Jump to content

Talk:Leo (historian)

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

Headline text

[edit]

Hachikyan must have made a mistake. Read volume 1 of Leo's "yerkeri joghovatsu" because the editors say some other timefram is missing; not the Pakraduni kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.28 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shusha

[edit]

"Shushi" is not an acceptable toponym for the period discussed in the article. Parishan (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is the Armenian name of the city not acceptable for you, Parishan? --Vacio (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because in the Russian empire the city was not called Shushi. See Brokhauz encyclopedia, for example. In fact, the name Shushi has never been official, whether in the Russian empire or USSR. Grandmaster 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know it was never called Shushi when there are numerous sources which rever to the city in the Russian Empire/begin 20th century as Shushi. Here some examples:
Your claim that it was not called Shushi is an baseless OR and contradicts with the sources above. I am very concerned how you, Parishan and Grandmaster, try to "settle" differences, edit-warring is a violance of wikipedia policy. If you set forth this behaviour I will report this to admins. --Vacio (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The authors in your references are mostly Armenian, such as Saroyan, Hovanissian, etc. And they are all modern. But the article in Wikipedia is called Shusha. Enough said. Here's an article about the town in Brokhaus, [1] and this is the article about Shusha in Great Soviet encyclopedia. [2] Both use the name of Shusha. Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition is the same: [3] No need to insert the names that have never been officially used in the Russian empire or USSR. Grandmaster 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I quoted are non-Armenian and they speak about the region in connection with the 19th or early-20th century. Brokhaus and GSE are Russian sources therefore they use the Russian name of the city. I agree that Shusha seems to be more common in English language sources, but I can't find a WP rule which says that other forms of a toponym must be excluded, therefore the edits of you and Parishan are unjustified and your policy of first getting what you want by means of edit-warring, then explaining it, is blameworthy and a violation of WP rules. --Vacio (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article about the city is called Shusha. And this article says that this person was born in the Russian empire, therefore the Russian name of the city should be used, as it was the official name. 1911 edition of Britannica also uses the name of Shusha. It is the same with Sankt-Petersburg, you cannot call it Leningrad in 1905, or Petrograd in 1945. And me and Parishan explained in much detail the reasons for the revert, so I don't see that any rule was violated here on our part. Grandmaster 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example of Sankt-Petersburg contradicts your statement: the WP article is named Sankt-Petersburg, yes, but dozens of other articles use Petrograd (e.g. [4][5][6]) or Leningrad (e.g. [7][8][9]). Besides, Shushi is not the old or new form of Shusha, but they are both two equivalent forms of the same toponym. And unlike you claim that "The city has never been called Shushi, ever" dozens of sources from the 19th c. use it (e.g. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). It is sad to hear that you don't see anything wrong in your and Parishans actions which you practise again and again when there are differences. The point is not who is "wrong" or "right", but that you pay no time to hear the opinion of other users and in this way reach consensus. What you call explanations "in much detail" (as [24] or [25]) is not what WP rules call consensus. In this case the campaign of removing Shushi from all WP pages is not supported by any WP policy and not justfied by any manner or means. --Vacio (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example of Sankt-Petersburg totally supports my point. You cannot use a place name out of historical context. The name of Petrograd is used when referring to the time when that name was official. Same with Leningrad. It was the Siege of Leningrad, not the Siege of Sankt-Petersburg. The name of Shushi has never ever been official, neither in the Russian empire, nor the Soviet Union. Some sources may have used it, yet the official name was Shusha. You say that this person was born in the Russian empire, yet you try to insert a name that was not official at the time. It is impossible. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with what I did. I removed inaccurate info, and explained the reasons for that at talk. Grandmaster 07:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vacio, "Shushi" was never in official use, nor ever used outside Armenian discourse. Especially given that almost all of your sources are reports from Protestant missionaries, who were only in touch with local Armenians. Moreover various non-Azerbaijani sources use the Azeri name for Yerevan in their works, some of them dating to the first half of the nineteenth century: [26] [27] [28] [29]. Does that suffice to add the Azeri name into the article Yerevan or even mention people born there as 'born in Iravan'? Parishan (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iravan, Azeri form? It is one of the transliterations into English, of the Persian term. If you can show that the current Yerevan word, originated from Azeri from one form or another, sure it can go in the lead. Both Shushi and Shusha originate from Sus or Shosh. [30] VartanM (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if its name did originate from the name of a neighbouring village, how does that support your argument about including the form "Shushi" in this article? Parishan (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parishan, it is to you to provide a reasonable argument to support your wholesale removal of Shushi from WP articles. You claim that it was never called Shushi yet I provided you dozens of sources to prove that Shushi and Shusha are equivalent to Shusha (A Gazetteer of the World By Royal Geographical Society (Great Britain): "KARABAGH, a province of Russian Armenia, ... Its cap. is Shusha or Shushi") and even the entire Karabakh region was sometimes called Shushi. If you still think that 'Shushi' is not an acceptable toponym, bring your considerations up in the relevant talkpage, not a saparate talkpage as here, reach a consensus, then make massive changes. If you continue to do the opposite, regard yourself warned that I will bring up the question by admins. --Vacio (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only restate my previous point. The presented sources almost entirely come from reports by Protestant missions who were directly in touch with the Armenians and did not attribute much importance to official nomenclature. The fact is that you are unlikely to find any map, document or other kind of relevant official data where Shusha's name would be rendered according to its Armenian pronunciation. Parishan (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a dozens of sources quoted above which were published in the 19th century or in the early 20-th centyry. Among the quoted sources are: Sir Harford Jones Brydges - British diplomat and author, Royal Geographical Society - a British learned society, International Peace Society and others. I think those are most certainly sufficient historical data. The point is that you fail to provide a reasonable argument or to quote a WP article to justify why you go and move an equivalent name of a city from all WP articles, even from those which are related to people who lived in the Armenian part of the city. Also concerning is that you were asked not to make massively changes before you reach a consensus, but you suddenly you begin to do it again without metnioning a reason even in your edit summaries. --Vacio (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think edits must be made according to WP:NCGN. It says:
The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.

As the title of the main article is Shusha and the encyclopedias use Shusha we must use the same name in all articles except of those talking about official names of NKR. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2020

[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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Arakel Babakhanian → Leo (historian) – WP:COMMONNAME --Երևանցի talk 18:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is widely known as "Leo" both in Armenian and English. Virtually all sources call him by his pen name primarily and then provide his real name in parenthesis. Examples: Heritage of Armenian Literature, Global Trade Networks of Armenian Merchants, Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State. ----Երևանցի talk 18:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_(historian)&oldid=1205578767"