disputing the reference to "independence". If you stipulated this at the start, then my response back then would be as it was a few minutes ago. Infoboxes cannot have parameters changed just because one editor disagrees with it. If any editor was to attempt to remove a parameter, then an automated bot would only come along and correct the missing parameter. If you feel that word is incorrectly used, then you should really go through the official process all of which I have mentioned above as being template messageboard; templates for discussion or technical village pump. English Wikipedia have these policies in force for a reason. If you are finding it difficult to appreciate or understand them, then perhaps editing on Georgian Wikipedia would be more beneficial - and probably with less chances of edit wars and content disputes from occurring too. Each language version of Wikipedia have different guidelines; Georgia-Wiki may be more relaxed with policies then English-Wiki. Wesley☀Mouse 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)