Talk:Cultural genocide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV dispute

Put up NPOV box. I'm tired of having my edits deleted by Neo-Nazis trying to censor anything harmful to them. Hopefully this will attarct some attention to further improve the quality of the article. Viande hachée 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the previous editing stating that "self-proclaimed critics (German Neo-Nazis)" is biased and gives the implication that only extremist Neo-Nazis are critical of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the city of Dresden.
6:20 July 24th, 2006 in the year of our Lord —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.245.53 (talk • contribs) 22:21, July 24, 2006 (UTC)


"Some right-wing extremists have used the term in decrying a purported downfall of Western civilization due to liberal immigration policies
How much of that sentence is NPOV?, or are white people the only ones whose culture doesn't deserve protection? It's very easy to label people who disagree with you as Nazis, but its a cheap trick to discredit their concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.222.55 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Suppression

There's an interesting point to consider. Pre-Chinese Tibet was a theocracy. So when the Chinese decided to change the Tibetan governement (which is implied by invasion), it necessarily had to suppress much of Tibet's religious aspects and hence its culture. So what I want to know is; is there any way to find out what was a "necessary" suppression of the local culture from a gratuitous suppression of it? -- Ark

The only way is to read people with different opinions and then make up your own mind. The closest then to a somewhat neutral history of Tibet consists of many books by Melvin Goldstein.

 -- RoadRunner

[edit] Bowling Green,Ky public library

The Bowling Green,Ky public library has gone through a major removal of books in the nonfiction section. These books were thrown in the dumpster by the library staff. As much as 90% of the books have been destroyed and replace with childrens books and video disks. Some of the books have been sold at a book sale and the proceeds used to purchase paperback books of the Romance type popular among the women. This seems like cultural gencide to me. I have noticed there is a nationwide destruction of books which are unpopular with the right wing. There are also reprints and new books with the same title as the old book being published to cover the loss. --Gophomaxx

[edit] Coining of the term

Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin. Who extended it to "Cultural genocide". Even if that is not known, a sources or examples from a Wikipedia:reliable source should be included here so that it is known that this is not a Wikipedia neologism (see WP:NOR). It would seem to me that a good document to use is the 1994/45. Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples Article 7 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

This entry is fairly strange and not very descriptive as to what event it is actually talking about. Is the article stating that the IRA were attempting to commit "Cultural Genocide" on the Irish people? Which would seem pretty counter-intuitive and makes little sense.

"the deliberate destruction of the Irish Public Records Office and its thousand years of records by the Irish Republican Army in 1922"

I'm not sure if I'm familiar with the event, I assume it was during the civil war, is it the IRA takeover of the fourcourts? If so, I would have doubts about the correctness of the statement.

Secondly, I came to this article assuming there would be something about the English/British Cultural Genocide (or perhaps rather attempted Cultural Genocide) on the Irish people over the Centuries of Occupation/Colonization. But no, there is nothing about it. Why? --Hibernian 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use in political rhethorics

There is nothing in that section, other than the first sentence, which is correct, unbiased, or sourced. If nothing is done within 24 hours, I'll delete the section and leave only that sentence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm being generous in 24 hours; he's had over a week to fix the section, and refused to do so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's gone now. Sukiari 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish conquistor

What about the delibrate destruction/burining of all the records of the native american culture by the spanish conqustors when they conquered Azatisc and Inca Empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.249.242 (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Definitely, just add a source. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. That would be a very good example though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan be considered cultural genocide? Khoikhoi 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More rigorous distinctions

I think there needs to be more rigorous distinction between "genocide" as a popular rhetorical term for any massive cultural devastation and "genocide" as an international crime that requires specific intent to destroy a racial, religious, national or ethnic group. It should be noted that destruction of cultural property is not included as a genocidal act (e.g. murder, prevention of childbirth, removal of children) in any current international criminal statute. The IRA example is not group-motivated, but an apparently strategic act of political terrorism that results in a big cultural loss. The dam was not built in order to destroy cultural sites, though it may have been built with the knowledge that such a result would occur. The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas was not intended to destroy a cultural group, since local worship of the statues was nonexistent in Afghanistan at the time, but it was a destructive act that deprived the world of its cultural heritage. Whatever other crimes these examples might be (crimes against humanity, war crimes), I highly doubt that anyone could be held accountable for genocide in connection with them. If "cultural genocide" has been applied to these situations rhetorically, then that needs to be explained from a more critical standpoint. (The Bowling Green library example is lamentable, but hardly amounts to the destruction of irreplaceable cultural heritage, much less an intentional, group-motivated act of genocide.) Personally, I am dubious about the actual merit of the term in most cases, aside from inflammatory rhetorical bluster. Jacob Howley 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Quite right. For ex. the Buddha statue incident has long been categorised under Iconoclasm. This whole UN law here was historically aimed at things like missionary activities in South America. For example the American evangelicals like SIL International who contributed toward cultural genocide, whether intentionally through profit motivation or through religious naivety. Viande hachée 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and revised the Examples section accordingly. Also tried to couch it in more qualified terms. Jacob Howley 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Artaxiad

Reference to destruction of Armenian khachkars is Armenian. I see no reason why we can't put Azeri--Dacy69 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Pickman is a third party source [1], yet you deleted it and left Armenica, an Armenian source, just to justify you putting that POV addition and pretending that was never added. - Fedayee 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted nothing. I just added information about destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage.Artaxiad reference is incomplete. Initaial reference was to Armenian source and I did not touch to it. Sarah Pickerman reference should be full (not just name) --Dacy69 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you seeing what I am seeing? You took out the Sarah Pickman reference when inserting the Azeri info! Why do you have to lie, I don't get it. Pickman isn't only the name, there's her work too and I provided a link to that in which if you were acting in good faith, you would've "completed" the reference yourself. And in my earlier edit summary, I never said Artaxiad said anything, re-read it please. Also, provide a third party source about the destruction of Azeri cultural heritage just as the Armenians have provided one. - Fedayee 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added reference to neutral source - destruction and looting of Shusha. In the meantime it is necessary to show a full refrence to Sarah Pickman - we have only now name and title of the article. We need what publicatioon, etc. Now it is only Armenian site shown.--Dacy69 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Pickman is from a Archeology magazine, it is a western source it fits the criteria. I removed your referenced material can you show me where it says the "destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in occupied territories by Armenia" Artaxiad 06:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My source is also Western. It also fits criteria. I rephrased the sentence in accordance with the source.And you still failed to present which edition, number of a journal. Yours does not fit criteria. Despite the lack of required full reference I did not touch yours, so please mind correcting and improving your source, before touching mine. Perhaps, as usually you use thrid party source.--Dacy69 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked, the mosques in Aghdam, Shushi and Nagorno-Karabakh in general were still standing, although quite downtrodden. The one in Yerevan was repaired by Iranians. And none of them were destroyed and turned into a military zone like the khachkars in Nakhichevan. And the De Waal article you have sourced proves me right: "Since they captured Shusha in 1992, the Armenians have rebuilt the imposing church of Gazanchetsots (the mosques are abandoned and in a poor state of repair, but still intact)."
The article actually mentions how a group of Armenians prevented the destruction of cultural landmarks: "Mher Gabrielian, a Shusha Armenian, recalled how he and a group of friends managed to prevent the destruction of some of its cultural landmarks." And that's the only time the word cultural is used in the article. Cultural heritage is not even mentioned. Hakob 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We should mention the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia. De Waal described in his book "Black garden" how Armenians pulled down an Azerbaijani mosque in Yerevan in 1990 using a bulldozer. And here's another source on the same topic:
Before one gets too irate at the Azeris, however, one must note the paucity of surviving Islamic remains in Armenia, including the capital of Yerevan. To put this in historical perspective, in 1826, before the signing of the Treaty of Turkmenchai and the ethnic movements that followed in its wake, roughly 90,000 of a total population of 110, 000 in the Khanate of Yerevan were Muslims – Persians, Kurds, and "Turko-Tatar" nomads (the last being the peoples who later became self-conscious Azeris) (Bournoutian 1983:78; and also, however, his critical review 1992:67-8). No matter what demographic statistics one consults, it is simply unquestionable that considerable material remains of Islam must once have existed in this area. Their near total absence today cannot be fortuitous.
Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395
Grandmaster 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
None of those qualify as cultural genocide, a destruction is not equal to cultural genocide. An even must be termed as cultural genocide, we do not OR and decide what is cultural genocide or not. What happened in Nakhichevan was termed as such, what happened in Anatolia to the Armenian monuments is called as such. Do you have any work which call cultural genocide what haopened to Muslim monuments in Armenia so that we can add it? Fad (ix) 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1) You should read the UN definition given in the article, particularly item 'b'. So, in the meaning of UN text which is given here as preambula, deliberate destruction of Azerbaijani heritage on occupied territories and in Armenia is cultural genocide. 2) And now about your claim that Armenian cultural genocide is termd as such. Who called Armenian destruction as cultural genocide - it is a view of certain people, or NGOs. The use of terms in Wikipedia is quite troubled issue. We have people and government who call Monte Melkonian terrorist but you refuse to acknowledge that. Yes, some people does, some - not. We can't sometimes use the term aggression with regard to Armenian occupation. We have OIC resolution about destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in occupied territories. You have EU parlaiment resolution - we have OIC. They are equal in a sense that both are regional organizations. 3)Someone in theatrical way announced that he is taking break from Wiki for 3 months. Welcome back so soon.--Dacy69 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the term genocide is legal binding, what happened before its creation to be applied it should be used as Jurisprudence, being compound of the definition. You do not apply UN definition, this is called original research. What happened in Nakhichevan was called cultural genocide according to some source, there are sources which use that term, it can be properly referenced, references which properly use that term. We can not OR and apply the definition. If you do not have a notable source with that term, then it does not go in the Cultural genocide article. Cultural genocide is not just destruction. I am waiting you to provide the sources. Fad (ix) 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Which third party source uses the term "cultural genocide"? Grandmaster 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fadix, as I know, EU parliament desicion did not used a term cultural genocide (nor UN or any other organization). So, it is so much OR for khachkar issue. Some sources aren't counted as it might be self-proclaimed opinion. If you talk about Jurisprudence then pls. refer to sources in accordance with the international law. --Dacy69 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Read carefully what I wrote, the term Jurisprudence was in use, for what happened before the term not after. Some sources are enough to say, "some consider". Fad (ix) 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1 - if you agree that then we can use term terrorism/terrorist in a way you just put - some sources are enough to say "some consider" (for example with regard to Monte Melkonian). That will be equal applicability of the principle you mentioned 2 - examples which produced here was taken for its content. I am afraid but no international legal document exist on calling several events listed in this article as cultural genocide, including khachkar. Any other reflection or opinion is just OR anyway no matter some, many or few consider 3 - I advise you to look at Aivazovsky talkpage. He and Grandmaster negotiated not to spread this issue over various articles. I made my comment. So, we can reach compromise on that. Otherwise, we have enough evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. As a matter of fact, we can have section about mutual destruction of cultural property on NKW page. That will limit all our dispute to one page. But I see that Artaxiad thinks differently - it is he who created a number of pages on every (and sometimes the same) conflict-related event.--Dacy69 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are yet again instinuating, when have I disagreed with the use of terms terrorism and terrorist in an article? If it is properly sourced, the term ""x" considers does fit." I don't even remember having engaged with you on Monte Melkonian, the only time I edited the article, I haven't deleted what you have added, but changed its place for a place which fits better, and I don't remember you disagreed with that, and then you and some Armenians started edit warring over something which I did not follow. As for cultural genocide, the destruction of the Khachkars did happen after the genocide convention, Azerbaijan was accused of deliberatly destroying, it made the news of many newspapers. If you have coverage reports, with such an accusation against the Armenian republic, go ahead. Some non-specific events or destructions do not fit as cultural genocide. As both sides during war have destroyed, bulldozed etc., the difference with the Khachkars was that it was recorded on tape during the destruction, just like whe it happened with the destruction of the Budha giant statue, and it was even compared with it. It was also covered in various newspapers and covered by the American archeological society. We can not start adding every little sources on destructions in the cultural genocide main page, there are thousands around the world. A destruction does not necessarly fit as cultural genocide. The Azerbaijani government representatives have denied that Armenians have ever lived there, the destruction was in connection to that, they were accused of removing the traces of the presence of the Armenians. If you have similar sources and records about any Azeri monuments do provide them here. Fad (ix) 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it is already provided - 2 sources at least. Armenians try to erase turkic presence in occupied regions - the story of current Shusha project suffice.--Dacy69 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No it does not, I have read this [2], were does it accuse Armenian autorities to destroy Azeri artifacts to erase their presence and then pretend Azeri never lived there. Show me. Fad (ix) 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
My two sentences about two separate problems. One - destruction during the war. Second - it is about to intention to erase turkic or let's say islamic presence since mostly turkic people were Moslems. Read carefully what Grandmaster posted - No matter what demographic statistics one consults, it is simply unquestionable that considerable material remains of Islam must once have existed in this area (Armenia). Their near total absence today cannot be fortuitous.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology).--Dacy69 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

there is also OIC resolution - RESOLUTION No.10/30-C, ON THE DESTRUCTION AND DESECRATION OF ISLAMIC HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RELICS AND SHRINES IN THE OCCUPIED AZERI TERRITORIES RESULTING FROM THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA'S AGGRESSION AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN: ...1. Strongly condemns the barbaric acts committed by the Armenian aggressor in the Republic of Azerbaijan aiming at the total annihilation of the Islamic heritage in the occupied Azeri territories; ...--Dacy69 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The first source is not valid, it is pre genocide, for it to be called cultural genocide, it should be called as such in published works. That work does not say that. There are thousands, thousands of destroyed artifacts around the world. For the second, go ahead, add that, as long as you say the Islamic conference made that resolution, but you should also add the other quote from De Waal which say that the Mosques are still standing, it contradicts the first. Fad (ix) 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The first source actually written by de Waal. And it is valid because there is no cultral genocide convention - it is UN declaration of 1994. You should know int.law - declaration is not legal document. So point about pregenocide and etc. has no validity in this case. secondly, I see no point to put widely all this dispute here - there is specific page(s) on this issue. So, if you want to launch it here - go ahead, then I will come with my edit. But now I am satisfied with one sentence in the line with metioning other examples since it is not about Armenia-Azerbaijani conflict. And, as I told you - I, Grandmaster and Aivazovsky have discussed how to limit this dispute to one page.And I don't want at this moment to break that negotiations. --Dacy69 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC) - And regarding Monte Melkonian - now it seems you retracting but on arbcom page you accused me of vilifying that and other pages. You did not revealed what dispute was about. So you did not followed but accused me.--Dacy69 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
First, like I have said, cultural genocide is a very vast subject, there could be thousands of cases. De Waal does not support what you claim, besides, it is about time that we start quoting beside De Waal, he has been more than quoted actually quoted more than his notability would impose, many articles significant positions had as sole source De Waal. I is better that we start finding other works as supplementation. The Khachkar destructions was documented on various notable publications, and the reports after the destructions by Azerbaijan government that Armenians ever never lived there. There were recorded artfiacts, recorded destruction during the destruction itself, and then the denial that Armenians ever lived there. This situation has been recorded on various, various newsources. De Waal and the Islamic conference, in which Armenians don't have even a representative, can not be presented as equally valid as the various coverage of the Khachkar destruction. The Cultural genocide articles is a main and reserved to clearly define cultural genocides. For example, the recorded destruction of 2000 Armenian churchs and the hundreds of monuments in Turkey and the claim they never existed. There are countless numbers of notable publications, clearly mentioning it as "cultural genocide", or the change of the name of a specy because it contained an allusion to Armenians etc. Just search the literature, and you will see what notability, some reference does not justify presenting it in parallel to an event which notability has been established. Also, I am not retracting anything at all, my comments on your actions on Melkonian article was not about content but behaviours. Fad (ix) 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I still have not received the answer to my question. Which third party source uses the term "cultural genocide" with regard to Nakhichevan or anywhere else in Azerbaijan? If it is OR, it has no place here. Grandmaster 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, it was presented as such in the British house of lord, I have an account by Steven Sims in PDF and have his email, he is a lecturer and specialist of Armenian monuments, he will answer you that it was a “Cultural Genocide.” If you want to read the account, you will see that documented church which were standing in 1980s, there is nothing, nothing Armenian left and that the destructions were done the last years. Khachkars were just one example, made the press that much because it was taped. I am not requesting the destructions in Nakhichevan to be added here, what I am saying is that the only notable event which is notable enough for the main “cultural genocide” is the destruction of the Khachkars, it was compared with the destruction of the Budha Statue. Fad (ix) 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

After all your claims about reputable sources your reference to statement of one biased lord in UK parliament does not sustain any critical observation.--Dacy69 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot present opinion of a couple of people as something commonly accepted. We also have opinion of some people, who consider the massacre in Khojaly to be a genocide, but would you agree if it is included in the relevant article as a fact? Grandmaster 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you have used de Waal as sole source for many affirmations in articles, why do you believe that his opinion is worth mentioning as sole source for many articles? Khachkar destruction stand alone, it was compared with the destruction of the Giant Budha, there is nothing Armenian left in Nakhichevan, and this is documented, but I did not request those to be added, what I have said is that Khachkar stand alone, it was reported in various notable sources, the destruction was taped, and later the Government affirmed that there was no Armenians ever living there. You can not present two things in parallel when one has few sources, a fringe, and the other has been reported on various very notable source. Fad (ix) 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Russian news report on cultural genocide of Armenian monuments. Steven Sim's report of his visit to Nakhichevan may shed some light on why some editors on here keep making difficulties and rejecting sources left and right. Happy editing, Hakob 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are also reports on destruction of Azeri heritage anyway. We have enough discussed validity of sources. On Armenian side there are EU resolution, several articles, on Azeri - OIC resolution, one book and article. I am sure both sides can dig more. But here, on this page, we mention with 1 sentence various fact across the globe. As for khachkar discussion in details, as I told, there is the separate article on that - I see no reason to widen the topic here.--Dacy69 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The OIC resolution was based on a draft submitted by Azerbaijan, it is represented there. Wikipedia does not only require sources, it require also credible sources. We've been there already, words like "barbaric" etc. and without an particular example does not fit in the context of a source worth being considered as notable enough to be placed on the main Cultural genocide page. The question here is, would a non-Armenian and non-Azeri user possibly add the Khachkar on this main? Yes, The Independent, the Times, the Archeological society of America and other notable publications have reported it. The EU is not taken as alone. It is a particular recorded event. While the said destruction of Muslim monuments does not add up, even de Waal claims the Mosques are still there, the author which you claim support the position. You claim you can dig more sources go ahead do so. But would any neutral contributor who has read on cultural destruction find the sources you provide as worthy to be included on the main in parallel to the Khachkar? Fad (ix) 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
First source presented by Hakob is Armenian, and second one is the only third party one. Cultural genocide is not a fact, but interpretation, and is not a common one, but supported only by 1 source. You cannot present it as a fact. I never presented any interpretation by a single source as a fact, check your facts, Fadix. Also destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia is a fact. According to Brokhauz article about Erivan the city had 6 mosques, as of now there’s only 1 left. What happened to the other 5? They could not just disappear or move to another planet. De Waal explained what happened to one of them, it was pulled down with a bulldozer in 1990, soon after the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan started. Obviously, others vanished the same way, as Philip Kohl states. This should be reflected in Wikipedia, if not in this article, then some other one. Grandmaster 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, before the Turkic tribs came, there were recorded hundreds of churchs and monuments in the area, a couple remained, various explorers have recorded the ruins and destructions, there is more Armenian monuments in hat now constitute Armenian hich were destroyed than Muslim. And? Where have I claimed that I wanted it as fact, I am tired of you putting words in my mouth to then answer them. Read my repy to Dacy69, on "some source say", oh and no, there is not only one source saying that, Steven Sims calls it Cultural Genocide, you have used De Waal to establish "facts" on various articles, while the two source which I claim would be enough to say some claims for ONE article is to much for you to bear. And no, there was no Azerbaijani cultural heritage destroyed in Armenia, there was Muslim cultural heritage destroyed, they were Persian architectures and monuments, much like in Yerevan there are various churchs and Armenian monuments destroyed desecrated for centuries under Turkic rules. What is the point of that? If after all this, you still don't see why the Khachkars incidence is a stand alone, then there is absolutly no point to assume good faith. The destruction of the Budha Statue as called a cultural genocide, two other neutral sources have compared the destruction of the Khachkars with it. That makes 4 neutral source, without counting the various notable and independent sources which covers it. Bulldozer? Grandmaster, Steven Sims report that from the churchs and Armenian monuments still standing not so long ago in Nachikevan, nothing, nothing absolutly NOTHING remains. Does a source make it enough to place it in the main, NO! The Khachkar is the only notable one. Stop POV pushing. Fad (ix) 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, there's only 1 source that uses the word, you cannot present it as something generally accepted. And what happened in Armenia was carried out by the state of Armenia, that makes difference. Yes, the state of Armenia was engaged in cultural genocide, if the term means destruction of cultural heritage of other people. Grandmaster 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OR, two very notable source present a comparaison with the Budha statue, two others use the term cultural genocide. With Steven Sims, that makes it two. To add, the various countless numbers of sources. De Waal claims the Mosques still stand, while Sims claims that there is nothing left of the Churchs and monuments in Nakhichevan. But, I am not requesting those to be added on the main, what I a saying is that the Khachkar destruction is a stand alone, because of the reputability of the sources. Adding this in parallel with Muslim monuments does not add up. Because there are Armenian monuments beside the Khachkars destroyed too and are much more notable, but all those are nowhere as notable as the Khachkars destruction and can not be added on the main. Obviously we are turning in circle and you refuse here to to conform with notability. Fad (ix) 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECultural_genocide_e572.html"