Talk:Khachkar

Archives
Endangered khachkars Archive

Khachkar or Khatchkar?

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)

I also note that in the references, the title of the book "Armenian Khatchkars" (Editions Erebuni, 1978) had been altered to "Armenian Khachkars". I have changed it to the actual title. Meowy 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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 {{Cleanup-IPA}} tag. John Vandenberg 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Reports (see RFE/RL)

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)

RFE/RL stands for Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. Meowy 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits By an Anonymous Editor

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.

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)

There is no Urartu in that list, this is about Armenian architects from the ancient times, of Armani etc. etc.. 75.28.36.1 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is the connection there to Amenaprkich-type khatchkars? Meowy 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amenaprkich is an ancient Khachkar dating back to the time where Mitanni and Aratta were still active. These are identically to Khachkars and are called it as well but a more ancient type, it provides historical information. The connection is what it says, it is a Khachkar where Armenian inhabitance has always been, it is clear stated please do not remove it. 75.24.236.167 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Destruction

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)

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)

Alban xaç daşları

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)

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)

What is disturbing is that it has been deemed "featured article" material.[1] TA-ME (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_xa%C3%A7_da%C5%9Flar%C4%B1
• References
  • Farida Mammadova-Qafqaz Albaniyası və Albanlar,Bakı,2006
  • D.A.Axundov-Azərbaycanın qədim dini abidələrinin memarlığı,Bakı,1974
  • M.D.Axundov-Yer və zaman dünyanın mifoloji xəritəsində,Bakı,1980
  • Qafqaz Albaniyası stelalarında dini simvolika və dünyanın mənzərəsi”,Azərbaycan abidələri dərgisi,I say,Bakı,1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• See also
  • Church of Caucasian Albania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.42.44 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Word Artsakh in Gallery

Please, look at article Artsakh. "It was the tenth province of the Kingdom of Armenia from 189 BC until 387 AD and afterwards a region of Caucasian Albania." Nagorno-Karabakh is a present name of the territory. That's why I think it's correct to write Nagorny-Karabakh. Wertuose (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that for this specific context (photo captions) I agree with this altering of Artsakh to Nagorno-Karabakh - the description is partly there to identify where the monuments are located. However, I think that if we were talking about the khachkars in an historical or stylistic context, the use of the word Artsakh could still be justified, it would depend on how the sources use the word. Meowy 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Artsakh Republic" is another official name of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. In Armenian, it is Արցախի հանրապետութիւն. Neither "Nagorno" nor "Karabakh" are Armenian words, and that is why many (including official NKR) refer to themselves as Artsakh Hanrapetutyun. Serouj (talk)`

This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Armenian-language one. So place names should be the ones most used by English speakers. Meowy 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking a few books, they all use the word "Artsakh" to describe khatckhars (as well as other monuments) created in the region of Artsakh, nowadays generally known as Nagorno Karabakh). They use that word to define khatchkars created there as late as the 17th century. So if we are talking about the khatchkars stylistically or descriptively or to write about their history I think it would be appropriate to use "Artsakh". But in the cases that were changed by Wertuose the word "Artsakh" was just being used to inform readers of the locations of the khatchkars. That wasn't a correct use imho, the current name of the region should be the name used for that purpose. Meowy 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

С раннего средневековья (с 5 века как минимум) Арцах был населен армянами, это пишут все влиятельные авторы по теме.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

А причем тут это? Речь идет о том, что данная территория официально называется Нагорным-Карабахом. В картографии тоже используется это название, а не какое то историческое название. Если на то пошло, тогда давайте везде вместо топонимов Мегри, Капан, Сисиан и Горис использовать обобщающее название Зангезур которое широко используется в Азербайджане, ведь на протяжении нескольких веков и до первой четверти 20-го века данная территория называлась именно так. И в составе Российской Империи она носила это название. Wertuose (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

А самое интересно то, что этимологический название Зангезур никакого отношения к так называемому азербайджанскому языку не имеет. У тюркских кочевников Аррана есть позаимствованное слово от армянского - занг. Иногда азербайджанские прадарубы пытаются делать из этого слова "древнетюркский шедевр", но факт есть факт, что занг/колокол в письменном виде фиксирован в армянских источниках за долго до прибытия караванов деда Коркуда.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Вообще то слово "занг", также как и "зур" персидского происхождения ("Занг-е-сур" - Звон трубы). Думаю особых доказательств и не надо, возьмите словарь и убедитесь. А для обозначения колокола у вас есть более армянское слово "гнчак". Wertuose (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Word Artsakh in article was used to indicate the territory where that khachkars are located. So it's correct to use "Nagorny-Karabakh". Wertuose (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Зангезур всего лишь трансформация топонима Дзагедзор на юго-востоке Сюника. В персидском языке отсутствует звук "дз", в следствии чего Дзагедзор в позднем средневековье стал звучать как "Загезор".--Taron Saharyan (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Это ваша версия и ваша правда, вот и верьте в нее сколько хотите. Я вам привел более разумное объяснение, которое не зависит от факторов которых невозможно было бы доказать. Wertuose (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Это не моя версия и у меня нет такой задачи во что-то верить. У моей страны есть и история и наследие, так что это Вы должны во что-то верить начиная от наглого воровства иранской истории и культуры до бесстыдного присвоения или уничтожения армянской.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Вы забываете что знаете эту самую историю только на том уровне на котором она представлена в Армении. Вы совсем не знакомы с историей и литературой азербайджанского народа и слепо верите во все басни собственных историков и политиков. Wertuose (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Басни как раз рассказывают азербайджанские "историки" [2], и как раз ИХ концепции осуждаются и оцениваются как лженаучные. Якобсон. Хьюсен, Шнирельман и десятки других давно разоблачили фальшивки таких фальсификаторов как Давуд Ахундов или Фарида Мамедова. А самое смешное то, что вы сами признаете, что Хачкары идентифицируются как "албанские" ТОЛЬКО в Азербайджане, но в обсуждении гордо пишете "Вы забываете что знаете эту самую историю только на том уровне на котором она представлена в Армении.". Какой историк, кроме азерских книжников называет Хачкары "албанским" ? Я уверен, что вопрос не дошел до ваших мозгов, т.к. не в первые беседую с фанатиком --Taron Saharyan (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Фанатик? Кто бы говорил)) Wertuose (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

The az interwiki is obviously wrong: the az page does not have it. Sardur (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Это фальсификация истории. Вот единственный факт, который можно констатировать. "Албан хачдашляри" часть шовинистической антиармянской компании, целью которого является наглое искажение истории Карабаха, якобы для "доказывания" его не принадлежности к армянам. Ученые с мировым именем, такие как Якобсон, Хьюсен и другие, дали свою оценку. Никакого интервики не будет.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, write in English, not in Russian. Admins don't understand your opinions. Wertuose (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

You've already received your answer from the other users - there are no such thing as "Albanian khachdashes". Khachdash is just a dishonest, crude, distorted Turkic translation of the word khachk'ar. Khach is an Armenian word for "cross" and "k'ar" is the Armenian word for stone. That they are a distinctive part of Armenian culture and art is undeniable and all respectable historians agree on this. The word "khachdash" was first put into circulation by Azerbaijani "scholars" in the 1960s, who had a difficult time explaining how and why the khachkars in the Azerbaijan SSR had Armenian inscriptions and were in every sense carved by Armenians. "Dash" is the Turkish word for "stone", and so it's obvious where they got their translation from. Like other Christian Armenian monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh, such as Gandzasar and Amaras, the khachkars have been subjected to the full assault by Azeris, without any historical basis, to rechristen them not as Armenian monuments, but Caucasian Albanian. And when they realized that after 40 years no one was willing to believe their lies, they just decided to destroy them, so that no one would ever associate it with Armenians again.

As Taron mentioned above, numerous respected academics, such as Karen Yuzbashyan, Robert Hewsen and Aleksandr Yakobson, have decried these attempts at falsification and have completely demolished Azeri arguments that these khachkars have anything to do with a people who were largely Armenianized and Georgianized in the High Middle Ages. Azeris can, and do, write whatever they want on their Wikipedia - they describe Artashat (anachronistically called "Qəmərli") as a part of "Western Azerbaijan" and the article on Armenia, for reasons quite well known, begins in 1828 A.D., neglecting to mention about three thousand years of ancient and medieval history! A better case against this level of distortion can be made but this should be enough to dissuade anyone from continuing to add the laughable "Alban khachdashlari". Pseudo-historiography has no place here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

keep in mind that some **<redacted slur>** in work of azerbaijani propoganda like taddy sweetchowski call yerevan "western azerbaijan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.33.90 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

A. Jakobson about khachkars and azeri falsifications (mythical "khachdashes") [3]--Taron Saharyan (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand that, here is not a place to prove your historical achievements. In Azerbaijan this subjects are named "Alban xaç daşları", irrespective of you want it or not. So interwiki must be here, and your statements about falsifications of history and the reference to different Armenian sources do not concern a theme. --Wertuose (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Interwikis added to the article in Azerbaijani wikipedia. Have you any other arguments? Wertuose (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected|It seems that, users participating in discussion has no objections to adding interwiki. So please, solve this problem.}} --Wertuose (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline for now; edit requests should be complete, specific and uncontroversial.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you show us a source where a serious, peer-reviewed, scholar calls these things "khachdashes", or even attributes them a Caucasian Albanian kingdom?

The only way I can see myself accepting the inclusion of such an interwiki is when the name of the article on the Azeri Wiki is changed to "Ermeni Khachkarlari", i.e., Armenian khachkars and if the editors correctly describe the khachkar as an integral part of Armenian art. The word "Khachdash" was falsely created by Azeri and Turkish historians to shroud their Armenian identity. There are no third-party sources ascribing these khachkars to Caucasian Albania, a minor kingdom that disappeared in the ninth-tenth centuries, and in fact none actually exist. I don't see such a thing happening; you cannot constantly complain to the administrators that a number of editors are the obstacles when the material you want to insert is disingenuously dishonest. They can call these khachkars whatever they want in Azerbaijan but keep it out of here because the scholarship is unanimous: these are "Armenian khachkars".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Az interwiki link

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)

You have in view of the maintenance or wish to learn it about same or not? --Wertuose (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've reinserted it myself. What does "it's propaganda" have to do if it's on the same subject? If the issue is that THIS article is propaganda (and I better see a good rational for that argument), then discuss it. If it is THAT article is propaganda, go there and argue it. Otherwise, I'm going with the fact that multiple wikis respect that, over some random "it's propaganda" comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who locked the article without banner/boilerplate?

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)

RFC - Interwiki linking to a propaganda webpage

An interesting issue has arisen in the English-language Wikipedia Khachkar entry. It involves using an interwiki link to an allegedly equivalent Azeri-language Wikipedia article whose content is actually completely different from the English-language article. Meowy 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor, Wertose, has been adding to the Khachkar article an interwiki link to an article on the Azeri-language Wikipedia titled "Alban xaç daşları" ("Albanian cross stones"). This places an inline interlanguage link to the Azeri-language entry into the "languages" sidebar of this English-language article.

Attempts have been made by several editors to remove this interwiki link. Those editors have explained in the talk page that the content on the Azeri-language Wikipedia page was propaganda and contained entirely different content to that of this Khachkar entry. Ricky81682's disapointing response has been to threatened them and ignore their explanations ("I'm adding it [the interwiki link] and if I see more nonsense around here, I may start issuing sanctions"). He also reinserted the interwiki link after the article was protected and has not given a justification for that action.

Interwiki links are just like any external links, there is nothing sacrosanct about them because they happen to link to Wikipedia-type websites, they are bound by the same rules and conventions as external links.

The content of the Azeri-language Wikipedia article differs entirely from the content of this English-language Wikipedia article. I suggest editors search for and download a free program titled "Dilmanc" which can be used to give a crude translation of the Azeri text into English. Briefly, its content is connected to Azerbaijan's current state ideology that requires all Armenian monuments in Armenia and Azerbaijan to be identified as something other than Armenian. That ideology has gradually developed since the 1960s as a response to Armenian claims for self-determination in Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan's reasoning is that if those Armenians can be portrayed as "newcomers" without any historical presence in this region (theregion includes the republic of Armenia, which Azerbaijan describes as "occupied western Azerbaijan"), the validity of those self-determination claims are lessened. This ideology (and the Azerbaijani-produced pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology that is used to back it up) is restricted to Azerbaijan and does not exist outside of Azerbaijan. Setting aside the above explanation, and any value judgements, it is correct to say that the entire content of the Azeri-language Wikipedia article is an example of a marginal viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream scholarly opinion.

According to wp:interwiki links "Ordinary interlanguage links are only suitable for linking to a corresponding page in another language". The Azeri-language article is not a corresponding page because its content (as well as its title) does not correspond in the slightest to the content of this English-language article. Wp:Interwiki links also seems to say that interwiki links have the same guidance and rules of usage as ordinary external links. Under WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided we are told to avoid linking to a site that . That would also describe the Azeri-language article.

This article should be unprotected, the interwiki link should be removed until the Azeri-language page comes up to standard, and additional guidance about the proper use of interwiki links should be added to the appropriate help pages, guidance that might reduce the chance of such abuses in the future. Meowy 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, both articles are about memorial stones with crosses carved into them, in the same country. You could, for example, swap the photos, because they all show the same things, correct? And -- again, if I understand this correctly -- the primary difference is that the non-English page uses a misleading name for the relevant ethnic group, and in general tries to pretend that Armenians don't exist. Thus the difference between the pages is not the subject itself (crosses carved on stone memorial markers), but the very different perspective that the editors have on the subject. Am I correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Azeri-language article has, esentially, hijacked the subject for its own ends. It is not a Wikipedia article about memorial stones with crosses carved on them because it is not a Wikipedia article when judged by Wikipedia standards, it is a work of fiction created for propaganda purposes. None of the written content of the Azeri-language article corresponds to the written content of this Khachkar article. It is not just a case of having a different title and the swapping of "Armenian" to "Albanian". Did you try that Dilmanc program I suggested using? For example the accepted meaning of the significance of the foliated motif that grows from the base of the cross on Armenian khachkars is that it represents the "life-giving cross". On the Azeri-language article this motif is actually claimed to represent flames and that this proves that they are all "Caucasian Albanian" (i.e. Azeri) in origin because they were once fire worshipers. That is a laughable explanation given that, firstly, fire temples and fire worship also existed in pre-Christian Armenia, and, secondly, similar foliated motifs on the base of crosses are found throughout Byzantine territories and, in Europe, in Romanesque art.

The wider problem here is that many articles on the smaller non-English-language Wikipedia sites fall far short of acceptable standards - they are not duplicates of the English language Wikipedia articles and they are mouthpieces of whatever official ideology or social ethos prevails in the country where that language is spoken. Though I'm not aware of this issue being brought up before, I don't think administrators will want to face up to it, maybe they think the "Wikipedia" brand will be devalued if the widespread abuses on non-English language Wikipedia sites are exposed. What other reason could there be for placing a six month total protection on this article? Meowy 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the stones are not in the same country. Medieval Armenian khachkars existed throughout historical Armenia, so they can still be found in many regions of Turkey. That was what I was thinking of when I said that the propaganda is restricted just to Azerbaijan. Even though Turkey is not exactly friendly towards Armenia, and things Armenian, there is no instance in Turkey of such propaganda: at no time in Turkey has anyone claimed that Armenian khatchkars in Turkey are "Turkish" (or "Albanian"). Meowy 15:53,

Users from Armenia claim that the article in Azerbaijani wiki is propaganda and they say it contains entirely different content. But I want to ask them, why do you think that, this articles must contain the same content. In Wikipedia you can find hundreds such differing articles. And I suppose that you don't understand Azerbaijani language. That's why I think your action against interwiki have no any basis. Wertuose (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You admit that the Azeri-language page contains different content. I have already quoted you wikipedia's own rules that 1/ "interlanguage links are only suitable for linking to a corresponding page in another language", and 2/ that external links should not go to a site that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Meowy 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Corresponding page" and "same content" are distinct concepts. Wertuose (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Azeri-language article is neither. It is not a corresponding article because they are not about the same thing (the subject of your Azeri article is a modern fabrication: "Albanian cross stones"), and it does not have the same content. Meowy 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the main article image on the Azeri article has as caption "Alban xaçı" (Albanian cross) when in fact the cross-stone itself has letters in the Armenian alphabet (Albanian had its own alphabet distinct from Armenian). In Armenian, we see at the top left and right corners written ՅՍ ՔՍ, which is short for Յիսուս Քրիստոս (Jesus Christ). The Azeri article is clearly dubious and propaganda and should not be linked from the English article, especially when it's called an "Albanian" cross-stone. Serouj (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Caucasian Albanian alphabet
• Georgian alphabet
• Saint Mesrob--85.100.42.44 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Meowy, for the more detailed explanation. What I understand from your notes above is that these are, in fact, supposed to be about the same thing -- only that the English Wikipedia article follows WP:NPOV, and the other tells 'state-sanctioned fairy tales'.

Content-related policies on the Wikipedias are determined separately by each language. "Complying with their lousy policies instead of our good ones" is not an excuse for removing the link. Interwiki links are supposed to be maximized -- "whenever such links are possible", in the words of the WP:SISTER#When_to_link policy.

Furthermore, "not complying with their own policies" is still not an excuse for removing the link. We provide these links whenever possible, even if the target page is heavily vandalized or otherwise dreadful. You can think of it as our effort to advertise their page as needing assistance, or -- since links are reciprocal -- directing their readers to this page so they can learn the real story, if that makes you feel better, but the only sanctioned reason for removing interwiki links is a severe mismatch in the nominal subject (e.g., linking Computers in one language to Beer in another). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: The Dilmanc software is Windoze-only. I run a Microsoft-free environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just repeat my view from above. It seems very odd that simple:Khachkar, de:Chatschkar, bg:Хачкар, fa:چلیپاسنگ all have this article as an interwiki link and this doesn't. To be fair, as noted, fr:Khatchkar doesn't have any link at all. This criticism seems to be whether the different versions are all neutral but I don't see how that's a rationale. Each version is going to have some sort of systemic bias, that's just the nature of it. I'd guess that other wikis may consider our versions propaganda at times. That's not a reason to ignore each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Severe mismatch in the nominal subject" - I would have thought that the entirely different title and the entirely different content of the Azeri-language article would have been enough for it to already be a severe mismatch. How much of a mismatch does their need to be for it to be severe? The two articles are about different things: one is about a real thing, Armenian khatchkars, the other is about an imaginary thing, "Albanian cross-stones". Meowy 19:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, you say - one is about a real thing, Armenian khatchkars, the other is about an imaginary thing, "Albanian cross-stones". But don't forget that this is your own view. You not a notable historian, also have not the right to make such statements. Therefore it is simple mere words. Wertuose (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be serious now: this is the view of all reliable historians, art historians and architects. You wouldn't be able to provide a single reliable source stating that these are Albanian. Sardur (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I'm discussing the issue on WP:az. I got this answer: "That article seems to be about Albanian khachkar. But I also see a section which contrasts it with the Armenian khachkar.". Sardur (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant rules

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)

Keep the link. Appreciating all that has been said above, and without having made any attempt to translate the Azeri language article, the NPOV and nationalist issues in it are to be sorted out by people who can read and write Azeri. The subject - the stones - is the same. It would be fair to find a reputable source and use it to point out any relevant attempts to rewrite the history of these stones. And that source might be acceptable even if not in English. But the link should stay. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)