Jump to content

Talk:Elizavetpol Governorate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wording

[edit]

Restored the wording to Azerbaijan's first independence, because Azerbaijan Republic of today is considered a descendant state of ADR, and ADR's independence is considered in Azerbaijan as Republic's Day, foundation of the first independent republic. Atabek 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its talking about the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, not the Republic of Azerbaijan. The ADR did not gain independence, it was founded (to gain independence you have to first be an entity that was occupied).Hajji Piruz 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who remove Azerbaijani spelling, please explain why it is not acceptable here, while Armenian is OK to include to Erivan Governorate. Please provide a valid reason for removal, any references to WP:POINT are pointless. I was just reverting a sock of banned user Hetoum. Edit warring in support of the banned user, without any valid reason to rv, is a violation of arbitration ruling. Grandmaster 14:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabethpol Governorate → Elizavetpol Governorate – per WP:COMMONNAME


It's very clear "Elisabethpol Governorate" is not common name, probably this name is "Wiki-vention". There are no common name when we use the term "governorate". But as long as I understand, because other administrative unit of the Russian Empire oblast is also translated as "province" in English, guberniya is translated as "governorate" to distinguish from other administrative units.

Elisabethpol:

Elisavetpol:

Elizavetpol:

Yelizavetpol:

-- Takabeg (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly oppose. What the above does is basically counting google hits. The problem with the results (apart from obvious ones described by WP:SET) is that the term "governorate" is not a part of the name but only a descriptor indicating the entity type. Descriptors of the entities of the same type in the same country are not normally researched individually; the general consensus is to use only one for all instances; see WP:NCCS for more on this. As for the term "governorate" itself, as the nominator correctly observes, it was chosen because it's the one that does the job the best (and "province" is not only one of the possible translations of "oblast" but also the term used to refer to provintsiya—an administrative division type into which the governorates themselves were divided in the 18th century).
    The actual proper name (Elisabethpol vs. Yelizavetpol, etc.) is, of course, a different matter, but even then researching which of the alternate romanizations (out of several valid ones) gets more hits seems weird, especially considering how low the counts are. I myself would favor "Yelizavetpol", mostly for consistency sake, but "Elisabethpol" is also a perfectly good choice. "Elizavetpol", on the other hand, is exactly the same as "Yelizavetpol", only transliterated using a different system; one Wikipedia does not normally use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 13:17 (UTC)
  • Question. Also, could the nominator please clarify the rationale behind the inclusion of the word "governor" in the above research? The term "governor" refers to the top executive position of the governorate (i.e., a person), not to the division itself, so I don't quite understand why it's even considered. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 13:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

azeri name

[edit]

@Nunuxxx:the Elizabethpol Governorate was a Russian governorate. Why insert only the azeri name if Armenians inhabited it too, and the territory is today part of Armenia, azerbaijan, and Armenian Artsakh.--217.149.166.67 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

217.149.166.67 Hello. Regarding your question, if you look at Grandmaster's comment above in this talk page, posted in November 2009, you will notice this has already been discussed regarding the Azerbaijani name for the governorate. The Elisabethpol Governorate was used by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic until its abolishment by Soviet Azerbaijani authorities in 1920, hence, it is appropriate to include the official name of the governorate used in the last 2 years of its existence (1918-1920). Nunuxxx (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster is a biased azeri user. 2009 is irrelevant. the territory is in modern armenia and azerbaijan. also adr was an illegitimate state217.149.166.67 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with calling a well-documented, historical de-facto state (the ADR) as "illegitimate", in any case of its legitimacy, it retained the Elisabethpol Governorate as an administrative unit, and it is therefore necessary to indicate that through an official translation, in the same vein that the Shusha article provides an Armenian translation for its previous official Armenian usage. In fact, the 3RR you filed has revealed that you are ban evading through new IPs, therefore, I am requesting page protection for this article to limit edits to confirmed users only. Nunuxxx (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this to Shushi doesn't make sense. Shushi the city has multiple sources stating its name as Shushi, meanwhile this is just the Azeri translation of Russian Empire's governorate name, and it's unsourced too. I would keep anything other than Russian official name out of the lead, as it's undue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni Like mentioned above, the ADR and DRG, as well as their respective Soviet republics kept the same Tsarist administrative units including the uezds and governorates, therefore, it is substantiated to include a translation to reflect their native usage before they were abolished in 1930 (some 13 years after the fall of the Russian Empire). In any case, such an action to remove endonyms of the Russian administrative units would need to be centralised, not done individually. It's also worth noting that it's not fair or consistent to remove the Azerbaijani translation for the Elisabethpol Governorate, a region which was majority ethnic Azerbaijani and mostly part of modern-day Azerbaijan, whilst the Erivan Governorate which was majority ethnic Armenian and mostly part of modern-day Armenia does include an Armenian translation. Do you see what I mean? -Nunuxxx (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All similar articles must follow the same standard. Erivan Governorate, Kutais Governorate and Tiflis Governorate also have their names written in the language of the majority population. Why singling out this particular one? If the name in the local language is an issue, we need to initiate a discussion for naming standard for all similar articles. Grandmaster 18:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's also worth noting that it's not fair or consistent to remove the Azerbaijani translation for the Elisabethpol Governorate, a region which was majority ethnic Azerbaijani and mostly part of modern-day Azerbaijan, whilst the Erivan Governorate which was majority ethnic Armenian and mostly part of modern-day Armenia does include an Armenian translation."
Well, prior to the establishment of the Erivan Governorate, the area already had already been organized as the Armenian Oblast, so the claims aren't exactly "equal". Furthermore, the Armenians in the 19th century bore rather strong characteristics of a fully-fledged ethnic group with a good amount of continuity, in addition to a long history of being known as Armenians, unlike the Turkic-speakers of Transcaucasia (i.e. Tatars, later rebranded as Azerbaijanis/Azeris):
  • "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
  • "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
  • "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
  • "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
I thus don't think both arguments (Azerbaijani vis. Armenian) are equal to each other based on these arguments and sources (and there are many more attesting to the same thing btw). It would basically count on the current fact that there are people in that area comfortably identifying as Azerbaijanis, whereas back then they did not (and we have modern RS attesting to it). Anyhow, given that this is WP:AA2 territory hampered by nonsensical negationist/revisionist stuff, one solution could be removing both or keeping both transliterations, but perhaps that would require some sort of "pan-Tsarist Governorate" consensus. What I'd personally advocate for, given that the Turkic language later known as Azerbaijani was widely spoken in the area, is keeping only the Russian transliteration in the lede and creating a small "Name" section in the body of the article where additional spellings can be added. In addition, as Azerbaijani was written in the (Perso-)Arabic script at the time, that spelling should be used over the modern, late 20th century Latin one, as the Latin one didn't exist at the time (read: anachronistic). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well, prior to the establishment of the Erivan Governorate, the area already had already been organized as the Armenian Oblast, so the claims aren't exactly "equal"."
I don't necessarily agree with this since the Armenian Oblast was abolished in 1840, and while it was the predecessor of, it was not the same as the Erivan Governorate which succeeded it. Therefore, in this scenario where both governorates are non-ethnic based or related (Erivan & Elisabethpol), I believe they should be weighed equally.
  • "Furthermore, the Armenians in the 19th century bore rather strong characteristics of a fully-fledged ethnic group with a good amount of continuity, in addition to a long history of being known as Armenians, unlike the Turkic-speakers of Transcaucasia (i.e. Tatars, later rebranded as Azerbaijanis/Azeris)"
Nonetheless, these "Tatar" speakers still formed a linguistic majority of the population of the governorate and for that reason their endonym for the province should be weighed in the same capacity as the Armenians' endonym for the province which they were the majority of, whether they were socially organised along an ethnic-basis or not.
  • "one solution could be removing both or keeping both transliterations, but perhaps that would require some sort of "pan-Tsarist Governorate" consensus."
This is what I am advocating for, it's too inefficient to argue one a individual basis, rather, a centralised move would allow more discussion from all involved elements, including Georgians for the Georgian and Ukrainians for Ukrainian governorates of the Russian Empire. I also somewhat agree that using modern Azerbaijani Latin script for the translation is anachronistic given it began its official use in 1992, therefore, I think it would be best to use the Azerbaijani Arabo-Persian script as was the standard at the time. For the same reasons, the Armenian and Georgian translations should also use their pre-reform classical alphabets, the former of which is still used in Western Armenian as far as I'm aware. In any case, I am open to continuing this discussion on the Russian Governorate talk page. On a final note, I think my point has been missed that these Tsarist units were abolished in 1930, which means their respective Soviet republics gave them official usage in their state language for the time of their existence. Cheers, - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 02:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the general article talk page that you linked. Grandmaster 09:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME to support move

[edit]

The common name for the governorate of the city of Elisabethpol (Ganja) is Elizavetpol as evidenced by the follow Search Engine Test:

Variants: Elisabethpol (4,636), Elisabetpol (1,479), Elizabetpol (2,322), Elisavetpol (5,610), Elizavetpol (6,211), Yelisavetpol (1,519), Yelizavetpol (2,222)

Searches:

Google Ngram Search
–All variants compared
Google Scholar Search
–"Elisabethpol": 546 results
–"Elisabetpol": 149 results
–"Elizabetpol": 122 results
–"Elisavetpol": 420 results
–"Elizavetpol": 661 results
–"Yelisavetpol": 39 results
–"Yelizavetpol": 402 results
Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET (hide “Tools” to see totals):
–"Elisabethpol": 4,090 results
–"Elisabetpol": 1,330 results
–"Elizabetpol": 2,200 results
–"Elisavetpol": 5,190 results
–"Elizavetpol": 5,550 results
–"Yelisavetpol": 1,480 results
–"Yelizavetpol": 1,820 results

– 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 05:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabethpol Governorate → Elizavetpol Governorate – per WP:COMMONNAME as supported by WP:SET (using Google Advanced Book Search and Google Scholar) results here showing the proposed "Elizavetpol" to be the most common Anglicisation when referring to the city/uezd/governorate with +34% more uses than the currently used "Elisabethpol". 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizavetpol_Governorate&oldid=1207096679"