Andranikpasha (talk | contribs) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::: Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::: Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for ''Armenia''), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. [[User:Andranikpasha|Andranikpasha]] ([[User talk:Andranikpasha|talk]]) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for ''Armenia''), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. [[User:Andranikpasha|Andranikpasha]] ([[User talk:Andranikpasha|talk]]) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Nakhchivan or Nakhichevan== |
|||
I just searched for Nakhichevan and Nakhchivan at Google and other search engines for reliable links. For Nakhichevan we have a large number of will-known English encyclopedias and reliable sources (f.e. Britannica's article: "'''Nakhichevan''', Azerbaijani Naxçivan, exclave and autonomous republic of Azerbaijan...."[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9054715/Nakhichevan]). For Nakhichevan see also: [http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/nakhichevan.jsp Questia: a large number of reliable sources calling it Nakhichevan],[http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NakhchvnAR.html Columbia Encyclopedia],[http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/N0006675.html The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language],[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDE1330F931A15756C0A964958260 New York Times],[http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0027007.html Hutchinson encycl.],[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-Nakhichevan.html],[http://europeandcis.undp.org/WaterWiki/index.php/SDC_-_Rehabilitation_of_the_water_supply_in_Nakhichevan,_Azerbaijan_2002-2003 UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?)],[http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/N0006675.html USAToday],[http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Nakhchvn Yahoo Education Project] or [http://iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=159233&apc_state=henicrs1999] and even some Azeri sites [http://www.demaz.org/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0056&n=000018&g=],[http://azerbaijan24.com/news/28/]. For Nakhchivan we have only nakhchivan.az and different Azerbaijani sites (like zerbaijan.com) according to which "Nakhchivan is a historical Azerbaijani region", etc. Grandmaster, I will be grateful if you cite at least 1-2 really reliable English sources for Nakhchivan. Otherways, I'd like to have an admin opinion (or a link to a Wiki rule), if an Azerbaijani (even if it is native) name or transcription is more prefereble for Wiki, than the one commonly used by English sources. PS- And the Russian sources like old Brokgauz and Efron[http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/brokminor/article/29/29164.html?text=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00051/65200.htm?text=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C], modern "Geographical names"[http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/geography/article/geo/geo2/geo-3217.htm?text=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C] or "Krugosvet"[http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/krugosvet/article/krugosvet/4/42/1009842.htm?text=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8C] prefer Nakhichevan too. Thanks in advance. [[User:Andranikpasha|Andranikpasha]] ([[User talk:Andranikpasha|talk]]) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The transliteration leans strongly towards 'Nakhchivan', and the word itself is not strongly ingrained into English enough so that 'most used' should be an issue. (like it is for, example, Kiev vs Kyiv) One may be more commonly used over another, but not by enough margin to matter, and both versions are rather foreign to 99% of English speakers. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:35, 10 February 2008
Azerbaijan Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Moving this article back to "Nakhichevan"
I decided to rename this article back to "Nakhichevan", simply because it gets more hits on Google [1] than "Nakhchivan". [2] "Nakhchivan" is also an alternative Azeri (i.e. not neutral) spelling not widely used in English. I didn't know this at the time of the move, which I was foolish enough to initiate and go along with. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I have any statement on the move, but I find it strange that an Azeri name for an undisputed region belonging to Azerbaijan can possibly be non-neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...you're right. In any case, "Nakhchivan" not widely used in the English language. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aivazovsky, should not you discuss the page move before actually making it? Roll it back, please, and discuss. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whats stopping you from discussing it now? Assume a little good faith and provide your argument. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should not be discussed post factum, but before any change is made. Grandmaster (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I see, that's not the only changed made without consensus. I restored consensus wording in one section. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whats stopping you from discussing it now? Assume a little good faith and provide your argument. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aivazovsky, should not you discuss the page move before actually making it? Roll it back, please, and discuss. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Aivazovsky deleted this line: According to Human Rights Watch, hostilities broke out after three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region.<ref name="hrw01">[http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/general/general926.pdf Overview of Areas of Armed Conflict in the former Soviet Union], [[Human Rights Watch]], Helsinki Report</ref> Grandmaster (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- This part "According to other versions, the name Nakhichevan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan..." is also seems to be misinterpreted, as both sources (also the one translated and published by "reliable" Ziya Bunyadov) dont say Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan, thay just mark this as another variant for the name (in the source of Kazvani it is a variant of the Nakhijevan town's name). It is well-known that Nakhijevan is the recognized and internationally used name, and any revisions of the name may have only propagandist character. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The previous title was a consensus, this one is not: [3] Grandmaster (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not an official consensus made by any admin, nor an only Armenian user who discusses there is enough to represent another side's view and make agreement even if he is the so much respected Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky discussed it in May 2007, now it is February 2008. Many Armenian users included Aivazovsky represented new reasons why the moving is justified. Wiki is a free encyclopedia that needs to be developed, we cant keep all the dubious "consensuses" of May 2007 between some Azerbaijani and one Armenian user and close the Wikipedia. Grandmaster, you surely know about this as right after the consensus on Shusha you started the changes. So a "consensus" is a weak justification. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying but I'm failing to make any sense of what you said, what does any of that have to do with the name of this article? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Before any move is made it should be discussed and agreed on talk. This is very simple. Grandmaster (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not an official consensus made by any admin, nor an only Armenian user who discusses there is enough to represent another side's view and make agreement even if he is the so much respected Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky discussed it in May 2007, now it is February 2008. Many Armenian users included Aivazovsky represented new reasons why the moving is justified. Wiki is a free encyclopedia that needs to be developed, we cant keep all the dubious "consensuses" of May 2007 between some Azerbaijani and one Armenian user and close the Wikipedia. Grandmaster, you surely know about this as right after the consensus on Shusha you started the changes. So a "consensus" is a weak justification. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it why you moved Shushi Massacres to "Ethnic Clashes in Shusha" without any discussions?:) Nakhijevan is the commonly used name, its too much obviuos you even dont discuss it (am I right?), so what's the problem. How many reliable sources prefer Nakhchivan? Pls represent and surely we will discuss and make corrections. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW the article needs to be checked as some of the sources on the naming are misinterpreted as I represented earlier. Some things that must be NPOVed: the khachkars' case must be updated, as official Azerbaijan didnt allowed specialists to enter (according to neutral sources, not to Azeri officials); and Dashnaktsutiun is not the only significant party in Armenia that claims Nakhijevan and disputtes the treaty between Bolshieviks and Turkey. So an info updating is needed. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I said I'd review this six months ago and here we are, I don't have my original notes but it looks to me that the proper transliteration would be "Nakhchivan". I'm moving this back. If you want to request a move, that's fine, but til then it's going back to the 'original' name. And Aivazovsky, you should have known better than to make a controversial move. The Google search is not necessarily a valid indictator. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then again, you moved about 10 other articles too. Good job, making it that much annoying to reverse, and therefore I'd be much likely to just let it lie, and therefore you gain traction for your choice. Well played, sir. So the question is, do I actually undo all your changes, or do we open a discussion, which would just turn into another petty fight between the two groups? No, I'm taking this one on, the proper transliteration is Nakhchivan and thus it will go. That a certain number of google hits disagree cannot change that fundamental fact. One great piece of evidence - when you did your search-and-replace renaming in the article, you changed the name of the region's official website from http://www.nakhchivan.az/ to http://www.nakhichevan.az/ - didn't you think for a minute that, hey, maybe this was an indicator that this move was wrong? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize to everyone for all this mess. Let's just leave it as "Nakhchivan" and keep it like that. Thanks for reverting everything back, Golbez. Again, I'm sorry. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for being graceful, I will try to be as well and apologize for my tone above. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for resolving the problem, Golbez. Aivazovsky, I hope next time you will discuss with others before making any dramatic changes. You and I always managed to resolve our disputes so far. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Im not agree with you, Aivazovsky, Golbez and Grandmaster, and Ill return to this problem when I have more time for this really annoying topic. Anyways my notes above are valid and (special for Grandmaster) mind that this undiscussed temporary revert is not a consensus. Do not have any illusions that I agreed. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have concrete evidence that this is the proper name; what do you have? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Golbez, at first Id like to mark that Im sure on your neutrality, I see your real and serious interest to Arm.-Az. related topics, and whats more important for me, you're always open for any other opinions, another views and sources. Thank you for it! And to make a serious discussion on this moving I prefer to made some more research, despite some things are obvious right now (at least, the creation of Goghtan Gavar, "Nakhichevan Autonomuos Republic of Azerbaijani SSR" and "Nakhichevan (region)" articles is needed and justified). After that I even dont need to discuss this one with Grandmaster, as any reader will be able to see how historically Armenian Nakhichevan cleansed from whole Armenian population and Armenian cultural heritage by the descendents of 13th century invaders and became "Nakhchivan" first time a few years ago. Is this name changing a political denialism and propagand by Azerbaijan, or no, any reader can understand without Grandmaster's or mine help. But at first I prefer to finish source checking here. Thanks again! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have concrete evidence that this is the proper name; what do you have? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Im not agree with you, Aivazovsky, Golbez and Grandmaster, and Ill return to this problem when I have more time for this really annoying topic. Anyways my notes above are valid and (special for Grandmaster) mind that this undiscussed temporary revert is not a consensus. Do not have any illusions that I agreed. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for resolving the problem, Golbez. Aivazovsky, I hope next time you will discuss with others before making any dramatic changes. You and I always managed to resolve our disputes so far. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for being graceful, I will try to be as well and apologize for my tone above. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize to everyone for all this mess. Let's just leave it as "Nakhchivan" and keep it like that. Thanks for reverting everything back, Golbez. Again, I'm sorry. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Andranik, it's not worth fighting over changing the name again. User:Meowy suggested changing it from "Nakhichevan" to "Nakhchivan" awhile back while editing and I went along with it by bringing it up on the talk page. It's the official name and we can't change that. Also think that there can be no "political denialism" in this article unless the Armenian history of the area as well as the present demolition of khachkars is completely ignored. I worked hard to make sure that plenty of both were included in this piece. The name is not a big deal. Let's just leave it. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nakhchivan is as near as we can render into English spelling the way the name is spelt using the current Azeri alphabet. Also, it renders almost exactly how it is currently pronounced. It is NOT pronounced Nakhichevan by those that live there (and, personally, I don't think that it ever has been). Meowy 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No Meowy, in Armenian it sounds very beautyful as it has a meaning. We have an Ijevan too. I really dont know what the Wiki rules say: Shusha is not pronounced as Shusha by 100% of those who live there, so what? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's because population of Shusha was ethnically cleansed. The population of Shusha before the conflict was 99% Azerbaijani, and it is part of Azerbaijan de-jure. There's an internationally accepted practice to use pre-conflict names for NK locations, even though many authoritative sources, such as US State Department use official Azerbaijani names, such as Khankendi for Stepanakert. But this region is different from NK, the official name of this region in Azerbaijani is Nakhchivan, and the region is not disputed. Armenia does not officially claim it, and population does not want to break away from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 99 % Azeri acoording to an Azeri source you're using at the Shusha. And surely Shusha wasnt ethnically clensed from Armenians... Azeri soldiers just "suppressed" a revolt with the whole Armenian population. Etc. It looks you're using the info you have to describe a Wiki rule, but what Im asking if such a rule really exists. Just cite pls. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS- I dont sure if Nakhijevan is not officially claimed at least by the ruling Republ. party of Armenia Ill look after. I just know that there are high-level Armenian diplomats who didnt recognize the Moscow Treaty of 1921 as de jure correct and mark that Nakhijevan wasnt a part of Dem. Rep. of Azerbaijan, the de jure predecessor of the modern Azerbaijan. I need to look for sources. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for Armenia), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's because population of Shusha was ethnically cleansed. The population of Shusha before the conflict was 99% Azerbaijani, and it is part of Azerbaijan de-jure. There's an internationally accepted practice to use pre-conflict names for NK locations, even though many authoritative sources, such as US State Department use official Azerbaijani names, such as Khankendi for Stepanakert. But this region is different from NK, the official name of this region in Azerbaijani is Nakhchivan, and the region is not disputed. Armenia does not officially claim it, and population does not want to break away from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nakhchivan or Nakhichevan
I just searched for Nakhichevan and Nakhchivan at Google and other search engines for reliable links. For Nakhichevan we have a large number of will-known English encyclopedias and reliable sources (f.e. Britannica's article: "Nakhichevan, Azerbaijani Naxçivan, exclave and autonomous republic of Azerbaijan...."[4]). For Nakhichevan see also: Questia: a large number of reliable sources calling it Nakhichevan,Columbia Encyclopedia,The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,New York Times,Hutchinson encycl.,[5],UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?),USAToday,Yahoo Education Project or [6] and even some Azeri sites [7],[8]. For Nakhchivan we have only nakhchivan.az and different Azerbaijani sites (like zerbaijan.com) according to which "Nakhchivan is a historical Azerbaijani region", etc. Grandmaster, I will be grateful if you cite at least 1-2 really reliable English sources for Nakhchivan. Otherways, I'd like to have an admin opinion (or a link to a Wiki rule), if an Azerbaijani (even if it is native) name or transcription is more prefereble for Wiki, than the one commonly used by English sources. PS- And the Russian sources like old Brokgauz and Efron[9], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[10], modern "Geographical names"[11] or "Krugosvet"[12] prefer Nakhichevan too. Thanks in advance. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The transliteration leans strongly towards 'Nakhchivan', and the word itself is not strongly ingrained into English enough so that 'most used' should be an issue. (like it is for, example, Kiev vs Kyiv) One may be more commonly used over another, but not by enough margin to matter, and both versions are rather foreign to 99% of English speakers. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)