This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edits for Post-1994 ceasefire
The box at the section needs an update, replacing "currently control" by "controlled". As the page is protected, I can't do it. The larger "History" section needs I guess a new sub-section referring to the latest developments and including the information at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement likely to be stable, as the active war seems over now.--Diotime (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
Sevak Zeinali (talk) I want to edit this source because some information is wrong for me(especially the name being Artsakh and not Nagorno-Karabakh, so I think I might be able to edit errors that are in it, as I have been in Artsakh before.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually name of Artsakh is not Armenian name. It means that Ar Sakh. Ar means man in turkic languages. And Sakh is turkic tribes that come Karabakh from Skithia.Source:Documents from The National Museum of History of Azerbaijan.Note: Please change the name of Artsakh to Karabakh, cause it is not official name. Ayyam Aghali (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Article names of NK towns and villages
Hey! I've recently opened a discussion regarding page moves for the articles concerning Nagorno-Karabakh towns and villages here: Talk:Qarakənd and I would appreciate feedback from other editors that are familiar with the issue. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Official names
@Rosguill: Hi! I was wondering if you could provide some input regarding the issue of official names for towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh as you've previously weighed in on the matter. Recently, the Azerbaijani-language names decided by the Azerbaijani government have been changed to boldface on the articles for historically Armenian-majority towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh where Azerbaijan is not the de facto ruling authority (for example: Haterk, Gishi, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ashan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Verin Horatagh, Nerkin Horatagh) with the rationale that Wikipedia guidelines recommend official names in boldface per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, despite the disputed nature of the region.
Looking at WP:OFFICIALNAMES (#Where there is an official name that is not the article title + #Practicality): "Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official.", I was wondering - would you say that the official names for competing/disputed/de facto authorities should also be displayed in boldface per WP:OFFICIALNAMES? In Nagorno-Karabakh, that's already the case for Khojaly (town) for example - which displays the name Ivanyan in boldface which is used by Artsakh and the current Armenian population of the town, but a number of villages with historically Azerbaijani-majorities controlled by Artsakh (with the Lachin corridor at least partially under Artsakh control) such as Umudlu, Tartar, Sırxavənd, Kuropatkino, Lachin, Zabux and so on do not have the Artsakh official names in boldface currently - this is a bit problematic with regard to neutrality and balance in my view if the guideline is interpreted in such a one-sided way - so is de jure and de facto status a good dividing line here or could the the current state of affairs reasonably be changed so that all of the official names used by the de facto and de jure authorities are displayed in bold? Would you say that a discussion like this is enough to look into the matter or would an RfC be necessary for example? AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure if this article is the best place to ask this. If this was just a question directed to Rosguill, it would've been better to use their talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wanted to keep the discussion open as much as possible and I thought that the central Nagorno-Karabakh article would be a prudent place to have it. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well then I'll add my opinion.
- Quoting WP:OFFICIALNAMES here:
- (undisputed official names) It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized
- Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them.
- In our case, there is only one alternate official name (in articles where non-official name is the article title), therefore we're following the guideline and showing it in a similar fashion. This is not the case for Artsakh as it's not an "official" name. No independent nation considers it that.
- This was clarified in the discussion here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think I essentially gave my perspective on these issues in the link that CuriousGolden included above: you're not going to find a hard and fast answer in a guideline. Rather, you should consider usage in English-language sources, whether or not there is a continued presence of people speaking the minority language, and the historical prominence of the alternative names. I don't think that CuriousGolden's argument about Artsakh's lack of recognition is the be-all end-all: while the case for inclusion would obviously be stronger if Artsakh had received international diplomatic recognition, it is sometimes valid to include former, minority-language names even if they never had official legal recognition (e.g. Oświęcim's inclusion of Yiddish). This is something that needs to be hashed out on a case by case basis, although you may be able to come to a general agreement on sets of locations (e.g., follow one convention for towns claimed by Artsakh that were on the Azerbaijan side of the 1994 ceasefire lines, another convention for towns that were under Artsakh's control 1994-2020). signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wanted to keep the discussion open as much as possible and I thought that the central Nagorno-Karabakh article would be a prudent place to have it. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks for your input! Would you then say that the recent string of edits by CuriousGolden bolding the Azerbaijani de jure names referring to WP:OFFICIALNAME and your previous input on his talk page were appropriate? The previous de facto balance was to keep Azerbaijani de jure names for historically Armenian-majority villages in the former NKAO within the brackets without boldface and vice versa. Now I would say that the balance has been upturned a bit.
I do see how a case-to-case basis would be appropriate given the complexity of the region, however, if there is a way to codify some form of a template for the name formatting that you would recommend, such as an RfC, that may be more constructive as the talk page discussions have become pretty messy in the past.
The one thing I still think is a bit unclear, and which I would appriciate input on is the matter of "official names" - since WP:OFFICIALNAME mentions that when there are competing authorities, then multiple names can in some sense be considered to be official - by this definition - since there is one de jure name, and one de facto name, wouldn't then both be considered official names, in some sense? Or would you say that the same rationale that is used for displaying alternative names - that they are prominent in English-language sources or were historically prominent as you mentioned, should then be the main indicators for "official names" as well, and determined on a case-to-case basis? Because of the small size of the villages, often few reliable English-language sources mention them at all, using any name, so I've found that search engine tests can been useful.
AntonSamuel (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- AntonSamuel, my perspective is that the alternative names rationale that you describe towards the end of your last paragraph is probably the way to go. I think that having a broad preliminary discussion, possibly here or at a centralized talk page for discussion of NK/A-A matters, to figure out what front-running proposals are for a broad solution is the way to go, and then use an RfC to select the best approach among those proposed.
- Another thing hat could be considered is that in cases where there really are no English sources to go on, sources in other "third-party" languages could be considered as well. Russian may be a good fallback language; to use the example of Shusha/Shushi above, Шуша vs Шуши should be a fairly clear analogue to the English. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: Thank you very much for your input! I think a way forward is a bit more clear now. I'll work on a proposal to place here, so that there will hopefully be some constructive debate regarding it so that it can eventually be put through an RfC alongside other proposals presented. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)