Talk:Khachkar/Endangered khachkars Archive

Requested move
Khachkar destruction → Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan — 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)

Survey

 * 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

 * 1) 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)

Discussion
I think the article should remain at present title and cover destruction of khachkars irrespective of location. Grandmaster 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the AfD page on this for my response. -- Aivazovsky 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Grandmaster 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Better if we just delete it since its going to be full POV. Artaxiad 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move the page. The result of vote was to keep at present title. And restore all the info deleted by Aivazovsky without consensus. Do not delete anything without discussion. Grandmaster 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I say that we should vote on a new title. -- Aivazovsky 09:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have already voted. Grandmaster 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We voted on whether or not this article should have been deleted, not if it should have been renamed. -- Aivazovsky 10:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We voted to keep the article with this name. Grandmaster 10:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the votes. I don't think that anybody who voted "keep" voted on the condition that it is never renamed.  In fact, on my "keep" vote, I suggested renaming this article. -- Aivazovsky 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of source info
Aivazovsky and Artaxiad, discuss any of your proposed changes on the Talk page, before trying to make updates to the article without agreement here. You have removed sourced information on destruction of khachkars in Armenia. Atabek 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to engage in pointless revert wars, so I will discuss any further changes I make to the article here before I make them.
 * My reasoning for deleting the section on the "destruction of khachkars in Armenia" is because this article was never created with the intent of focusing on the neglect of Armenian monuments by the Armenian government. Politics, greed, and bureaucracy is one thing.  The deliberate destruction of monuments to erase the very idea that an ethnic or religious group ever existed is completely different. By definition, it's cultural genocide.  Like it or not, this is what Azerbaijan has done in Nakhichevan.
 * In fact, the only reason why the "destruction of khachkars in Armenia" section was added was at the encouragement of none other than User:AdilBaguirov. By suggesting the inclusion of this section, Mr. Baguirov hoped to marginalize the truth about the status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan. -- Aivazovsky 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But why do you think that this article should be only about Nakhichevan and not anything else? Nakhichevan issue has been extensively covered in many articles, no need for another one. This article could cover a wider topic, it could be more appropriately named something like "Status of cultural heritage in South Caucasus". Grandmaster 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe that might work (if we were to cover the South Caucasus as a whole), but I'm not sure. We can also focus on just Armenian monuments in general.  I don't know.  Right now I put this article up for a RfM with a support/oppose survey to see where everybody's at.
 * Like I said in the AfD, I think that the creation of this article was irresponsible in light of the Armenian-Azeri RfA mediation, but by the time I voted, "keep" was already gaining a clear majority. I think that the Azerbaijani users were the cause for why the article ended up staying.  Especially with the rhetoric of Adil and Atabek, they made other users question the choice of "delete," thus allowing "keep" to succeed.  I'll admit, I even changed my vote from "delete" to "keep" after Atabek attacked it as "yet another redunant piece of false Armenian propaganda".  For the record, the destruction of the khachkar of Julfa is not propaganda, but a solid fact.  I have even talked with Azeris from Nakhichevan who said that they witnessed the government doing this - in fact their testimony is much like that of the Kurdish-Turkish testimony to Turkish government policies against Armenian monuments from the 1980s and 1990s.  -- Aivazovsky 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Azerbaijani users are to blame for everything that went wrong here. In fact, I said when nominated that this article was a POV fork, created by User:Artaxiad, who actually created other controversial articles too. And while Azerbaijani users voted to delete this, certain people voted to keep only because we voted the opposite. Voting on talk has no binding force, so we need to reach a consensus anyway. Grandmaster 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what do you suggest we do? -- Aivazovsky 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you guys did not support deletion of this article, we need to work on it. I think we can change it into article about situation with protection of cultural heritage in the Caucasus. Grandmaster 06:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe it would be best if we just re-nominate this article for deletion. -- Aivazovsky 13:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We might even be able to specifically appeal to an admin to delete this seeing as Artaxiad who created this article even said "Better if we just delete it since its going to be full POV". -- Aivazovsky 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times you can nominate the same article for deletion? I nominated this one, deletion did not get a consensus, so we need to work on it. Grandmaster 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did nominate it again, I will support its deletion. Fad (ix) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To MarshallBargramyan: Please do not remove any sourced information without providing an explanation on the talk page. The title covers the topic of khackar destruction in general irrespective of location. Users voted to keep the article, and if a piece of information reflects the title of the article I don't see why it should be taken out. Parishan 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not editing this article in good faith. Maybe I shall edit the article on the Sun and tell that there are growing evidences that the center of the Sun is freezing cold and refer to the Italian physicist Renzo Boscoli paper, considered as a fringe. A growing evidence is your interpretation, for one single work, which you even quote a full section of. Maybe I shall do the same in other articles. Fad (ix) 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, you are in no position to speculate about "good faith" here. Editors who exercise bad faith are those who remove sourced and appropriate, verifiable info such as the Hetq article and other information to balance this article and make it NPOV. --AdilBaguirov 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming again that you don't know what NPOV means. NPOV relate to neutral point of view, it is not about balance. I did not oppose the inclusion of Hetq, what I have opposed is to extend this by quoting it to counterbalance the article, read the NPOV policy it specifically contain something about what I am telling. It is one source, yet the destruction of the Khachkars in Nakhichevan has made various news, one article in an Armenian newspaper worth a footnote not a quote to counter balance what various newspapers have reported and as being equaly covered. Anyone doing just that, are not editing this article in good faith and harming it. Parishan has registered in 2004, he should know the policies by now. Fad (ix) 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time Marshal deletes the info from the article, including a whole section on khackar destruction in Armenia and the comments of Azerbaijani embassador Pashayev. I see it as an attempt to supress the info. Please discuss proposed changes on talk. Grandmaster 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this source even relevant? Artaxiad 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Grandmaster 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion was justified, when will you ever understand policies and guidelines? Is Steven Sims and the various other people who have accused Nakhichevan "Armenia"? How is it that the various newspapers covering the event are given as much space as the Ambassadors words, which is even quoted, or the Armenian publication which is given a quote? You are POV pushing and you may add this accusation in the evidence page as an attack against you so that the arbotrators come here and read those edits and the context of my statment as see how you still have difficulty understanding what NPOV means. Let me repeat, the destruction was reported in various newspapers, observators like Steven Sims have actually confirmed it, The European parlement investigators were refused access. All those stuff are published, notable and covered in plenty of source. Yet the single statment by the ambassador is quoted to counterbalance and push this to a 50/50 coverage. Like this was not enough, the events in Armenia are even given unjustified coverage by actual quoting. So, again, I accuse you of POV pushing and accuse you of harming this article. Marshal is a very neutral Armenian contributor who did not engage in revert wars, and his reverts were justified by clear explainations which should have been enough for you. It is not all to be able to source something, sourcing does not give free pass for a 50/50 coverage. I am really tired trying to teach you what neutrality means. And don't worry, I will bring in the evidence page various attemps by me trying to teach you what is NPOV, neutral point of view and your weird understanding of this policy. So, here too, I will be telling you, do toy with this article. Fad (ix) 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop blackmailing me. I do not think that you can cite any wiki policy that allows it. You are free to add to your arbcom evidence whatever you wish. You guys are simpy trying to supress the info you don't like. The article is about khachkar destruction, it is not about the event in a certain location, but covers any such action no matter where it occured. So all the referenced info should remain in the article. And how can you justify deletion of the words of Azerbaijani embassador? Why position of Azerbaijani side should not be reflected? How come deletion of this info by Marshall is neutral? Grandmaster 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Undue weight" read the Neutral point of view policy. No one told that the source should be deleted, sources do not justify undue weight, the very large majority of sources support one position, quoting from the limited materials from the fringe to increase the lenght of that position in this case is simply POV pushing. Fad (ix) 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should have never been created. -- Aivazovsky 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fad (ix) 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay? its not going to magically disappear. Artaxiad 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should clean the article of Armenian and Azeri sources, and start off with regular third party sources. Artaxiad 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article, you can appeal to an admin to delete this. If not, then I say we re-nominate this article for deletion. -- Aivazovsky 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No I can't, renominate it for sure. But if theres only third party sources less POV, I added a few already. Artaxiad 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV "contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." - this is also to be enforced by Arbcom with relation to Azernaijani-Armenian articles. So, Azeri perspective should be in place - quote from Azerbaijani Ambassador as refrenced from Regnum.--Dacy69 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to decieve you there, this policy is my most cherished and respect it to the letter. You have ignored a very important part of it. Read the three points Jimbo highline. Fad (ix) 15:10, 14 March 2007(UTC)

Yes, I know the whole NPOV rules. here we are not talking tiny minority. We are speaking about conflict between the two countries. So, both perspectives should be reflected--Dacy69 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a minority, the European parlement, and newspapers like the Independent can not be equally covered as the Azerbaijan ambassador. Fad (ix) 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Artaxiad once again deleted info on destruction of khachkars in Armenia. As it was explained many times, this article is not about destruction of khachkars in a certain area, but about destruction in general, as the title implies. So please do not delete verifiable info. Grandmaster 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then explain me how more notable is an Armenian newspaper to the Independent article which is not quoted? The destruction by some teenagers of Armenian monuments did not take the attention of any major media or published sources, beside some Armenian newspapers. While many relate to the Hamidian massacre as an Armenian genocide, it is recognized that the Armenian genocide refers to 1915. The destruction of the Khachkars relate to the destruction in Azerbaijan, this is what it is understood. The event attached to the term the destruction of the Khachkars relate to that. While the destruction of Armenian monuments inside Armenia could have a place, the place it has is a line with the relevent footnotes, not an entire quote to balance it. Again, this is called POV pushing. Fad (ix) 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, again here we are not talking about majority or minority view. This is about the conflict between two parties - so we should give perspectives of two parties. Secondly, I support Grandmaster arguments - this article from the title implies that it can cover destruction of Khachkars in general - in Azerbaijan, Armenia or elsewhere. Actually, this issue should be covered at the conflict page. Once I proposed to user:Aivazovsky not to multiply conflict-related pages and we even managed to agree on the deletion of one page which was created by user:Artaxiad. However, later this and other users derailed from that and they believe that by creating twin pages they will win arguments. It is not so. So, you did not want deletion - ok, then we have a full right to put various perspectives and information about destruction of khachkars in Armenia as well - that's NPOV, which you like so, as do I.
 * So the European Parlement, newspapers like The Independent, independent investigator like Steven Sims and Armenia shall have an equal coverage than Azerbaijans answer? Nice understanding of the NPOV policy you have. Fad (ix) 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at page Urartu - section ethnic composition - it was me who supported inclusion of majority and minority views. And if you don't understand that no matter who (European Parliament, etc) speak about Khachkar, it deals with the conflict. If we speak about 9/11 overwhelming majority speak about Al-Qaeda attack. In the meantime, Wiki page has 2-3 sentences about so-called cnspiracy theory I advise you to look around for better understanding NPOV --Dacy69 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have much idea of what happened in Urartu article, I just posted in its talkpage few times and it had little to do with the dispute you guys had. I kept myself out from there and I always said why, I have absolutly no interest contributing in articles about stuff which happened BC. As for 9-11, you should read the controversy section, it does not only contain about the allegations that it was controled destruction. And it is not only a fringe, but a minority. Besides, I have never refused inclusion of the minority position, what I requested was it to be presented as such. Fad (ix) 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nakhichevan gets more coverage anyway, but it does not mean that we should suppress the info about destruction in other locations just because Nakhichevan received more international attention. We cover all aspects of the subject, and we don't limit the article to a certain location. Undue weight does not apply here, it is about situations when a view of minority on a certain subject receives more coverage than the prevailing view. It is more about the positions than events. But it does not mean that you ignore certain events just because others get more publicity. Grandmaster 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not accurate, coverage is all that matters, events are presented in Wikipedia based on published materials. The destruction of the Khachkars was the one single event which was given space in the news and compared with other tragic destructions. What happened in Armenia was covered in the Armenian press, and most of it is not specific to Khachkars, it does worth a coverage, but a line or two, as it is insignificantly covered. Wikipedia is not the place to cook a notability for something. The main question here is, what people most refer to as Khachkar destruction? The answer is obvious, any attempt to present this other than how it is represented in published materials is original research and in this situation as POV pushing. Fad (ix) 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly -- all khachkar-related news from independent, authoritative third-party Western news outlets also mentioned the concerns of Azerbaijan, that Armenians have vandalized Azerbaijani-specific mosques, graveyards, monuments, etc. More such news are available here:     As well as on the fires that Armenians spread on the occupied Azerbaijani territories:  including a UN General Assembly resolution  And of course the likes of HETQ's Baghdasaryan, and Onnik Krikorian, the two prominent Armenian journalists who have no sympathy for Azerbaijan, have both juxtaposed Armenia's own treatment of khachkars and other cultural and historic heritage in its possession with Armenian accusations against Azerbaijan for those matters (i.e., see:   , , , and ) --AdilBaguirov 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see Khachkars, I might have missed something. Did I? Fad (ix) 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise - all of the sources from the first set come from Azerbaijan that constantly demonize Armenians on their web pages - provide several more credible sources since none of them are even 3rd party.

Regardless of the Azeri claims, what may have happened to those Azeri monuments were most probably because of the fighting during the war, not a systematic attempt to erase their existence, which Azerbaijan's government is trying to hide. The videos clearly show Azerbaijan's military put to the work of destroying the khatchkars; to reiterate, this article is about Azerbaijan's campaign to erase the fields of khatckars, not something for you guys to point to Armenia and say "look, look they do it too!".--MarshallBagramyan 22:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion again
I've renominated this article for deletion. It's just become a big mess. -- Aivazovsky 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You just lost arguments. First you wanted to make another non-academic anti-Azerbaijani propoganda page, and then you failed you decided to delete it. I once warned you, guys, not to multiply conflict-related pages. It is enough coverage on NKWar page.--Dacy69 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for just admitting again your bad faith. Fad (ix) 14:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That you don't even see it is worst. Fad (ix) 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me. You just continue your harrassment--Dacy69 15:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That you can't see the obvious say it all. Ask Penwhale. Fad (ix) 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what Aivazovsky does is nothing but WP:GAME. Grandmaster 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Wikipedia:Deletion review
I'm considering taking this article to 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)


 * 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)


 * Please do not move the article. We have 2 AfD's with the result of "keep". Grandmaster 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Added back the evidence of Khachkar Destruction in Armenia
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)
 * 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)


 * But how do you know that it is about Nakhichevan and not any other area? Grandmaster 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a serious question? According to just 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * My response to the above will only be a redundancy. I've made my case.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Eupator, you've obviously not read any of the above and are interested only in your own POV. First off, HETQ article on Armenian's themselves destroying their own khachkars is noted not only by HETQ, but by, for example, Onnik Krikorian, a famous Armenian journalist and blogger, and by a specialized propaganda website http://www.khachkar.am/en/endangered.php

Secondly, you mentioned again European Parliament, so why don't you read their resolution through carefully, as its text applies to both republics and should be quoted as such correctly :

"F.  whereas such destruction is taking place in the context of the suspended conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh,

G.  whereas there might soon be a favourable outcome to the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh and agreement might be reached on the principles for settling the conflict despite the unproductive meeting in Rambouillet on 10 and 11 February 2006 between the presidents of Armenia and of Azerbaijan,

H.  recalling that the European Neighbourhood Policy aims to establish a privileged partnership with Armenia and Azerbaijan on the basis of common values, including the respect for minorities and their cultural heritage,

1. Condemns strongly the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery as well as the destruction of all sites of historical importance that has taken place on Armenian or Azerbaijani territory, and condemns any such action that seeks to destroy cultural heritage;

2. Calls on the Council and the Commission to make clear to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan that all efforts must be made to stop the practice of ethnic cleansing, which has led to such destruction, and to find ways in which to facilitate the gradual return of refugees and displaced people;

3. Demands that the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan respect their international commitments, notably as regards cultural heritage, and, in particular, those deriving from the two countries' accession to the Council of Europe and their inclusion in the European Neighbourhood Policy;

6. Calls on the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to comply with their international commitments, in particular as regards culture and the safeguarding of cultural heritage, entered into within international bodies such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, and calls on both countries to do their utmost to protect archaeological, historical and cultural heritage on their territories in order to prevent the destruction of other endangered sites;

7. Invites the Commission and the Council to incorporate a clause on protecting both territories' invaluable archaeological or historical sites into the action plans currently being discussed in a European Neighbourhood Policy context;

8. Invites the Commission and the Council to make the implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy action plans conditional upon the respect by Armenia and Azerbaijan for universally accepted principles, in particular their obligations as members of the Council of Europe regarding human and minority rights, and calls on the Commission and the Council to incorporate into these action plans specific provisions for the protection of the cultural heritage of minorities;"

In another resolution, P6_TA(2006)0028, EP says: "66. Takes the view that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is impeding the development of Armenia and Azerbaijan and regional cooperation as well as the effective implementation of the ENP as such; calls on both parties to refrain from unilateral actions and aggressive statements and to work for settlement of the conflict in a constructive dialogue with all the forces concerned, on the basis of respect for minority rights and on the basis of the principles of international law; emphasises the importance of continuing democratic reforms for the development of the region and its relations with the EU; urges all parties concerned to find ways to permit the gradual return of refugees on the basis of minority rights, in particular with regard to the return of Azerbaijanis to the occupied territories; calls on the member countries of the OSCE Minsk Group to coordinate more effectively their action with Heikki Talvitie, the EU Special Representative for South Caucasus, in order to move forward with negotiations;"

As you can see, EP not only calls on Armenia to also stop any kind of cultural monuments destruction, but sees, correctly, the root of the problem in the NK conflict and the inability of 800,000 Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs to return to their homes. --adil 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when the ringmaster will show up.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Onnik Krikorian is the editor of HETQ :rolleyes--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, stop your insinuations! Onnik is NOT the editor, it's Edik (I know, it rhymes) Same Edik that wrote the article  Same Edik that fought in Karabakh war and probably killed Azerbaijani civilians. --adil 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They work together, A is the source of B. Talk about insinuating...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Same Edik that fought in Karabakh war and probably killed Azerbaijani civilians. Christ, Adil, don't you ever get tired of beating that dead horse? You, Dacy and Atabek have been unable to let go of this.

Artaxiad made a mistake when naming this article. It should have been Khatchkar Destruction in Nakhichevan; what you guys are doing is creating a red herring and attempting to divert the subject of the article to not destruction in Nakhichvan but in Armenia. I cannot believe it takes this much explanation for you guys to get this.--MarshallBagramyan 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You just want to get rid of information which don't please you.--Dacy69 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How many different ways can me and Eupator explain this to you? Scratch that; we'd end up repeating ourselves.--MarshallBagramyan 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

then scratch response of Grandmaster and Atabek as well.--Dacy69 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, not my fault you guys are POV warring. There's only so much I can do to help you guys how it works around here --MarshallBagramyan 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This article
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)


 * Ok, thanks, I will abide by your decision. Grandmaster 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with all of the above. Richard, if everyone here is able to come to a compromise about the status of this article, why would it matter what some third-party users say? Khoikhoi 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I agree. -- Aivazovsky 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the desicion. If someone does not like the opponent view - that does not mean that we should delete or redirect the page.--Dacy69 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

This sounds like a good and feasible solution at this time. Cbrown1023 talk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

"allegedly"
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)

Khachkar destruction
I am removing the paragraph that says Armenia is destroying its own khachkars because there are no references to that claim that Armenia is destryoing its own khachkars. The only reference that there is the "Hetq" reference which does not say the Armenian governmnet sponsors the destruction of the khachkars unlike the Azerbaijani governmnet. The reference says "The headstones had been brought here from somewhere else" and "Apparently they had been in someone's way, and he or she "liberated" the territory" without even saying from where outside of Armenia or some other place, or who ever destroyed was an Armenian or not, or was it sponsored by the Armenian governemnet, or was it just a teenager vandals that did it. ROOB323 08:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is sourced information and should remain. I added a source that was removed. Grandmaster 09:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I say that we remove this whole article. It's a cancer on Armenian-Azeri relations here on Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 11:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it alone for a while. It is quite an obscure one and is not linked to any other article. We can revisit it after a while. Grandmaster 11:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any point having that paragraph which states some khachkars were destroyed in Armenian, without even saying who destroyed, or if it was some teenager vandals that did not have any idea what does khachkars represented. Even in the reference it says it was destroyed somewhere else and brought here without saying where it was destroyed than how can you be sure that it was destroyed in Armenia or by an Armenian to state in the article Khachkar destruction in Armenia. A state sponsored destruction is completly different than some uneductaed person destroying it and bringing to the construction site. The rest of the paragraph does not even have any references to what is says that many other khachkars in Armenian were destroyed if you could find a reference to it than it could stay if there is no reference than it should be removed. The only reference about khachkar destruction in Armenia is from the Hetq source which like I said before does not even say who, where, why destroyed the khachkars. ROOB323 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The HETQ sources never actually referred to the stones that were found as khachkars in the first place, so what's the big deal? In fact, look at the pictures, they don't even look like khachkars. The only time the word "khachkar" can even be found is in this line:
 * Armenians everywhere have closed ranks to protest against the barbarous destruction of Armenian khachkars by Azerbaijanis in Nakhidjevan.

I'll have to check on the other sources later, but this appears to be another effort on the part of Adil to insert his own original research into Wikipedia articles. -- Aivazovsky 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aivazovsky and Bagramyan, we had a long discussion on this and couple of attempted forwards by Aivazovsky to Nakhichevan. Khachkar destruction applies to the word "Khachkar" as subject, and it implies destruction regardless of location, Nakhichevan, Armenia or else. So cease your POV reverts, otherwise, this page will have to go into dispute resolution. Atabek 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should bring attention of Arbcom members to such users like MarshallBagramian who is deleting whole section without discussion.--Dacy69 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I brought my edit to the discussion page. For the record, I did not remove the entire section, despite Atabek's assertions.  I just removed of the HETQ source and I explained my reasoning above.  Even after this, I was reverted.  The person who reverted me, Makalp, did not explain his revert on the discussion page at all.  His comment "First, bring sources" does not suffice nor does it even make sense.


 * Also if you wish to bring Marshall's actions to the attention of the ArbCom, then we will likewise do the same thing for Parishan who failed to discuss any of his reverts on the talk page. Neither editor is tied to the revert parole restrictions. -- Aivazovsky 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aivazovsky, this page was started by the puppet master Artaxiad to target Azerbaijan. This is yet another piece of Armenian propaganda. HETQ source brings balance to otherwise unsubtantiated POV allegations, showing that Armenians themselves are involved in destruction of Khachkar heritage. So if you're trying to remove that reference, apparently having some form of "reasoning", then we should also get rid of images of "destruction in Nakhichevan", which came from Armenian TV - POV or perhaps get rid of this topic on Wikipedia altogether. Atabek 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not generalize - let's talk on concrete actions. Here, MarshalBagramyan has removed the entire section. This is the problem. Parishan -yes made rv- but in substance he restored the deleted section; so did I. It is not the same what Marhsalbagramian did. Editor who is deleting it - should make a full explanation of his/her action. We had enough discussion on that.--Dacy69 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand! Nobody should be removing content about destruction of Khachkar's, as this article should cover any types of destruction in any location; even destruction of objects that were mistakenly identified as Khachkar's if it was published in major media sources. John Vandenberg 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the destruction of khatchkars in Nakhichevan. Let's make the distinction clear: no one is systematically destroying khatchkars in Armenia akin to that of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, which is what this article should be talking about. You cannot compare the actions of Azerbaijani troops, under direct orders of the government itself to systematically destroy thousands of monuments and graves, to cult worshipers and degenerate miscreant teenagers in Yerevan who think they are cool by doing things like this.

John, the block quote cited says that the khatchkars in Armenia are being moved (displacement, in other words) but are sometimes mishandled due to hubris. How does this equal to using such an abrasive term as "destruction"?

I think you should read what you have readded. HETQ does not identify them as Khachkars, it only claims them to be headstones, all headstones are not khachkars and the only place which the article relate to the khachkars is in connection of those destroyed in Nakhichevan. This is only added to balance the destruction of the Khachkars in Nakhichevan, the only notable event and only covered in notable works. There is no source provided for any destruction outside of Nakhichevan, it was added to counterbalance what all notable sources relate to the destruction of Khachkars, which were about those in Nakhichevan. See those couples of notable ones for instance. Institute for war & Peace reporting. From the Archaeological Institute of America. , The Independent, the Times.

I don’t see anything about the Khachkars destructions relating to those in Armenia. Do you?

Where are the notable publications justifying even the slightest coverage of this destruction that Grandmaster, Atabek and Dacy69 yearn to add so passionately? Is there anything published in any notable publication about them? I would like to see them. It isn’t even undue weight; it is a matter of fringe and non-inclusion. When someone relates to the destruction, they relate to the destruction in Nakhichevan as much as when one relates to the American Revolution, they do not relate to some events by some revolutionaries by claiming it an American revolution.--MarshallBagramyan 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's title does not imply that it is limited to a certain region. From what I can see some people simply try to supress information about situation with protection of cultural heritage in Armenia. Grandmaster 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what Artaxiad had been saying for all this time. Had the title included in Nakhichevan we wouldn't have people exploiting this loophole by fighting for its inclusion, an obvious attempt to deviate from the topic. Hubris is not the same as systematic intent.--MarshallBagramyan 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What concerns me is that you are implying that everywhere else except for "Nakhichevan" is treating the Khachkar with museum-like care. That doesnt appear to be accurate..?


 * I am an Australian who loves a bit of history and I am appalled that any mishandling is going on anywhere, and I want to know about all of the mishandling and destruction. Please think of it like this: any mishandling going on anywhere should be covered by either wikinews or wikipedia.  This article shouldnt be about regional differences, but about how some treasures from the middle ages are not being treated with enough care.  I suspect that every contributor to this article from that region has good intentions and wants the destruction to stop on any side of the border.  So, the question is not whether the stone is Khachkar or tombstones that are quite similar, or whether it is purposeful destruction or mere vandalism or mishandling.  Instead we should be trying to include any media that discusses the relics from that period being destroyed, with appropriate weight given to how informative the source is.  I have no problem with the Armenian section being toned down, because it is less well documented and of lesser importance, but I dont see the point of deleting it without trying to find another home for the content.


 * Is there a list of all of the major locations where Khachkar have been documented to exist? Also, were Khachkar not used as headstones at all? John Vandenberg 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John, I apologize for the length of the reply but I'll try to keep it concise. The case presented by the HETQ is not about Khatchkars but headstones. The other Armenian source is the mishandling of Khachkars. That same Armenian website, is the same sort of source that GM did not find as sufficient for other articles, however, since it conveniently fits the bill, this source is now sufficent enough to provide a very significant portion of this article.

We are not discussing about the encyclopedic nature of mishandling (those perhaps could be covered in an article about the monuments in Armenia). This article was created to cover the systematic destruction of thousands of Khatchkars and Grandmaster, Dacy69, Adil and as Atabek's abrasive replies clearly demonstrate they knew this as well. As Atabek says, ''“This is yet another piece of Armenian propaganda. HETQ source brings balance to otherwise unsubtantiated POV allegations, showing that Armenians themselves are involved in destruction of Khachkar heritage.”''

So, by including HETQ now, it has become a little game of "look, look even the Armenians cannot preserve their mounuments, how can we believe what they are saying?"

John, it is easy to know which stones are Khachkars by the engraving, HETQ does not say they are Khachkars, indeed it confirms they when the only time it uses the term in the entire article is to relate to the destruction of those in Nakhichevan. This article was created to cover the systematic destruction of Khatchkars in Nakhichevan and this was precisely why Grandmaster, Dacy69, Atabek, Adil et al. opposed its creation. GM nominated it for deletion under the claim that it was a POV fork for Nakhichevan: “Delete per nom. This issue is addressed in Nakhichevan and Julfa articles, this is a POV fork.” Then, after Adil found a way to exploit the title of the article, Grandmaster made a 180 degree turn and replied to Adil: “Indeed, if the article is about destruction of khackars in general, it should include info on such destruction in Armenia, if it is to be limited to Nakhichevan, it is POV fork.”

Read from the nomination Dacy69's rational for deletion, he opposed it because he knew that there was a restriction, read Elsanturk's opposition, their replies showed that they knew what the article was about. Then read Parishan's rational for the deletion. He too, knew of what it was about. Read Atabek's rationale behind the delete. They all knew this article was encompassing Nakhichevan, and not Armenia and hence, opposed it.

Now, read their rational of wanting to keep it during the second request for deletion. Read, in particular Atabek's rational and compare it with the first. Suddenly, they wish to keep it because the article is no longer singling out Azerbaijan but Armenia and Armenians too.

We can not manufacture notability for something which does not have one. There are two sources provided, one which does not talk about Khatchkars, and the other is about the mishandling of Khatchkars, which means that we have one source from an Armenian website about the mishandling and are applying the term "destruction", which is too strong a word to be used in this case. On the other hand, we have an event which is covered in both major and prestigious publications such as The Independent, the London Times, the Archaeological Institute of America, and other notable sources. Now, compare this to a single non-notable event which relates to the mishandling of Khatchkars by clumsy movers and some degenerate teenagers who think its fun and cool to do things like this.

All the sources, without exception, refer to the Khatchkar destruction to those destroyed in Nakhichevan. For an archaeologist, or anyone for that matter, the term “Khatchkar destruction” relates to the systematic destruction of Khatchkars in Nakhichevan. Otherwise, adding the info by HETQ is just a way of taking advantage of what this article is truly about and an act of bad faith editing.--MarshallBagramyan 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Khachkar destruction is about destruction of khachkars irrespective of location. I see that some people try really hard to suppress information about the state of protection of khachkars in Armenia. But Wikipedia is not a place where it is possible to do so. Grandmaster 08:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, wrt to the history of the two Afd's, it makes no difference. I have been involved since the second Afd so I already know most of the details, but the fact is that the article is here specifically because Wikipedians not of this region, including me, want this article and they want this article to cover any and all destruction of Khatchkar.  If you can accept that Khatchkars other than those in Nakhichevan are also being destroyed, surely you can see that this article has room to cover those as well.  I can understand that what has occurred to the Khatchkars in Nakhichevan is the most documented, but it doesnt hurt to also cover other minor destruction.  I dont mean to suggest that clumsy movers and teenage stupidity in any way compares to government destruction, but the differences can be expressed using prose with due weight.  I do understand that there is probably enough information to warrant an article dedicated to the destruction in Nakhichevan, but so far this article isnt big enough to split that off to its own article.  Quite frankly I am surprised that this article has not grown more both wrt Nakhichevan and otherwise.  Anyway, its silly to keep reverting back and forth -- I'm off to find some new information to add. John Vandenberg 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really? It's amazing that in the first AFD GM, Adil, Atabek, Dacy et al. all had qualms that the article was singling out Azerbaijan and so gleefully chose to have the article deleted. But since they found a source that something similar might be happening in Armenia, they fought tooth and nail to preserve it because it was no longer Azerbaijan, but Armenia; it suddenly became OK to keep it? GM and the others are exploiting the title of this article because when Artaxiad created this article, he started with "The destruction of Armenian historical monuments on the territory of Azerbaijan has been raised in a new report by an international monitoring body." This article was created for that purpose. It didn't begin with "The destruction of historical Armenian monuments has been prevalent in several areas throughout the Caucasus, notably Nakhichevan and Armenia."

It's a loophole, and you guys are taking advantage of it for all it's worth. If this article is on Khatchkar desecration entirely, fine with me, but then that means a new one on the systematic destruction in Nakhichevan will be created. --MarshallBagramyan 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that after it was decided to re-interpret this article's title (at Adil Baguirov's urging), the Azerbaijani users worked feverishly to preserve this article at all costs. Most voted to "keep" it in the second AfD not because they wanted to see the article exist but because they wanted to  "give the Armenian editors a dose of their own medicine." -- Aivazovsky 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you have much room to talk about AfD. You guys voted to keep the article on first AfD, and then renominated it for deletion 5 days later. When third party users asked about the reasons, you failed to provide any reasonable explanation, and one of them even asked how you can expect anyone to take you seriously. Also, you should mind WP:POINT and not threaten others by doing something in spite. It was decided to keep the article to cover the topic irrespective of location, and we should respect the outcome of AfD. Grandmaster 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We voted to remove it the second time because you guys wanted to insert the irrelevant issue of Khatchkars in Armenia, making the issue of Khatchkars in general, which was not what this article was about as seen in the first few edits when it was created. What is the explanation of yours, Atabek's and Dacy's about-faces? It's that the blame was no longer pinned on Azerbaijan but the Armenians themselves. This is analogous to saying the United States was committing terrorism worldwide on the September 11 terrorist attacks page. You guys are unabashedly exploiting this to your own advantage and that is unacceptable.

It's hilarious to hear us being accused of inconsistency when that was the crux of all your decisions on the second AFD. Tt was you, Atabek, Dacy, Adil et al. who were fighting it tooth and nail to keep the article because at least in this AFD, the Armenians are being shown in a bad light and so it's no longer Azerbaijan being accused of cleansing historical heritage. The issue of Khatchkars in Armenians is irrelevant to this article, it was like this when Artaxiad created this article and that's how it should remain.--MarshallBagramyan 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

HETQ should be removed
Again, I say the HETQ source should be removed because it never actually refers to the stones that were found as khachkars, thus it is irrelevant to the article. -- Aivazovsky 11:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Khachkars are mostly used as headstones, and that article is about destruction of headstones in Armenia. Grandmaster 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Faulty logic. If this article about some nonexistant event called "khachkar destruction" is going to remain than a separate article about the Azeri elimination of khachkars of Old Julfa needs to be created as it's an extremely notable, unique and well documented event.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That issue is covered in a number of articles, and this one is about the situation with protection of khachkars in general, regardless of location. Grandmaster 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But all headstones are not khachkars. Look at the headstones pictured in the article and you'll see that they are clearly not khachkars. -- Aivazovsky 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is hard to tell by the pictures, plus interpretation of maps and pictures is original research. Grandmaster 08:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of written sources is also original research. The text of the HETQ article never confirms that the stones found were actually khachkars.  In fact, searches for the words "khachkar" and "khachkars" have only found this:
 * Armenians everywhere have closed ranks to protest against the barbarous destruction of Armenian khachkars by Azerbaijanis in Nakhidjevan.
 * Again, this only proves my assertion that the inclusion of the HETQ article was a result of Adil Baguirov's own original research. -- Aivazovsky 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that the headstones are not khachkars. Khachkars are mainly used as headstones, and Khachkar destruction is just a general title to cover destruction of similar objects. I mean, not all headstones at Julfa are khachkars, does it mean that we should mention khachkars only? Grandmaster 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, I'm not debating the title of this article, just the use of the HETQ source. You're right that khachkars are mainly used as headstones but again not all Armenian headstones are khachkars.  Of course, the article does not say that the headstones are not khachkars, but at the same time, does it confirm that they are indeed khachkars?
 * I'm not pushing to get the whole section deleted, just one source which I (and other users) find irrelevant to the article. -- Aivazovsky 12:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted text removed
It was an exact copy of khackar.am article. Vartanm 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Atabek I'm not edit warring, I simply removed copyrighted text which is against wikipedia rules. Vartanm 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can include info with reference to a source, which is done. Grandmaster 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fork redirected
I've redirected this to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan, of which this article appears to be a fork. Please migrate useful material to that article. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think I've redirected the wrong side of the fork, please sort out which of the two articles is the better and change the redirect. But please don't try to keep these two articles on the same subject separate, that isn't an option. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, the other article is the more recent article, as it was happily acting as a redirect until this edit by User:MarshallBagramyan. There is good reason to have a focus piece on Nakhichevan, but when the article has that title, all reference to destruction elsewhere tends to be removed.  As a result I've updated to redirect to point to Khachkar so other claims of destruction have a home and the weight give to each can be monitored. John Vandenberg 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case the fork article Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan should be redirected too. The purpose of creation of the aforementioned article was suppression of info on destruction of khachkars in Armenia, and if this article gets deleted as result, then fork was successful. Grandmaster 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I rolled the page back to Jayvdb, because the person who reverted his edit dod not provide any explanation for his actions. Grandmaster 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If information is missing from the other article, either redirect that one to this (and get rid of the redirect on this one) or copy the missing information into the other article. The point is to end up with a single, comprehensive, neutral article.  How you do that isn't that important. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of the other article limits the topic to one region. That's the reason why fork was created. Can you please redirect that article to this one? I'm on parole and cannot do anything that could be construed as an rv on the other article, since I used my limit. Grandmaster 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, I think we have a stable outcome now. Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan can focus on the one location, which means the duplicated information in Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) can be trimmed down to little more than a small paragraph and a link to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan.  That article will need monitoring to stay focused.
 * Khachkar is now becoming the single, comprehensive, neutral article which covers the general problems these pieces of history are facing. That article will need monitoring to stay general.
 * Both articles have been stable for two days, so perhaps a good balance has been found. John Vandenberg 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The first article was about the destruction of Khachkars in Nakhichivan, which we all knew and for some reason GM wanted its deletion. The main article became a fork of the second article when it was created. You can provide sources on any other destruction of Khachkar outside of Nakhichevan, and leave it on the Khachkar page. You have one Armenian website as source which is does not even describe the actions done to the monuments as destruction but as mishandling.--MarshallBagramyan 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was about destruction of khachkars irrespective of location. We had 2 AfDs, which both resulted in keep. Only after that Marshall created a fork for this one. I think what John proposes makes sense, however we had two AfDs, and we were told by the admin not to redirect this one and not to renominate it until June. I don’t know if it is OK to delete the article after 2 AfDs where people voted to keep the article at this title. Grandmaster 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Go reread on how Artaxiad began the article: Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of Khachkar destruction in the region of Nakhichevan (I'm paraphrasing here). If it was the case you said it was, it would have started "Khachkar destruction is a problematic issue in the Caucasus. Currently there are certain regions in the countries of Armenia and Azerbaijan where khachkar destruction has taken place" or something like that. Since that was not the case, then it was a clever way to exploit the loophole left in the name and then claim that we were talking about the destruction of khachkars in general. You're not fooling anyone here. --MarshallBagramyan 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's name implies that it covers the topic in general. And the articles do not belong to anyone, if an article has been created, people will be editing it. You guys are simply trying to suppress the info. Grandmaster 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys? Grandmaster has made an accusation, it seems. Hakob 07:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know who I'm talking about here. Grandmaster 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article's name implies it but we're not going by interpretations here. I can interpret many things from certain articles but that doesn't mean their inclusion is warranted. The article wasn't created with the purpose of covering all khachkar destruction because that's how it would have started. When you raised your objections on the first AFD, you complained that the article was just a fork. We're not suppressing anything, much less a nonevent you are attempting to magnify with an obscure Armenian source. --MarshallBagramyan 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)