Talk:Khachkar/Endangered khachkars Archive

message: this POV page does not include the important article from a leading Armenian HETQ magazine -  about Armenians' destroying their own khachkars and cultural heritage -- and since the Hetq story compares this to khachkar (cross-stones or head-stones, common to Armenians and Caucasian Albanians of the region) destruction in Naxcivan, it was relevant. 
What is interesting, there are more admissions of khachkars being destroyed by Armenians themselves, especially around their capital of Yerevan -- for example, at this specialized khachkar website - 
"Endangered Khachkars in Armenia and Artsakh 
It is particularly tragic that khachkars are also endangered in Armenia and Artsakh. They are disappearing, being damaged or moved. 
Most endangered are the old khachkar fields located near today’s graveyards, where khachkars are being eradicated for the creation of new burial space. The “crown of thorns” belongs to the khachkar field in Arinch near Yerevan. The situation is threatening in Noratus as well, where new burials are encroaching upon the khachkar field from at least three sides. The old graveyard of Areni is in almost the same situation.
The movement of khachkars voluntarily by different individuals is a widespread practice. In some cases this is done to allegedly create a new holy place, for example, the case of Karmir Dalakner of Gegharquniq region where the khachkar was brought from Karvachar. Another case of moved khachkars is due to the decoration of new offices and especially entertainment establishments, as for example in the Vank village in Karabakh. The third and the most condemning practice is when khachkars are merely disappearing to decorate individual yards and houses.
Khachkars are being damaged also by believers, worshipers and casual visitors, who light candles on them or write their names on them or engage in rituals that are damaging the carvings." See gallery of photos here - 
Moreover, the destruction of cultural heritage (or Cultural Genocide, as some Armenians dubbed it) in Armenia, like elsewhere, has reached dangerous proportions and led to many protests both in press and in streets -- 
, , , and 
Hence, if the Armenian and pro-Armenian view on destruction of khachkars by allegedly Azerbaijanis and allegedly in Naxcivan is to be included, then a contrarian view should be included too -- not just Azerbaijan's denial of wrongdoing by the government, but Armenians' own admission of breaking, destroying and otherwise mishandling their own khachkars on their own territory.
:Do you have any third party sources? I even added one yet you haven't showed us one, plus this article is focusing on Naxicvan. Artaxiad 09:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adil its funny that you find Hetq reliable source only when it matches with your views, but if it something else in the article that is against your views you decide not to add it or mention it. ROOB323 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop adding nonsense Adil, or Wikify it you dont bold sentences like that, you obviously are pushing POV. Artaxiad 09:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A blog is not reliable, all those you added will be removed since its obvious POV you have yet to give us reliable or third party sources. Artaxiad 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Adil I thought you voted this article for deletion, but now all of a sudden you started pushing your POW in this article. ROOB323 09:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support. The present title is too vague and POV.  Because of this, some users are attempting to use a liberal interpretation of it to their advantage and to change the nature of this article by marginalizing the main point.  The new title specifically addresses the issue at hand. -- Aivazovsky 13:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support. The present title is too vague and POV.  Because of this, some users are attempting to use a liberal interpretation of it to their advantage and to change the nature of this article by marginalizing the main point.  The new title specifically addresses the issue at hand. -- Aivazovsky 13:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: I've renominated this article for deletion.  It's just become a big mess. -- Aivazovsky 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for just admitting again your bad faith. Fad (ix) 14:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain me what in my message assume bad faith - or my proposal which indeed aims at relaxation and mutual cooperation--Dacy69 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That you don't even see it is worst. Fad (ix) 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me. You just continue your harrassment--Dacy69 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That you can't see the obvious say it all. Ask Penwhale. Fad (ix) 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what Aivazovsky does is nothing but WP:GAME. Grandmaster 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no gaming here, you were the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place, it is his first time nominating it, I agree with the deletion, when this goes worldwide anytime soon than we can add it back when its popular not anytime soon the coverage is enough my mistake for creating it. Artaxiad 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for deletion again

message: I'm considering taking this article to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Before this article's second AfD closed, I made a second proposal: to have this deleted on the condition that an article specifically on this topic will not be created again.  Hopefully this will be acceptable to all parties involved. As I said on the AfD, this article is becoming a major headache (and I'm sure there are others, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis who agree with me on this). -- Aivazovsky 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the second AfD was also "keep", so we need to restore the artcile until consensus is reached. Looks like no one supported our idea. Grandmaster 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not move the article. We have 2 AfD's with the result of "keep". Grandmaster 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last result was no consensus. That does't mean that the article shouldn't be improved. In its current state the article covers a notable event and is encyclopedic.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Deletion review

message: It's clear that some users like to get rid of the evidence of Khachkar Destruction in Armenia, after several reverts, forwards, attempts to delete the article, final attempt by Eupator to forward again to Khachkar Destruction in Nakhchivan, shows clear intention to isolate the issue and attack Azerbaijan only. Thus deletion of the article showing destruction by both sides is not acceptable. Atabek 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only about a particular notable event. The destruction of khackars in Nakhichevan. Any and all other attempts of introducing irrelevant information in the article to promote a particular pov is a clear disruption initiated by user Adil Baguirov and enforced by Atabek and Grandmaster as a group.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But how do you know that it is about Nakhichevan and not any other area? Grandmaster 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a serious question? According to just Wikipedia:Notability alone that pov fork section which Baguirov, Atabek and you have introduced should be promptly removed and the article renamed.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How about the evidence? Why is proven evidence of Khachkar destruction in Armenia POV, while alleged in Nakhchivan not POV? Neither Adil, nor me or GM started this article, it was started by Artaxiad under this name Khachkar Destruction, it passed 2 AfDs under this name, so it shall remain as is. Atabek 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest assured it will not. One event is notable and encyclopedic. The other one isn't even an event, notable or encyclopedic, just a pov fork (a poor one at that). End of story.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversial video of unknown people is unsubstantiated political accusation, which is supposed to be encyclopedic, and published article is not? :) Nope, the tag shall go, the section quotes a realiable source. Atabek 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking to yourself? Why are you smiling? Euro parliament's acknowledgment and international media coverage make it notable and encylopedic. One single article based on original research is not. Any other questions?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid personals and assume good faith, you have been warned. Europarliament acknowledges the destruction of monuments in the zone of Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, which is Karabakh. And by the way, what do you call POV? Isn't PanArmenian.net and Armenian MFA, as well as leading ANCA-groomed Congressmen Frank Pallone and Joe Knollenberg a POV? The first one even called Azeri president as "Soviet Arab politician" :), which means he has no idea where Azerbaijan is on the map. Atabek 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're talking about, keep your idle warnings to yourself. Euro parliament does no such thing. It condemns a specific event. Your addition of the HETQ articles irrelevant and offtopic content is pov, not the article itself.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Europarliament only mentions allegations of destruction based on videotape by Armenian side, which does not prove it was made on the territory of Azerbaijan. There is no charge but only call for both sides to engage in negotations and preserve cultural heritage. If we want to raise that issue, let's then talk about pig  and cow storages made inside mosques in Shusha and Agdam, destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Shusha by the Armenian forces. Addition of HETQ article is very relevant, because it mentions specifically Khachar destruction in Armenia, and goes well inline with balanced approach of Europarliament to appeal to both sides to protect the heritage. Atabek 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My response to the above will only be a redundancy. I've made my case.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your case is rejected from being a compromise, you can't claim one source as right the other as POV fork, just because it does not fit your POV. Atabek 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't asking for your approval. Your response shows that you still don't get it. I never said any source is pov, the addition by all three of you of that is pov!-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was wondering when the ringmaster will show up.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Onnik Krikorian is the editor of HETQ :rolleyes-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They work together, A is the source of B. Talk about insinuating...-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Working together" and allegedly being an "editor of HETQ" -- are two big differences, as they would say in Odessa. Perhaps if you don't roll eyes (like you publicly did above) and keep them steady, you won't misrepresent the facts. --adil 19:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant. The point is that it's still not notable even if the second source was independent; thus, you need to find some other way to misrepresent the issue at hand. Btw, did Edik slaughter anyone you know? I figured since you mentioned it you must know something we don't.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added back the evidence of Khachkar Destruction in Armenia

message: As closing administrator for the second AfD, I have been perplexed for some time about what to do with this article. I am nevertheless obliged to make a decision. For background to my decision, please see: the first AfD, the second AfD, Grandmaster's talk page, Aivazovsky's talk page, Dacy69's talk page, Administrator Noticeboard, and my talk page. (If these links turn red due to archiving, please update them). I have held other discussions as well via email. My findings are as follows:
* Three of the editors who are principally involved in this page would like the page deleted or redirected.
* However, I cannot in good conscience delete an article that has been given two runs at AfD in the last month and has survived both, with 'keep' votes coming from several third parties. It is not speediable and the AfD debate has returned no consensus for deletion.
* Accordingly, I resolve that this article should be kept in its current form. Editors may continue to edit, but please do not delete it, redirect it, or edit it such that it changes character from its present form.
I appreciate that this decision is not going to please anybody, but any decision that I make has to take every view into account and will not please everybody. As an administrator I feel a need to provide some finality to this, and I've tried my best to collate the opinions of editors and administrators. 
I'm removing this page's protection. Please don't redirect the article or nominate it for deletion until 1 June 2007. - Richard Cavell 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, I will abide by your decision. Grandmaster 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. I agree not to touch this article until June but there is no way on earth it's going to stay with its current title and content. Just because the creator made a mistake when creating the article and the last afd was deadlocked as a reuslt of careful and direct manipulations doesn't mean we have to settle for red herring and mediocrity.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Aivazovsky 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone can not accept notability to justify inclusion, and still refuse to adhere to it, maybe Wikipedia does not fit for him. Fad (ix) 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Richard's solution. The article editing is not an ownership of a single editor or a group of editors. Wikipedia is an open environment for everyone to edit at any time. So no creator of article or group of its main contributors can proclaim that it should be forwarded or reversed because "it's their turf" and only they think so. There is no third party here. Atabek 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: Hey, can we use allegedly any more in this article? I'm sure with 500,000 words in the English language, there is not another synonym for the word... Chris 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "allegedly"

message: It was an exact copy of khackar.am article. Vartanm 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vartan you removed the whole section of text again with misleading comment, you're engaging again in an edit war . Atabek 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atabek I'm not edit warring, I simply removed copyrighted text which is against wikipedia rules. Vartanm 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can include info with reference to a source, which is done. Grandmaster 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted text removed