Talk:Khachkar

message: The former seems to be unjustifiable. The vast majority of literature in English that uses the Armenian word, rather than just the phrase "cross stone", spell it as "khatchkar". I suggest that the title for this page be changed to "khatchkar" Meowy 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search indicates that "Khachkar" is the more used of the two; of course that does not mean it is correct.  I have mentioned both in the lead sentence, and asked our linguistics specialists to come and take a look using the  tag. John Vandenberg 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the IPA pronunciation to the article. With regards to the spelling, I'm no expert in Armenian, but it does look as though both spellings are probably acceptable. These variations often occur in foreign words from languages with alternative alphabets when transcribed across to the Latin alphabet, in this case "khachkar" is a letter to letter transcription, but "khatchkar" gives a more accurate representation as to how it would be pronounced as a word in English. Phonetically, having a "t"  before a "ch" makes no difference in this case, as the "ch" sound is an affricate composed of two consonant sounds, /t/ and /ʃ/ ("sh"), but spelling the word with "tch" in English removes any uncertainty about whether the "ch" should be pronounced as /ʃ/ (like in "creche"). For naming the article, the most common spelling should be used. Hope this makes sense, - Zeibura Talk 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I added it back to the article Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khachkar or Khatchkar? 

message: The article says "Reports (see RFE/RL)" ; can anyone point out what "RFE/RL" is that I am meant to see ? John Vandenberg 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports (see RFE/RL) 

message: There is an ananymous editor who has been making persistant edits to insert the following text in the Amenaprkich section of the entry.
These Khachkars provide inscriptions which often contain important historical information. This tradition went all the way back to the Armenian masters who made cuneiform inscriptions in the Kingdoms of Armani, Mitanni and Aratta in the third and second millennia BC.Gevork Nazaryan — Symbol of Armenian immortal strength and devotion.
Amenaprkich khatchkars do not contain any more epigraphical content than normal khatchkars, and to suggest that there is a timeline connection between khatchkars depicting the Crucifiction and cuneiform inscriptions on Uruartian and similar stele is just laughable. Meowy 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the connection there to Amenaprkich-type khatchkars? Meowy 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeh, I'm sure that cultures from 1000BC and earlier were carving stones with depictions of Christ on them!Meowy 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits By an Anonymous Editor 

message: I just want to note that the destruction section, and the heavy emphasis of destruction in Armenia both within that section and in the article as a whole seems completely wrong to me.  The only source is this "Khachkar.am" website which cites no sources at all.  I have never heard of these problems and though I can believe that the occasional khachkar is moved - this description of widespread movement of them in such a superstitious country seems quite unlikely, and to suggest that khachkars which are being removed are then destroyed is almost laughable.  Then the claim that Noratus is being "encroached on three sides" suggests that something bad is happening there already, which it is not.  Again.  No proof that I can make out, certainly no notable khachkars affected, and the large emphasis on this in an article which needs a lot more info on the khachkar itself I think needs to change. --RaffiKojian 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't understand how two paragraphs are given for one article which was severly criticised, while the destruction in Nakhichevan get away with one. Can someone explain why this is so? Anatolmethanol 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction 

message: http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_xa%C3%A7_da%C5%9Flar%C4%B1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reminding us that the Azeri Wikipedia is a propaganda website, full of lies. It used to be said that a country gets the leaders it deserves, maybe we should update that to "a country gets the Wikipedia it deserves". Meowy 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disturbing is that it has been deemed "featured article" material. TA-ME (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Farida Mammadova, M.D.Axundov ..... ))) Кроме азербайджанских сказок у вас есть хотя бы 1 неазербайджанский АИ, который назвал бы хачкары "албанскими" ?) Это просто наивно и глупо с вашей стороны.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alban xaç daşları

message: The az interwiki is obviously wrong: the az page does not have it. Sardur (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Word Albania means Caucasian Albania, which was an ancient country that existed between 4th century B.C. and 8th century A.D. on the territory of present-day Azerbaijan. That's why, in Azerbaijan this objects known as Albanian cross stones. This is a fact, that in Azerbaijan Khachkars identifying as "Alban xaç daşları", so interwiki must be here without fail, whether users from Armenia agree to this or not. So, please stop removing interwiki, it will not affect on the real state of the case. Wertuose (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Please, write in English, not in Russian. Admins don't understand your opinions. Wertuose (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, none of interwiki removers want express their opinions about this term. Only User:Taron Saharyan, which speaks only russian says that it's a falsification of history, that in Azerbaijan khachkars named "Albanian cross stones". Then let's blame England for naming mount Chomolungma as Everest, or Crimean war as Russian war. I think users from Armenia have not a logical explanation of that, why are they against this interwiki. That's why it must be replaced. Wertuose (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And what do you want to show explaining me the translation of word khachkar? I can also say that "xaç" (khach) in azerbaijani and "haç" (hach) in turkish also means cross. "Daş" (dash) in azerbaijani and "taş" (tash) in turkish means stone. Therewith you cannot demand from Azerbaijanians to use armenian word to identify anything. As I said above this is a fact, that in Azerbaijan Khachkars identifying as "Alban xaç daşları", so interwiki must be here without fail. And your explanatory thoughts are not even near the point in debate. So I think it shows that my words about "logical explanation of the reason" come true. Wertuose (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go read an actual history book. There were no Christian Turks, nor Azerbaijanis for that matter, living in Armenia during the High Middle Ages. Azeris were never Christians to begin with, and their ethnic lineage to Caucasian Albanians is dubious at best, and just disingenuously fraudulent at worst. There are no respectable Western scholars, or even any non-Azeris, who support such an etymological connection. Sirarpie Der-Nersessian, one of the most eminent art historians, clearly says that the word "khachk'ar" is derived from Armenian in her Armenian Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978, p. 192. A mere Google search is more than enough to prove this. If this doesn't cut it for you, then I doubt anything will. This is as far you're going to get by continuing this absurd game of historical fabrication. Attempts to install the Azeri interwiki will be reverted, and I'll consult the admins to deal with the situation in case you decide to resume your disruptive activity. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW, disruptive activity? :D. You want to explain me that azerbaijanians are bad and armenians are the best? I think we must discuss the interwiki problem, but not historical problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia. But if you want it so much, you can participate in historical and philological symposiums and give your view there. Please don't digress from the subject and stop threatening me, hereby you violate rules. Wertuose (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Wertuose, if you are so right, can you explain us why the en interwiki (for instance) is not present on the az page? Even WP:az recognises that it can't be the same thing. Sardur (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It not a problem to add interwikis there. From for article is on the main page of Azerbaijani Wiki it was blocked by administrators. Therefore participants cannot add interwiki. And as in an English Wiki there is no interwiki to Azerbaijani one also bots cannot do it. I will add interwikis to Azerbaijani wiki as soon as it possible, maybe tomorrow. Wertuose (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interwikis added to the article in Azerbaijani wikipedia. Have you any other arguments? Wertuose (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Decline for now; edit requests should be complete, specific and uncontroversial.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You wish to impose your opinion to the whole people? I have advised to you to participate in historical symposiums and give your view there, but not here. Actual position of question such that your arguments will change nothing. And in the Azerbaijan Wikipedia nobody will rename article. This is our history and nobody has the rights to specify us something in it to correct to please to armenians. Wertuose (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Simple question: is :az:Alban xaç daşları article on the same topic as this?  Period.  I really don't want to see any other disputes about the content of this article.  It either is the same topic or it's not.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have in view of the maintenance or wish to learn it about same or not? --Wertuose (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If the second one then yes, articles :az:Alban xaç daşları and Khachkar are about the same. In Azerbaijan khachkars named "Alban xaç daşları" (Albanian cross stones). Wertuose (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not: it's a propaganda concept, while khachkars are physical objects. A bit like freedom fries and French fries, if you prefer. Sardur (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to argue about that, argue about that in another section.  Is this the same article or not?  I see it's linked at :simple:Khachkar, :de:Chatschkar, :bg:Хачкар, :fa:چلیپاسنگ, etc. so unless I see a very reason, I'm adding it and if I see more nonsense around here, I may start issuing sanctions according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it: it is not, and I gave you the very reason. Why they did not react on those wp, no idea, but you won't see the az interwiki on :fr:Khatchkar for instance. Sardur (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm it, the azeri inetwiki is not the same Khatchkar as the english or other languages. Azeri page is a propaganda and try to impose us that the khatchkars are not part of armenian history. It's false and that's why it's the opposite of this article. Propaganda should not be tolerated on WP. Jaloyan (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, Ricky81682, if you don't understand my answer, and with all the respect I have for someone I don't know, you should probably not act by yourself. Refer to admin Dbachmann, I'm sure he will like it. Sardur (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone says that article in Azerbaijan wiki is propagation. Propagation of what? If it is propagation that it should excite Azerbaijanians, instead of you. Irrespective of interwiki will be or not, article will exist there. So against what you act? Against interwiki, or propagation? You as I already said put forward the illogical claim. Demand to prove that these objects except Azerbaijanians still someone names so. And what for? Anybody does not demand from Englishmen to present sources where is specified that they have the right to name La Manche English channel. This right of these people. Anybody after all does not consider it as falsification. As also we have the right to name things that name which to us it would be desirable to name. Or at you in Armenia so it is not accepted? What do you want guys? Whom you have imagine yourselves? Wertuose (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The article on the AZ wiki needs to be renamed to "Armenian khachkar" (or at the least, "khachkar").  There is no such thing as an Albanian Khachkar.  Not a single one exists.  Not one!  The reason that the Azeri wiki calls it "Albanian" is that in Azerbaijan, the government denies the history of Armenians on their territory and claims that every Christian artifact is Albanian (a civilization that existed only for a few centuries and was already extinct by the 9th century). And now, there is no recorded evidence of a single Albanian khachkar.  What remains throughout the Armenian Highland and inside Azerbaijan are khachkars inscribed in the Armenian alphabet (and those in Azerbaijan the Azeri government systematically has been destroying, the most appalling case being the Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan). Serouj (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go to that wiki and argue about it.  We don't control the titles of other wikis.  Otherwise, do you have an actual point about this article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that this article (in EN wiki) and the article in AZ refer to two different ideas: one is real (khachkar) and the other is fictional (Albanian khachdashi). Hence, the two entities, not being equals, should not be interlinked. Serouj (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said before, just you claiming it's a propaganda concept without much explanation isn't impressing me.  Again, more than a few other languages consider it the same.  Either I'm supposed to believe there's some grand misconception among a half dozen separate language wikipedias about this issue or you're the one with the problem with an article where the only thing you've done seems to be is fight over whether we should acknowledge that wikipedia at all (since you haven't been offering an alternative link, just outright deletion of that one).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, it seems like I've mixed up a bit of the conversation.  Ok, if there is truly a difference, provide reliable sources describing this difference (or sources that contrast these two) and then let's discuss it.  A lot of hand-waving that it's a fraud, it's propaganda isn't appropriate.  It's not like this is so greatly sourced anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe a rfc is in order, given that administrators, singly, rarely change their opinions, and Ricky81682 seems so strongly set in his opinions that he has broken the normal rules of page protection to reinsert the offending interwiki link. Meowy 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Az interwiki link 

message: The article appears locked and uneditable. Any explanations? If any sysop has done this indefinately he or she may be de-sysopped. -maxrspct ping me  15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who locked the article without banner/boilerplate?

message: There appears to be some confusion about which guidelines and policies apply, and as that's something that I know more about than average, I'd like to share what I know:
* The WP:External links guideline does not apply.  Specifically, WP:ELPOINTS says, "This guideline does not apply to links to non-English Wikipedia articles" -- i.e., the type of link in question.  Consequently, interlanguage links are not "just like any external links".
* The WP:Wikimedia sister projects policy does apply.  WP:SISTER#When to link says, "Wikipedia encourages... interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible."  Consequently, there is "something sacrosanct about them".
* Help:Interwiki linking is irrelevant.  It is not a policy or a guideline; its purpose is to tell you how to link, not whether such a link is appropriate or wise.  Any statement it makes that contradicts a policy is void.  Furthermore, despite the differences, the disputed link would very likely be considered the "corresponding page," because the nominal subjects match, even though what is said about the subject is quite different.  To give an analogy, if it had existed then, Wikipedia would have linked to Soviet Russia's version of Soviet war in Afghanistan during that war, and to Communist China's version of Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) during the 1950s, even though the content likely would have been just as different as these two articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What a splendid idea! I have several sources documenting such falsification and so if you, or the person who unceremoniously locked this article, can unlock it, we can immediately begin writing that section. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Splendid indeed! Yet for some to comprehend the basics. The Azeri article title is not the same, it's not even limited to Khachkars. I can understand you can not read Azeri, but there is no excuse at not checking the pictures in the Azeri article. Whatever or not there are Albanian Khachkars is not the issue, the Azeri language article is about cross-stones see the list of pictures. Khachkars are only one type of cross-stones and the Azeri article is on cross stones in general which it identify as Caucasian Albanian. It's like having a similar link in English Wikipedia in the article about Ford cars which send you to a German article titled German Cars, which title not only does not fit, but also that the article claims Ford to be German not limiting itself to discuss about Ford cars (pretended to be German) but other cars too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks. To enlighten myself and others, perhaps the definition of Khachkar could be a little more definitive? "The most common feature is a cross, rarely with a crucifix, with a rosette or sun disc below it. The remainder is usually filled with patterns of leaves, grapes or abstract knotwork patterns. Occasionally it is surmounted by a cornice with biblical or saints' characters." It's not even certain from this (though it is from the lede) that a khachkar has to have a cross on it, and looking at the Azeri language article the pictures seemed - to my un-informed eye - to be able to pass as khachkars. Anyway, apologies for my ignorance. Accepting that the Azeri-language article covers cross stones that aren't khachkars, I'd still suggest that the link should stay. The revisionist claims are probably notable in their own right. I look forward to reading about them when in due course I revisit this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, he's just messing with you. There is no evidence of Caucasian Albanian (CA) "cross stones" (the word itself is derived from Armenian); for that matter, asides from one or two manuscripts, no evidence of Caucasian Albanian literature has survived to our day (including inscriptions). Those images on the Azeri interwiki are Armenian khachkars - you can tell because the alphabet is in Armenian! The khachkars were never a part of CA culture and the oldest surviving khachkar - from the ninth century - dates to a time when CA itself had disappeared as an ethnic entity, wholly subsumed into the Armenian milieu.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Khachkar means cross stone in Armenian and used to mean specific types of crosstones. BTW, anyone acquainted to Eastern Church architecture will take it for granted that those stones are Armenian, both from the handwork technic, style but also the Armenian inscriptions on them. See for instance the one on Gandzasar built in the 13th century, claimed to be Albanian by some deluded Turko-Tatar ultranationilists Azeris in the Azeri article. The last quarter of the stone contains an Armenian text explaining who's stone it is. Regarding Albanian Cross Stones, i'd like to see that, the only picture from the Azeri article I could see which is not Armenian is Georgian. Also, you do not address the analogy I made about Ford cars, would that be acceptable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always annoying to find nationalists claiming territory and moral high ground by rewriting history. Dealing with that on Wikipedia is difficult. In the present case I'd think of finding secondary sources for the claims and for their inaccuracy. I'd then describe those claims, and refer to the evidence, in the article. I might also try to find someone who can write Azeri and can correct that Wikipedia article and write another more correctly titled. But, until there is an Azeri-language article with a better title, I'd still keep the present link. For what my opinion may be worth, that's my comment. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: XrAi's analogy is actually correct, though maybe "Ford cars" and "Flying cars" would be better, since both "Flying cars" and "Albanian cross-stones" do not exist as real objects! "Khachkar" may be Armenian for "cross stone", but this article is not about all "stones with crosses carved on them", it is about khatchkars - a specific and recognised type of monument and art form. I can't offhand remember the grammatical term that describes a faulty phrases like "Armenian khachkars" - basically it is a phrase that contains two words that mean the same thing and so one of them is not needed: there are no non-Armenian khachkars. Meowy 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant rules

message: *http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%92%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%AE%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%95%E1%83%90:%E1%83%AE%E1%83%90%E1%83%A9%E1%83%99%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%98
--85.100.42.44 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borjgali 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Khachkar in Etchmiadzin Cathedral.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Can someone explain please what is meant by "have become the possession" in following sentence?
"A large portion of khachkars, which were created in historic Armenia and surrounding regions, in modern times have become the possession of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and partly Georgia and Iran."
It is a not unambiguous explanation. There are only historic Georgian areas possessed in modern times by Armenia and not vice versa. Yes, there are many Armenian Khachkars in Georgia but they were made on Georgian soil by Armenians. Thus they couldn't "become" possession of Georgia because they were from then on the possession of Georgia. The term "possession" is used incorrect with regard to Georgia.--Serafita (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered khachkars