Talk:Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)

Azerbaijan Low‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armenia

	Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Nakhijevan Book of Monuments

Is "Nakhijevan Book of Monuments" this book: OCLC 26842386 Nakhijevan : girkʻ hushardzanatsʻ John Vandenberg 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --MarshallBagramyan 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book title is "Nakhijevan Book of Monuments". It is called that (in English) on page 2 of the book. The title "Nakhijevan : girkʻ hushardzanatsʻ" appears on page 3. Meowy 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled the article back to neutral version. We should present views of both sides and third parties in a neutral form, as per rules. Taking sides is not allowed. See WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Destruction of the Graveyard

Some editors seem to have the mistaken view that the destruction has not been conclusively proven. This is not the case, it has been fully documented, and the evidence has been accepted by both ICOMOS and by the European Parliament. UNESCO has not officially said anything. However, this is not because UNESCO does not accept the evidence, but because it is on record as stating that it has a policy of not making any comment until a site is viewed by its own staff (something that UNESCO, to date, has made no effort to do - but that is another issue). Meowy 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should present all the existing views on the subject and not assume positions. This is what we did on other articles on the subject, and it has consensus of both Azerbaijani and Armenian editors. Moreover, we did the same on such articles like Khojaly massacre, despite the fact being well documented by international organizations, we avoided assuming any position and provided all the existing views, properly attributing them. That helps avoid unnecessary disputes and is in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 10:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With that reasoning you allow the possiblility of all sort of bizarre beliefs and assertions to be entered as if they were true. Also, your "Armenia has accused" statement seems to me to be a biased POV statement that goes beyond simply presenting views. It implies that nobody else has accused - when in fact plenty have, including, as I have stated, the EU and ICOMOS. They have both accused and passed their verdict. It is also worth recognising that Azerbaijan does not simply continue to deny it destroyed the cemetery, it denies that the cemetery and its associated medieval Armenian settlement ever existed! Shall we have a disclaimer at the top of the page stating that, according to Azerbaijan, medieval Julfa did not actually exist? Meowy 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of EU and ICOMOS is just an opinion and not a fact. We should present all the views and not assert positions. Azerbaijan does not deny existence of the cemetery, it is again just an opinion of 1 person. You still don't understand WP:NPOV. Quote:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Grandmaster 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed any of my points. For example, the use of the phrase "Armenia has accused". ICOMOS is not "Armenia", The EU parliament is not "Armenia". The use of that phrase clearly shows bias. The "conflicting views" you speak of are between Azerbaijan and the rest of the World. If the whole World says one thing, and one country says another, it is not a conflicting view, it is a denial of the truth by a single party. The entry should certainly include the assertions by Azeri sources (from their president downwards) that it has destroyed nothing, and that there never was an Armenian settlement there. However, the weight of the article should not be distorted by an over emphasis of those sources at the expense of the 90% of sources that say the exact opposite. While the current version of the text is by no means ideal, it is better than the version you have been rv'ing to (and I think that the information within it is also ordered better). Meowy 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EP and ICOMOS are not the rest of the world. And Armenia did accuse, and so did a few entities or persons. But that’s not the whole world. We should report all the opinions without taking sides. I only suggest sticking to the rules when covering such controversial topics. Grandmaster 06:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Azerbaijan has been doing the denying. Everyone else has accepted the facts as proven by the ample visual evidence and the numerous eyewitness. It is not a controversial topic at all. Meowy 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "everyone else". One or two entities is not "everyone else". I don't know what in your opinion a controversial topic is, but in my view this one is pretty much controversial. Why is it a problem to present all the existing views and let the reader judge? That's what the rules require, after all. Grandmaster 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a controversial topic is one in which there are two (or more) contrasting viewpoints that can each be lucidly argued either for or against. No situation like that exists here. The destruction of the graveyard has been accepted as fact by everyone except Azerbaijan. That is "everyone else" in this context. The entry, though not perfect, does present "all the existing views". Presenting the existing views is not the same as presenting sources in the form of official statements from Azerbaijan as if they were equal in both credibility and number to all the varous sources that entirely contradict Azerbaijan's statements.Meowy 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was not accepted by everyone and no independent investigation has been carried out. I mean, has it been accepted by UNO, PACE, UNESCO, etc, etc? Two organizations are not everyone, it is just 2 organizations. We should let the reader judge the credibility of sources presented, we cannot include our own judgment in the article. There’s a controversy, and according to NPOV rules we should provide all significant opinions and let the reader judge who is right and who is not. Please check again the NPOV rule, it is one of the main rules of Wikipedia, and we should all adhere to it. Grandmaster 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging the crediblity of the sources is only possible when a full range of sources are mentioned. If you are just having an equal number of "Armenia said" and "Azerbaijan said" sources, the reader is not given an truthful representation of the extent of the sources because it implies that there are an equal number of sources saying that the cemetery is destroyed as those saying it has not been destroyed. Actually, as I had tried to explain, every source except those deriving from Azerbaijan suggests the destruction has happened. There is also misrepresentation of one of the sources in the version you reverted to. The statement that Azerbaijan "would only accept a delegation if it visited Armenian-controlled territory as well" is false: there is no such information given in the cited Independent article. Meowy 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add any reliable source to the article. As for the quote you mentioned, it is not from Independent, it is from IWPR. I don't know how it got confused, but if you check IWPR report, you'll find it. Grandmaster 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

I think a normal person would assume that a city known most widely for its khachkar cemetary, irregardless of what has happened to it or why, would expect to see a decent picture of one (or two) of the khachkars on an article about this town. Of course, someone will quietly remove this photo yet again someday, and it will slip under the radar, but for now, I am adding it and hope that this note will help give the subject a little more visibility and ensure a longer life here. --RaffiKojian (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Gazifikator, what is the point of summoning WP:ES? Armenian or Persian spellings are not alternative names like Cologne and Köln, Julfa has just alternative spellings like Dzhulfa, as of Persian there is Jolfa. Please stick to good faith and don't call "tweaks" misleading edit summary. Brandt 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem. It is even sourced by different RS's. With WP:ES or without, what's the reason to delete sourced name by the majority of inhabitants for many centuries and by the kingdom that ruled it for the same centuries? Gazifikator (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources just confirm the existence of Armenian name, not the relevance. Armenian or Persian are not the alternative names that are allowed to be included per WP:LEAD, for such issues we have interwikis. The official language in Nakhchivan is Azerbaijani. You probably know that Armenian name from Ganja departed several days ago and the article is stable now. Don't disrupt to make a point and own the article. Brandt 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines recommend the use of English, there are instances where the subject of an article is best-known in English-speaking sources by its non-English name."WP:LEAD Armenian Jugha is one of the best known names of the city also according to the sources provided and it is also the first founding name and most of historical publications in English are using it. What to discuss here [1]? Gazifikator (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Google hits for Jugha are Armenian, either with TLD .am or without. In Google Books Jugha also exists only in Armenian sources, while Julfa is frequently used throughout third-party publications. I will not wonder if you move the article to Jugha some day. Brandt 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In Google Books Jugha also exists only in Armenian sources": that's completely not true. See f.e. [2], or "The Moslem World"‎, by Hartford Seminary Foundation - History - 1945, p. 144, etc. Gazifikator (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery photos

Wouldn't most of them be better suited to the "Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan" entry? All that is really needed here is a single representative picture. Meowy 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

There is some edit warring going on involving the insertion / removal of "Armenian: Ջուղա, sometimes transliterated as Jugha". Ջուղա/Jugha is the name of the medieval town and is thus a former name of the current settlement, yes? (I'm not sure if it is also the Armenian version of the current name.) So both "Ջուղա" and "Jugha" (as its transliteration) should be in the alternative names section, but with wording which makes it clear that it is a former name. As it is now, the word "Jugha" just appears in the history section without any explanation about why the name "Jugha" is being used rather than "Julfa". Meowy 03:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online version of a 1984 book by Argam Ayvazian about Jugha, with useful photos of the gravestones - http://armenianhouse.org/aivazyan-a/jugha/jugha.html If someone were to translate its title into English, it could be added to the external links or further reading section. Meowy 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is ok to include Armenian names to the articles about locations in Azerbaijan, then what's up with removal of Azerbaijani names from articles about locations in Armenia? We have already discussed this, and even asked for a third opinion. It does not work only one way. Grandmaster 07:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Azerbaijani" names in Armenia, and I don't see a legitimate reason to spell place names in Armenia that are of Turkic origin (or Azeri Turkic if evidence exists to be that specific) using the modern national alphabet of Azerbaijan. Written Armenian using the Armenian alphabet has been around since the early 5th century, so it would have been used to write the name of medieval Jugha when it was a living settlement. But I am not actually advocating the insertion of an Armenian spelling of "Julfa", so don't think the way the article is at the moment is correct. I was saying that "Ջուղա" should be there because it is, in its Jugha transliteration, a prevous name of the settlement now called Julfa. Some wording is needed to reflect that, because "Jugha" is just inserted into the article without explanation. Meowy 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is your POV. We asked for third opinion, and it was that Azerbaijani names are perfectly appropriate for locations in Armenia. So we will have to go with the third opinion, not your personal one. Grandmaster 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "third opinion"? It it your personal claim that they are "Azerbaijani" - a claim that goes against logic, given that Azerbaijani did not exist until the 20th century. Meowy 16:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty

The text currently reads: In the 17th century a small settlement was founded amid the ruins of the destroyed town, which, in 1747, became part of the Nakhchivan khanate. At the start of the 19th century this settlement moved to a new location three kilometres to the east of the historical town, at the point where the Yernjak River flows into the Aras. After the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828, the village of Julfa became the official border crossing between Persia and Russia, containing state customs services, a garrison and post office.
Rereading the source (Argam Aivazian, "Djugha", Yerevan, 1990) I'm not clear if this is completely correct. The source is unclearly written, but Aivazian might be saying that in the middle of the 19th century, state customs services, a garrison, and a post office were erected at a location 3km to the east of the settlement that was located at the point where the Yernjak River flows into the Aras. And that this new location was known as Djulfa and grew into the modern settlement of Julfa. Meowy 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argam Aivazian is not a reliable source. Whatever he writes is of no consequence. I can site a dozen of Azerbaijani authors writing quite the opposite. We need neutral sources, not connected with the sides of the conflict. And there's no Yernjak river either. Such name did not exist neither in the Russian empire, nor in the USSR. The best source on this would be Russian imperial documents. They contain plenty of invaluable info. Grandmaster 07:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that you could also cite a dozen Azerbaijani authors who write that the Earth is flat, and the Moon is made of cheese, and the Jugha Armenians were actually Albanians. Meowy 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the Alinja river on 19th C maps. Yernjak is its medieval name, and though Aivazian uses it for the 19thC period it would be best to use Alinja. Meowy 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And getting back to my "uncertainty" point - the Alinja river is about 3km west of modern Julfa, which seems to agree with my reading of Aivazian's words. The modern small settlement that is beside that river is called "Dzuga" on the Soviet 1.100000 map J38-44 from 1978. Meowy 16:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Azeridus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an Armenian name to the template

Data show latest period when Armenians comprised the majority of this settlement was in the XIX century [3], also an Armenian name is already included in the preview, do we really need to further discuss why the inclusion of Armenian name in the template and above the Azerbaijani name of what now for a long time is an Azerbaijani city is overly excessive? --Mastersun25 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Data actually show that there was an Armenian plurality as late as 1926 (http://www.ethno-kavkaz.narod.ru/naxichevan26.html; census used on Russian version of this page), and the town was historically Armenian, just like hundreds of villages in Armenia were once Azerbaijani-populated (and vice versa). In conclusion, no, including the Armenian name as a native name is absolutely not overly excessive. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1987, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, the region itself had as many as 27,000 Armenian monasteries, churches, khachkars and tombstones among other cultural artifacts". "By 1998, the number of khachkars was reduced to 2,700". They they were mostly destroyed around 2002 and in 2005 Zeynalov stated in a BBC interview that "Armenians never lived in Nakhichivan, which has been Azerbaijani land from time immemorial, and that's why there are no Armenian cemeteries and monuments and have never been any..." Yes, it is important and justified that the Armenian name stays, despite Azerbaijan erasing it from the history. --Armatura (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not the official name of the town. The Armenian name is already mentioned in the preview and in the article itself. If you want to add an Armenian name to the infobox, provide a Wikipedia rule you are referring to. --Mastersun25 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to prohibit adding the Armenian name to the infobox, please provide a Wikipedia rule you are referring to, Mastersun25, you are the one who says it is against the rules. --Armatura (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion [4] that @BaxçeyêReş: keeps referring to justify his recent removals of Azerbaijani names from the infoboxes of Armenian villages, despite it being WP:OTHER. But in the case of this and some other articles that includes Armenian alternative names in the infoboxes of Azerbaijani villages, he did exactly the opposite, pushing his point of view. Maybe we should reconsider our understanding of what is right and what is wrong? Mastersun25 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else is wanting to do their contribution to the discussion, I'll put the Armenian name out of the infobox for the sake of neutrality of this and other related articles. The Armenian name is already mentioned in the preview and it clearly does not make much sense adding it to the infobox of what today is an Azerbaijani city. Sincerely, --Mastersun25 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ended in the conclusion that this precedent applies to Georgian and Armenian settlements; ultimately, Azerbaijan was never directly involved in the conversation. This discussion is not closed, so do not modify it. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: Unfortunately turned out to be a pointless discussion with an Armenian sockpuppet (and probably a teenage troll). Restored the original version of the article. --Mastersun25 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian name is the infobox

Unfortunately, previous discussion on this topic was disrupted by bad-faith sockpuppet account. I would like to start over again.

Is it really justified to add Armenian name of Julfa in the infobox when it is already mentioned in the article? Armenian language doesn't have official status in Nakhchivan, moreover, today, the majority of the town's population is Azerbaijani.

There was a discussion on a similar topic this here [5] where it was suggested that the only name kept in the infobox should be in the official language of the respectful state. Historic Azerbaijani settlements in Armenia do not have Azerbaijani names in their infoboxes, I don't see how this situation is different? Can someone explain this to me please? --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time I want to stress that imo, the Armenian name should still stay in the article. Yet I believe that it is redundant and misleading to add that name in the infobox, given that the political situation here is different from let's say, Karabakh settlements. In bottom line, it is an Azerbaijani settlement within Azerbaijan. Any positive contribution to this discussion is welcomed. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]