Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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...."[1]). 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.,[2],UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?),USAToday,Yahoo Education Project or [3] and even some Azeri sites [4],[5]. 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[6], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[7], modern "Geographical names"[8] or "Krugosvet"[9] 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)

I restored the quote deleted by Aivazovsky without any discussion. Also, the last edit by Andranikpasha was misquote of the sources, which claimed that the name of the city means Naksh-e jahan. You may agree or disagree with it, but that's what they said. Grandmaster (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, its you who misquote the source. I asked earlier that the sources ask nothing about "Nakhichevan derived from" its an OR and you never replied. So pls do not revert before repesenting the direct translation mentioning what you say. FYI both sources are unreliable as criticized by different sources and printed in Baku by Ziya Bunyadov. Anyways just quote them. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhichevan is probably an artificial word invented in the 19th century to support a bit of folk etymology. Quote for the article: "according to the nineteenth-century language scholar, Heinrich Hubschmann, the name "Nakhichavan" in Armenian literally means "the place of descent", a Biblical reference to the descent of Noah's Ark on the adjacent Mount Ararat." The name was slightly changed from the native pronounciation to give it that place of first descent literal meaning. I don't think you will be able to find the word "Nakhichevan" on 18th century or earlier maps. Meowy 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranik, you are edit warring again. You deleted a quote from HRW, which was in the article for years before Aivazovsky deleted it without any explanation. And then you added your own interpretation of primary sources, which actually explain that the name of the city means Nagsh-e Jahan in Persian. Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, it is sourced info. In addition to that, your edit is in very poor English and does not improve the quality of the article. It would be good if you discussed your edit before making it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, its you who editwarring. I discussed my changing before (see my adding above). What means I disagree if no such text in that sources exists? Once again, these (unreliable) sources never say anything about "Nakhichevan derives from". So its better to use poor English (pls no personal attack) than a poor knowledge of source you're citing. Once again, pls made a quotation, nothing more! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you talk about misquoting? According to other versions, the name Nakhchivan derived from… and this is accurate? The source provided is over half a millennium or what after Khorenatsi's Nakhichevan (not to mention, it's edited by Ziya Bunyadov). How can a word having originated that far after the original Armenian name be another version for the source of the name? Besides, the word Nakhichevan in Khorenatsi is much closer than that Persian version for the actual word. All published works I know about refers to the Armenian word. What you are doing is original research. Also another distortion [10] consensus or you mean your version? The references provided there say just that, chiefly Armenian, the second one nearly word by word writes that. Before talking about misquotes or distortions you should check your own edits. Also, why this double standard… you have removed and questioned the credibility of sources based on the ethnicity of their authors, when those same authors were recognized in their field. Yet you use a source edited by Ziya Bunyadov who is considered an academic fraud who has plagiarized other scholars and made their works pass as his. Not to include the various historical documents which he has altered to remove Armenian and replace it with Albanian. What you are doing amounts to a grave form of disruption and it seems that you still continue doing the same over and over again. Your problem on leaving the term Armenian alone without having to add anything else without proper and valid justification warrants a review of your behaviour by the arbitration committee. - Fedayee (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I cited 2 primary sources that explain that the name of Nakhichevan is of Persian origin. That might be an accurate or wrong version, but it exists and cannot be suppressed. And translation of these sources by Bunyadov has never been disputed by anyone, if you have a proof to the contrary please provide it. And of those 2 sources only one was translated by Bunyatov together with the famous Russian scholar Petrushevsky. The other one (Chelebi) was translated by the Russian Academy of Sciences. And yes, that is another version, which you may disagree with, but you can find it in many Muslim primary sources. As for Shah Abbas deportation, it has been discussed endlessly and it was demonstrated that Armenians were not a primary target and were a minority in the region at the time. The compromise version was agreed with Aivazovsky and was there for many months until for some unknown reason Aivazovsky moved the article and deleted the parts that he agreed with previously. And please mind WP:AGF and do not make personal attacks, if you think that my behavior deserves an investigation by the arbcom, file a new case, but here you should comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Grandmaster, the source represented by you was criticized by well-known Russian scolar V. Shnirelman: "Another way is to underestimate the presence of Armenians in ancient and medieval Transcaucasia and to belittle their role by reprinting antique and medieval sources with denominations and replacements of the "Armenian state" term to "the Albanian state" or with other distortions of original texts. In 1960-1990's there were many such reprintings of primary sources in Baku, where academician Z.M. Bunyadov was actively engaged". ("Albanian Myth" (in Russian) / V.A. Shnirelman, "Voyni pamyati. Mifi, identichnost i politika v Zakavkazye", Moscow, Academkniga, 2003). Even acad. Diakonov, who collaborated with Azerbaijani Science Acad., wrote in his memoires about the biased "editions" of Bunyadov on this book. And after all that books never support the "view" you want to add to this article!Andranikpasha (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any criticism of translation of Hamdollah Mostowfi's (also known as Gazvini) Nozhat al-Gholub. It was a joint work of Bunyatov and Petrushevsky, and no one ever complained about this particular work done by these 2 scholars. Grandmaster (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of this sort was demonstrated, the sources there claim the victims of the depopulations being chiefly Armenian (the second one even says it word for word; you see you don't even read what I write, neither the sources provided). You have unilaterally chosen those wordings by claiming that there was a consensus and pushing people in endless circular discussions unless they give up. The talkpages contain about a dozen sources primarily discussing about Armenians as target. You're the one claiming that the population of Armenia was not chiefly Armenians before their depopulation yet sources were provided to that effect. But you Grandmaster have addressed none preferring presenting Armenians as just one among many other inhabitants of that land. Bunyatov is an academic fraud even your favoured source De Waal admits that, and the claim that the two have translated doesn't matter, what matters is that he edited this. You have discredited sources because of their author’s ethnicity yet those authors were established Western scholars with no history of what Bunyatov has done. Bunyatov’s behaviour as a scholar would discredit everything he has written and he may not be used in any single article here on Wikipedia unless we're discussing about his alteration of sources, plagiarism and so on. As for your behaviour, your behaviour was documented during AA2, it's just that the arbitration probably didn't even read the evidence presented. But that you continue doing the same thing during the third arbitration says a lot. - Fedayee (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we back to Shah Abbas again? Nakhchivan had 3 major settlements, the city of Nakhchivan, Ordubad and Julfa. The first 2 had Muslim majority, Julfa was predominantly Armenian. How could Armenians be primary target of deportation, if the purpose of it was scorched earth tactic and the entire population was deported? This was compromise wording agreed with Aivazovsky, and his undiscussed change was not acceptable. As for Bunyatov, out of 2 sources that are being discussed he participated in translation of only 1. As I said before, 1st source was translated jointly by Bunyatov and Petrushevsky, and no one ever complained about the quality of translation. Second source was not translated by Bunyatov, it was translated by a Russian scholar and says the same thing as the first source. So your attempt to use criticism of Bunyatov to reject both sources is not acceptable. Bunyatov translated plenty of historical sources, and 99% of his works had critical acclaim. Even Hewsen praised him despite harsh criticism of his position on Albania. But then again, when it comes to 2 sources used here, Bunyatov co-authored translation of only one, and the other author is a famous Russian scholar, never known for forging any sources. The other source has nothing to do with Bunyatov. And stop assuming bad faith with regard to me and arbitration committee, if your accusations of me had had any basis, arbcom would have taken measures. It did not happen because accusations were baseless. So do not make any personal attacks, this is a content dispute, so comment on content from now on, please. Grandmaster (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, isnt not the time to represent some quotes, Wiki rules, or leave this baseless "discussion"? Your support to Bunyadov, well-known for his revisionism and anti-Armenianism, is surely not necessary (we have not any rules that say if a user supports a radical unreliable source it became reliable, if even you can find some users preferring Velichko, or any other chauvinist as a good source). To stop this just quote what Bunyadov and other source say! They never say what you're citing, its another misquote by you (after your "using" of de Waal at Shusha pogrom), pls be more careful and read more carefully the source you're citing! If you dont want to cite I will do it! So decide at least and stop unsourced attacks against users whose only question is why you're misquoting the sources (even the unreliable ones)? Isnt not the time to stop? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that I'm amnesic or what? All of this is OR, just assumptions, selective quoting and they've been covered here. You can push the current discussion by twisting things (sorry, that's what you are actually doing), the fact is that the sources there say what you have reverted claiming it isn’t consensus. Boring editors with circular discussions is what you have done and then you have claimed consensus. There never was such consensus but your ownership of the article. I am patiently waiting for the arbitration to finally extend the case and include POV pushing so that the underlying problems in those articles are finally addressed. Bunyatov is an accademic fraud, how many time should I tell you this? Your claim of 99% is just a made-up story. No matter with whom he translated it, he edited it and for this reason the source is not credible. I don't believe this, I am actually engaging in a circular discussion over the fact that the foremost Armenophobe, who has deliberately altered historic documents in his translations, should not be used. And this against the same editor who has systematically asked to not use sources because of the ethnicity of the authors and when those same authors have not done the fraction of what Bunyatov has done. Do whatever you want, I made my point. - Fedayee (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not referring to Bunyadov, I'm referring to Hamdollah Mostowfi, a primary source. Bunyadov was one of the translators of this source into Russian, the other one was a prominent Russian scholar Petrushevsky. And the second source used here has nothing to do with Bunyadov, and it says the same thing. If you can prove that the translation of Hamdollah Mostowfi is not accurate, we can delete it, but no one ever complained about this source. So I'm waiting for your proof of inaccuracy. In any case, the second source stands, so even if we delete Hamdollah Mostowfi, the info about Persian etymology shall still remain in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhichevan seems to be more common in English language sources then Nakhchivan. Google search:

• Nakhichevan 127,000
• Nakhchivan 64,300

--Vacio (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter. Nakhchivan is the official name. Grandmaster 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• According to WP:NC we should use a widely accepted English name, which some time can differ from the official name. --Vacio (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Two misinterpretations

At least what Grandmaster uses as a basis for the name of Nakhichevan. Here are the translations:

• Evliya Chelebi: My comment- We see the term of Nakhichevan in the title of the chapter (О том, как, выступив с берегов Аракса, мы отправились по направлению к Еревану и Нахичевани, расположенным в стране Аджем). There is a little part about how the author visited a ...fortress in Nakhichevan. It is titled "The characters of Nakhshavan, [or] Nakhshijahan fortress" where he write: "This town is worthy of its name. Some people call it Nakhichevan, others - Nakhshevan."[11]
• Hamdollah Mostowfi. Nozhat al-Gholub (one of the "sources" edited by Bunyadov and printed in Baku): "Nakhchivan is connected to fourth climate. The town was founded by Bahram Chubin. This is a nice place called "A Picture of the World" (Nakhsh-i djahan)." [12]

So Grandmaster where do you read: "the name Nakhichevan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan"? It is an OR resulted by a misinterpretation of two texts which are just marking another name (noone says "Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan") for the Nakhichevan... town. Pls lets be more careful and to not attack everyone who says you're not right if you're really misinterpreted sources! Why to not say simple sorry and leave this "question"? Andranikpasha (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, let's be specific. Please bring academic source when these particular translation works of Bunyatov was critisized for falsification. To the best of my knowlegde, only one work of Bunyatov has been critisized not for fraud, but plagiarism. So by saying all works of Bunyatov are bad will not work. Thanks, --Aynabend (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags added

The naming of theis article is disputted because:

• I 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...."[13]). 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.,[14],UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?),USAToday,Yahoo Education Project or [15] and even some Azeri sites [16],[17]. 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 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. And the Russian sources like old Brokgauz and Efron[18], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[19], modern "Geographical names"[20] or "Krugosvet"[21] prefer Nakhichevan too. I will add this point for a third party opinion, as Golbez's explanation is not based on any Wiki rules but a POV.
• Aynabend continues misinterpretation by Grandmaster and added false citation to the article so the NPOV checking is suggested:
• Evliya Chelebi: My comment- We see the term of Nakhichevan in the title of the chapter (О том, как, выступив с берегов Аракса, мы отправились по направлению к Еревану и Нахичевани, расположенным в стране Аджем). There is a little part about how the author visited a ...fortress in Nakhichevan. It is titled "The characters of Nakhshavan, [or] Nakhshijahan fortress" where he write: "This town is worthy of its name. Some people call it Nakhichevan, others - Nakhshevan."[22]
• Hamdollah Mostowfi. Nozhat al-Gholub (the only editor of this book is Ziya Bunyadov, mostly criticized for his anti-Armenianism and misinterpretations of sources, author of an "Armenian conspiration theory" and well-known as "Azerbaijan’s foremost Armenophobe" (Thomas de Waal, Black Garden, page 42), Bunyadov printed this book in Baku and two Russian scolars mark his continuous misinterpretations and distortions of primary texts reprinted by him: "Nakhchivan is connected to fourth climate. The town was founded by Bahram Chubin. This is a nice place called "A Picture of the World" (Nakhsh-i djahan)." [23]

It is an OR resulted by a misinterpretation of two texts which are just marking another name (noone says "Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan") for the Nakhichevan... town. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranik, what's up with those tags? How a geographic name can be not neutral? Golbez also told you so, see the top of this page. The title of the article reflects official name of the region. As for the sources that you tried to delete, there's no misinterpretation. You forgot to quote the comment of the Russian scholar Zheltyakov on this line by Chelebi:

Описание крепости Нахшеван, [или] Накшиджихан

Этот город действительно достоин своего названия¹⁰.

Description of the fortress of Nakhshevan, or Nakhshijihan

This city is indeed worthy of its name.¹⁰

And the footnote says:

10. Накш-и джихан как эпитет значит «украшение мира».

10. Naksh-i Jahan as an epithet means "decoration of the world".

So according to this author the name of the city means Naksh-i Jahan, i.e. has Persian origin.

And Hamdollah Mostowfi wrote:

Это прекрасное место, именуемое «Картиной мира» (Накш-и джахан).

This is a beautiful place, called "Image of the world" (Naksh-i Jahan)

So both authors say that the name of the city means Image of the world, i.e. derived from Persian Naksh-i jahan.

What is your problem with that? And your attempt to delete Mostowfi is not justified either. It is a translation of a primary source, done jointly by two scholars, one of whom was Bunyatov. The accuracy of translation was not disputed by anyone. If you can prove that this translation is not accurate, and Mostowfi does not say anything like this, I will agree with its deletion. Otherwise the source shall remain. Grandmaster (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Read once again what I wrote! Bunyadov is the ONLY EDITOR of the book and criticized as an unreliable editor and anti-Armenianist many times. And read pls this article is dedicated to the REPUBLIC not to the town. And noone says the name of NAKHICHEVAN is derived from Naghsh-e Jahan. Its an OR by you! Grandmaster, your continous disruptive edition must be noticed! Andranikpasha (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, show me a proof that this translation is not accurate. Bunyadov is not the only translator of this book. And there's another source saying the same thing, i.e. that the name of the city means Naksh-i Jahan. That's not my OR, that's what the primary sources say. If there are different versions, we need to quote them all. And for the umpteenth time, mind WP:AGF. Grandmaster (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, what does Ziya Bunyadov's "anti-Armenianism" has to do with the translation of this book and the quote on Nakhichevan? Has this book been critisized for forgery, falsification? If so bring the quotes and we can skip this source and look for others. Thanks again. --Aynabend (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Pls do not remove the tags! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, it seems that you're the only one disputing the title of article. Hence addition of the tag based on your POV only, when even Golbez explained that geographic title cannot be POV, is not appropriate. I will give you 24 hours to provide a complete and reasonable explanation for adding the neutrality tag, else I will remove it. Atabek (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, you have not rights to give 24 hours to any user, always remember about it! Be CIVIL and read the tag explanation! If you read the talk carefully you will see that Im not the only one. And this article[24] by Russian expert Konstantin Mikhailovski (obviously not a Dashnak nor an Armenian) justifying Armenian claims to Nakhichevan must be incorporated to this article too!Andranikpasha (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are trying to say that Armenia claims Nakhchivan or what? Who is this Mikhaylovsky, he creates an impression of an inadequate person, says that Armenia has a right to occupy any Azerbaijani lands, including Ganja, etc. Why his opinion should be of any consequence and what does it suppose to prove? And please explain how the name of a region can be POV? You were told even by the admin that it is not possible. Grandmaster (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets differ the terms. At first, famous expert Mikhailovsky says according to Int'l law Armenia have rights to liberate Nakhichevan and other territories which were occupied cuz of a Turko-Bolshevik illegal collaboration. We have a chapter here that only Dashnaktsutyun claims Nakhichevan while these claims are supported by different parties and justified even by some int'l experts. We can like and dislike it, but its a fact and we must represent all the views on Armenia's rights to this semi-disputted (at least, by some ruling parties) territory. I never discussed the name of territory or region (are you denying that the region itself called Nakhichevan?), but that of Republic! Its POV because we're using the less accepted and used name not the commonly accepted one. Yes, admin Golbez answered that by his opinion this name is preferable, but I prefer a Wiki rule or if no, Ill ask for a third-party review per Wiki rules. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility in giving you 24 hours to come into terms with your POV. It's not appropriate that you're going around articles and hanging POV tag wherever you feel like without providing any appropriate explanation. You have been explained that POV tag is not appropriate for geographic title, that's about it. Following your logic, I should go ahead and place a POV tag over Yerevan now, as for most of it's history it was known as Erivan or Iravan, not Yerevan. And similarly, according to George Bournoutian 80% of Erivan's population at turn of 20th century were Muslims (Azeris, Kurds, Persians), so now I believe Azerbaijan has a right to return its occupied khanate's territory as well. How about that? No more need for OR and one more chance to you to justify your POV tag, after that you can ask third party opinion, but only after tag removal.Atabek (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Atabek, its an absolute and non-sourced OR. Before 1918 all the Azerbaijans and Aderbadagans (included its khanates) were of Persian origin. The name of Erevan is a little popular also in some Armenian regions (its a difference between the dialects), but at least for the last 100 years it never used as an English encyclopedical name, any facts? While you're citing Bournutian as a reliable source let me remind that he criticizes and condemns Buniatov's anti-Armenian "research", while you're using Buniatov as a reliable source when it seems OK for you. pls mind WP:SOAP. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Before 1918 Azerbaijanis were Persians, and after 1918 they stopped being Persians? How is that possible? See the articles in Britannica 1911 edition and Brokhauz, there was no Yerevan there, it was called Erivan. And we do not refer to any original work by Bunyatov, we refer to a translation of Mostowfi, of which Bunyatov was a co-author. You have not demonstrated that the translation is not accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, what does Bunyatov's research have to do with Nakhchivan title? I brought you an example from Bournoutian, who talked about Erivan governorate and khanate, of which Nakhchivan was a part for some time, citing 80% non-Armenian population, while today, the population of it is 100% Armenian. So it's irrelevant that today's name of Nakhchivan is spelled so, as is today's name of Erivan is spelled as Yerevan, despite multitude of historical references using Erivan title. I don't think after these discussions you have provided any valid reason for the tag, and given Golbez's explanation, which should have been sufficient for you, it should be removed. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a tag is needed for a title of this article, the article is about a region that currently happens to be under Azerbaijani control. The article is about the autonomous republic, they can name it whatever they want. If the article was about the region only than the name can be disputed.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Nakhichevan

The current version of the article does not provide a reference for 98%-Azeri claim; This implies a very tiny population for Kurds in Nakhichevan which is not true. An updated reliable reference for ethnic composition of the area is needed. or else in absence of sources we should avoid adding false data. Sharishirin (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign names in intro

The bunch, may be except Russian, is to be removed and placed to relevant section below - the country's only official language is Azerbaijani, no need to cram the brackets as per infobox. Then also a place for IPA appears. --Brandспойт 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very deceitful. If this was only about the autonomous republic then why does the history section begin right from the beginning of Nakijevan and give such large amounts of information?? Hmm?? You cannot exclude 2000 years of Armenian existence (like churches, xachqars) in this special region of Armenia with such lame excuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.81 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, foreign names are not needed. We have interwikis. And is we are to include Armenian name here, then the Azeri name should be in the article about Yerevan and other Armenian cities. Grandmaster 06:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article were just about the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic I'd say remove the Armenian name, but keep the Russian name and its transliteration because Azerbaijan was essentially bilingual during the Soviet period when the NAR was founded. But the article is not about just that - so why is "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" in the first sentence of the article? Meowy 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Er? It is about the autonomous republic. The article for the city is different. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't - about half the article is not about NAR. It's like having the article titled "North America" with "United States of America" as the first words in its introduction section. The point that the anonymous poster was making would not be valid if the article was just about NAR. Meowy 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is about Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. I don't understand how it could be about anything else. The name can be spelled only in Azerbaijani, as it is the only official name for NAR. The comparison with North America is not valid, NA covers 3 states, NAR does not cover the territory of other states. Grandmaster 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The region is better known as Nakhichevan in English language sources as shown in the discussion above, it does not matter what is it's current status within Azerbaijan. And it is well known that it has been historically an Armenian land. So please don't remove the Armenian name without any reasonable explanation and try to reach a consensus before reverting the edits of other users. --Vacio (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

USA is also known to be an Indian land like 500 years ago. Why not including the Indian name for the land in the intro of the article about USA? Grandmaster 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article neads to be split. Have an entry for Nakhichevan which will give a brief summary of all periods of its history (and links to more detailed dedicated articles), and a separate entry dedicated to the Autonomous Republic period. That would also solve the naming issue. Meowy 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It will make things more complicated, it is better have all the info in one place. Nakhchivan is NAR, what's the point in creating a POV fork? Grandmaster 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So you think that the Nakhchivan khanate article is also a POV fork and should be deleted and merged into this article? Meowy 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nakhichevan" is already listed among the alternative names for the region, why emphasise it so much? Besides "Nakhchivan" is the only correct way of transliterating the official Azerbaijani name of the region, and is the way the official Azerbaijani sources spell it. Parishan (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is actually distasteful, especially coming from Parishan who added Azeri terms in articles such as Kars, which had no Azeri history, and have never been part of any Azerbaijan.

Lets cut the article... etymology (word), believed to be Armenian. The first mention of Nakhichevan, or Nakhchevan, the word used in English and any Western language, was in Armenian Grabar. This alone, given the origin of the word in English, Azeri etc., being Armenian, will justify it. Any dictionary or encyclopedia would include the etymology of the word, from the foreign language it was used. Fight to remove the Greek, or Latin words in the English language dictionaries if you have any problem with this rational.

Then, the history section, the place was part of Armenia, it's in the middle of the Armenian plateau, between historic Eastern and Western Armenia. In fact, a fast search of the term Nakhichevan, in google book or any other relevant database, shows that even the usage of the term in the context of the republic has a competition with the historic place. It has only been part of Azerbaijan since 1924, while it was at the heartland of the funded Armenia at least since 521 BC. In fact, there is less reason to include the Russian term than Armenian. The Russian and Azeri terms are only foreign transliteration of the Armenian term.

Nakhichevan can not be split only for the republic, because it is not a totally independent republic but part of Azerbaijan. Given this fact, 'Nakhichevan' can not be used only to refer to the republic. In published works, the historic Nakhichevan is as notable. But if you want to remove the Armenian term, which is the original way Nakhichevan was written and spelled, you then have to split the article. You can not have it both ways. VartanM (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This region is called Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. The official language in the region is Azerbaijani, therefore the only spelling relevant here is Azerbaijani. The region has nothing to do with the state of Armenia, and Armenian is not an official language in the region. Therefore the Armenian spelling does not belong here. If anyone needs to know the Armenian or any other spelling, he can click the interwiki links. History is irrelevant here, otherwise we need to add Azerbaijani name for Yerevan, Zangezur and other locations in Armenia, and I'm sure certain people will not be happy with that. Grandmaster 08:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Awfully ridiculous. But lets make a deal, if you are able to show us that Zangezur or Yerevan are etymologically Azerbaijani words, written first time in Azeri, and that they have a long Azerbaijani history, being part of a historic Azerbaijan (not only geographically), then the term can go there, the way it was written. But until then, your comparisons are ridiculous. There are several articles on Wikipedia, etymology of which are in the lead, such as Alpenglow. The English usage Nakhichevan, like in French or most Western languages, are derived from the Armenian Nakhichevan, this includes the modern Azeri transliteration. The region had an Armenian history dating back to at least the 6th century BC, it was part of Russian Armenia AND the word used by others is a transliteration of the Armenian word. The Armenian word more than justifies it's own existence here. The only possible compromise is to split the article, but even then, the reason of etymology will still justify it, at least in the form of (from Armenian Nakhichevan (Նախիջեվան)). VartanM (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster you err on the very main point. The region indeed is widely known as Nakhichevan in English language sources rather than Nakhchivan or Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Please read WP:NCGN where it is stated that: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). So according to WP rules not only Nakhichevan must be added in the intro, but also it seems that the title of the article must be moved to Nakhichevan by virtue of WP:NC which states that: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (...) The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. According to WP:NCGN we should consult English-language encyclopedias and google to establish the widely accepted name. Nakhichevan is used by Britannica Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia and other sources as Andranikpasha showed [25]. Google search results:

• 7,840 English pages for "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic".
• 64,800 English pages for Nakhchivan
• 125,000 English pages for Nakhichevan

The use of Azerbaijani names of Yerevan and Zangezur is on the other hand is negligible:

• 247 English pages for İrəvan (cf. 3,170,000 English pages for Yerevan)
• 290 English pages for Zəngəzur

-Vacio (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of spellings in other languages is not established by google search. And the name of this autonomy is Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. It is not officially spelled in any other language, the only official language in Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani. In any case, there's no justification for the use of spelling of the name of this autonomy in the Armenian language. In that case the Azerbaijani spellings can be used for locations in Armenia as well. It works both ways, not just one. And the present title has been selected by the general consensus between Azerbaijani and Armenian users. See the talk above. Grandmaster 10:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nakhijevan and Nakhchivan Autonomous Oblast

I would support splitting the article into one for the NAR and one for the historical region of Nakhichevan, considering that the former is a 20th century invention (and an administrative unit) established on the territory of the latter. And Ayvazovsky's perplexing and flip-flopping manner can in no way be construed as achieving consensus with "Armenian users".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like the NK article was split. The same thing needs to be done here, the original native Armenian name will rest in the Nakhichevan article and not here. NAR was created after Armenians were ethnically cleansed from this Armenian province by the current occupiers, as such I don't see the need of including the Armenian spelling in this article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In Addition, while Nakhchivan is used when referring to Nakhchivan Autonomous Oblast, Kakhichevan and Nakhijevan are the most common names used to refer to the region and not the current political entity.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. As I explained above, there's no need to do that, since the sole purpose of the proposed split is to create a basis for insertion of the Armenian spelling of the name of the region. Since it is not possible to spell the name of the Autonomous Republic in the Armenian alphabet, as the Armenian language has no official status there, the only way of doing that is to create a POV fork about the region and try to insert the Armenian name there. But it does not resolve the problem. First, you do not split the article just to insert a few letters in another language. Second, the issue of using the Azerbaijani spellings in the articles about locations in Armenia is still open. Even if you split the article, you cannot insert an Armenian name in it, as Azerbaijani names are not allowed to be used in the articles about locations in Armenia because of resistance of the same users, who advocate the split of this article here. And finally, the region of Nakhchivan had no stable borders, and the states that existed on its territory had changing borders. What area the article about the region is going to cover? Isn’t it better to have one article about the autonomy, which would cover the history, geography and politics of the territories that are presently part of NAR, and separate articles about the states that existed on its territory, such as Nakhchivan Khanate? The Armenian name is not a good reason for split. It is better to resolve the issue via discussion at naming conventions about the use of Armenian and Azerbaijani names in the articles. Grandmaster 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion to split the Nagorno-Karabakh article was understandable given the political situation and its current active development. With Nakhchivan, there is no such need just as we do not have separate articles for Zangezur, Saxony, Aquitaine or other historical regions-turned provinces. This whole debate arose originally due to speculations about the necessity of including the Armenian name in the introduction, which is why I also do not consider the suggestion to split this article reasonable or justified. The Armenian Wikipedia is open for editing, and you are more than welcome to mention the Armenian term for Nakhchivan there. Parishan (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is another example of Occam's razor. The eponymous region of Nakhichevan is quite inalienable part of NAR's history and the relevant issues could be solved on the same talk page assuming WP:COMMONAME. Brandспойт 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does not appear that neither of you started accepting reading what others have to say. Let's post this for a review, and let's see how long your argument stands. How about proposing the same thing for articles such as Rome? Any of you got the balls to do that? VartanM (talk)

Your famous Roman and Gallic examples were already ridiculed by others, they don't pass anymore. Brandспойт 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond one of convenience, there isn't a valid argument for not splitting the article. It is titled one thing but is actually mostly about another thing (the Autonomous Republic). If Grandmaster can admit the validity of the Nakhchivan Khanate article's existence then he can't seriously argue that this Nakhchivan article should remain as it is. Enough material exists to justify splitting it, and splitting it will end confusion and allow the inclusion of a lot more material. There should be a new article created, titled Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (or something similar), and this article should become a summary of all content about Nakhchivan, including the khanate-period and the autonomous republic-period. Eupator's point about a similar situation ending in the successful creation of the various Nagorno-Karabakh articles is important. Meowy 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think I support the creation of a disambiguation page. I think we should keep this artcle as the main page, but cut out a lot of the Autonomous Republic stuff and place it in a new article dedicated just to it. And place links to it, and the Khanate article, and any other related articles, in this article. Meowy 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Eupator's point is quite known, but he is right writing: I don't see the need of including the Armenian spelling in this article. The splitting of NKR is different case, we don't need a storm in teacup here. Brandспойт 08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's admit that this is all about inserting the Armenian name. The only reason why a certain group of editors wants this article to be split is to have a reason to insert the Armenian name. But at the same time they do not want Azerbaijani name in any articles about locations in Armenia. It does not work that way. Either we agree that we use Armenian and Azerbaijani names for locations in both countries, or we only use the names in the official language of a country. It does not work one way. Most locations in Armenia had Azerbaijani names, and many of them were renamed as late as 1960s and 1970s. I have a full list, and it is very long. And Vartan's argument that a name should have some meaning or etymology in another language holds no water. For instance, does Danzig have any meaning in German langauge? Yet it is used in the article about Gdansk. So I suggest we take this to some sort of dispute resolution and decide, how to use Azerbaijani and Armenian names in the articles about the region. If you think that splitting will resolve the problem with spellings in other languages, you are wrong. Grandmaster 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I love the language here. "certain group of editors" especially. Not only does Grandmaster know there are a "certain group of editors" he alos happens to know the real reason for splitting this article which he apparently knows has nothing to do with the NK article being split for the same reasons (everyone agreed then, why the fuss now?). You must be winning the lotter on at least a weekly basis! Cut the crap and face the reality. You can't possibly come up with a legitimate reason not to split the article into the one for the region covering all of its different geographical borders and the different rulers throughout times and one for the current political entity.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if the article is split, there should be no Armenian name in it, unless Azerbaijani names are included for locations in Armenia. So if the reason why you want it split is the name, it is not worth the hassle. The conflict will simply move from this article to another. So what does it matter, whether you fight over it here or on another page? It is better to think of how to permanently resolve the problem with the usage of names in other languages for locations in the region. I'm thinking of taking it to DR, just not sure which venue to go. Any suggestions? Grandmaster 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The name Nakhichevan is Armenian in itself so wherever there is Nakhichevan there is the Armenian name. The discussion about so-called Azerbaijani names are irrelevant and I will no longer address this issue you keep raising. Enough stonewalling already.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nakhichevan was an integral part of the Armenian historical homeland for over 2,000 years and was remembered as such by ancient and medieval Armenian historians (e.g. Movses Khorenatsi). Saying that we need to add the Azerbaijani spelling for names in Armenia is perhaps the most laughable and pathetic thing I have heard coming from you, although I bet you will not fail to amuse any of us in the near future. There was no distinct "Azeri" national identity until the turn of the 20th century, and even then you still have no case. It's truly fascinating at what lengths you are going just to deny the role Armenians had in this region. I think you've bested Bunyatov. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Such approach has already proved itself to be rotten and ungrateful. Not yesterday, but years and years ago. Javakheti, Turkish parts, what next? California? :) brandспойт 20:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Protected on the wrong version. You folks aren't new to this; you know that to get what you want, you have to discuss, and if you lose and still want to fight, you go to other methods than edit warring. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is some responses to arguments I see above:

"That is very deceitful. If this was only about the autonomous republic then why does the history section begin right from the beginning of Nakijevan and give such large amounts of information?"

Disingenuous. California was only formed in 1850; Alta California in 1804. Yet the History section, and History of California, go as far back as possible. Because that is the history of the region that is geopolitically currently California. So, it is perfectly consistent to have the 2000+ year, apparently Armenian history of Nakhchivan in this article's history section, and still have it be about the Azerbaijani republic. On the other hand, the history of the Soviet Union is not the history of Russia, or the Russian Empire, etc... different geopolitical entities may have different histories. Which complicates things, since this was not just a region but a specific named region in old treaties and such.

"Yes, foreign names are not needed. We have interwikis."

No, that's not how this works. We include the English, and then the [primary] official languages, and then any extremely historically significant names in other languages. An excellent example is Gdanzig. Another one is Kaliningrad. However, they have to be extremely historically significant; we don't, for example, include the French for New Hampshire, even though it borders a French-speaking region. What does this mean for Nakhchivan? Not much, I just wanted to counter the argument that other names for a region in other languages than the one used by the region are solely only for interwikis.

"If this article were just about the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic I'd say remove the Armenian name, but keep the Russian name and its transliteration because Azerbaijan was essentially bilingual during the Soviet period when the NAR was founded. But the article is not about just that - so why is "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" in the first sentence of the article?"

This may be the crux of the issue: Should it be split? There's a method to dealing with that, so if that turns out to be the fundamental issue, then maybe y'all can stop fighting over including the Armenian in the title and just let the split process work itself out. That said, I see nothing inconsistent with this being about the NAR, while dealing with the entire history of Nakhchivan. We don't have separate articles for "California (region)", or "Germany (region)" (especially relevant since the borders of Germany have been so fluid). Then again, as I said above, maybe the Nakhchivan issue is more complex.

So we come down to this: If this is an article purely about the geopolitical unit, then it should only use Azerbaijani. If it's about the region, then it should include Armenian and possibly Russian. The main question is, can it be both things at all times? If not, split. If so, move the other languages and derivations down to an Etymology section, as is done with Nagorno-Karabakh.

However, long story short: Stop edit-warring about including a name in the intro. There is a process; follow it. Continue the edit war and we'll be forced to go through a third arbitration, one I hope to not be as toothless as the previous two. --Golbez (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of splitting the article has nothing to do with solving a trivial problem of what languages to put in its intro! Meowy 03:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does, actually; if this is purely about the geopolitical unit, then the intro should have only Azeri, IMO. If it's about the region as a whole, then it makes more sense to include the Armenian, but at that point you could also include Russian, etc., and at that point we're dealing more with an etymology section and a more complex dealing of the issue. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article will solve the naming problem to be true (there isn't a valid reason to have "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" in Armenian in an article just about the political unit). However, that is not the reason why the article neads to spit, creating a new article dedicated just to the autonomous republic and retaining this one for the region. Meowy 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My question is this. How come that it is Ok to use Armenian names for locations in Azerbaijan and not Ok to use Azerbaijani names for locations in Armenia? The people who advocate the use of the Armenian name here remove any mention of Azerbaijani names in the articles about locations in Armenia. So if no Azerbaijani names in Armenian locations, then no Armenian names in Azerbaijani locations. I think we will have to take this to discussion of the entire community to set up the rules for inclusion of foreign language names for locations in the Caucasus. Incivil response of MarshallBagramyan to my question about Azerbaijani names above pretty much shows the attitude of certain users to this issue. Grandmaster 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shed all the crocodile tears that you want, but you know you have absolutely no basis to enact a reciprocative policy in regards to the Armenian related articles.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not about pure reciprocation. Just because Gdansk includes a German name, doesn't mean we include a Polish name for Berlin. There has to be an extremely historical significance, which may apply in this case, but not to other regions of Armenia. Your argument that, if an Armenian name is used in an Azeri article that it must be reciprocated in some way, is on its face incorrect. It's on a per-article basis, not some strange game of "keeping things even". --Golbez (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there also has to be a difference in the pronounciation or spelling - what is the point of a long list of names that are identical but written using different alphabets. Meowy 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not about keeping things even. It is about the general policy that applies here. And this issue has been discussed for years, and has never been resolved. Why we should have an Armenian name here, which is not much different from the Azerbaijani one, and not have an Azerbaijani name in Zangezur? Also, there are so many other locations in Armenia that had historical Azerbaijani names, like Basarkechar (modern Vardenis, also see List of renamed cities in Armenia, most of the old names are Azerbaijani), but the Armenian users resist any attempt to add Azerbaijani spelling in such articles. Why is it tolerated by the admins? Or the rules do not apply to the articles about Armenia? Look at this, for example: [26] Grandmaster 06:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"tolerated by the admins?" I don't know if any admins specifically tolerate any of this. Personally, I'm not tolerating the petty edit war going on here. But I can't be all places at all times; I've never seen that article before, so your blanket attack of admins picking favorites has no meaning here. Stop it. --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not directed at anyone personally. I understand that admins have plenty of things to do, and I should have alerted them about what was going on to expect a reaction. So sorry, no offense meant. But the issue still needs to be addressed. You see that Azerbaijani names are being constantly removed from the locations in Armenia, while Armenian names are being pushed to the articles about locations in Azerbaijan. I don't think this is the way it should be. Grandmaster 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think yes, it can be 2 in 1 as Armenian equivocal claims extend to other countries, namely Georgia and Turkey. Per WP:LEAD: if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. brandспойт 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at this with an outside view - considering the Armenian editors all have exactly one position, and the Azeri editors have exactly the opposite decision, this of course means at least one and likely both sides are completely wrong. Which is precisely why the edit war should have stopped before it started; I thought y'all knew better. --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If "both sides are completely wrong" then leave the entire article to me! Meowy 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's all about irredentism again. WP:LEAD seems to be a good hint. brandспойт 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo and redlink

I've just fixed a typo and a redlink, I hope that was a non-controversial change, but if either was part of the controversy drop me a line and I'll revert. WereSpielChequers 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You welcome. brandспойт 10:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So, protection runs out in three days and I don't see any progress being made towards ending this argument. Am I going to have to extend it, or will y'all play nice? --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not resolved. I see no reason for the Armenian name here, as the same group of users who advocates for its inclusion deletes Azerbaijani names from the articles about locations in Armenia. I think we need some sort of an RFC with regard to the use of the names in foreign languages for locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Maybe some other form of dispute resolution. Grandmaster 06:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am all for a RFC, but moderators should prevent you from flooding the RFC with irrelevancies. I am OK with Encyclopedia's and Dictionaries policies about the usage of foreign languages use. But you have to convince others that a words original version usage should be equivalent to the usage of modern creation. VartanM (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we need to set up criteria for inclusion of foreign language names for the articles about locations and administrative units in Transcaucasia. If we do that, we can save a lot of time on discussions such as this in the articles about locations in this region. Grandmaster 07:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need indeed a general criterion for such issues. But I believe you Grandmaster are not right by associating the name of this region with locations in Armenia, as Syunik. The inclusion of the Armenian name here is appropriate, given that, besides the fact that it has been part of Armenia in ancient and modern times, the common English name of the region, Nakhichevan, is derived from the Armenian name. So not only the Armenian name must be included in the article but I believe also its title must be move to Nakhichevan per WP:NC. --Vacio (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The history does not matter. I already explained above that Danzig may have no meaning in German, yet it is included as an alternative name for Gdansk. So the Azerbaijani spelling of Zangezur is more than appropriate considering that the region had significant Azerbaijani population and was a part of Azerbaijan in 1918. And not just Zangezur. Basarkechar (modern Vardenis), for example, is a pure Azerbaijani name, yet it is also being deleted from the article about the town. So we need to agree first on what basis the foreign language names are included in the articles about the region. You can see from other articles that the history is not the only criterion. We need to set up the criteria and then include the names on their basis. Right now the reasons for inclusion of certain names and deletion of others are not clear. Grandmaster 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The name should be mentioned in the section below via WP:LEAD#Separate section usage, not in the brackets. brandспойт 08:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just attempted to solve this problem by splitting the article into two, creating one entry for Nakhchivan as a geographical/historical region, and one entry for "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic", following the precedent set by the Nakhchivan Khanate article. Unfortunately Golbez has reverted my edits - either because he has not understood them or does not agree with it. My solution is the only sensible solution, so, until it is agreed on, I will leave this article to a never-ending trivial argument about what names should be in the intro, and let Golbez live with the problem. Meowy 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My only - only - complaint was that you accomplished this through a copy-and-paste move. But hey, whatever keeps the nails on your cross from falling off. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, there was no consensus for split, yet you attempted to split the article ignoring the opinions of many people. That's not the way its done. Grandmaster 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I do not need consensus to create a new article. If, after an article is created, an editor has good reasons to think that the article should not exist, then there are procedures to propose its removal. Meowy 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:POVFORK. Grandmaster 08:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that a new article is a POV fork is a legitimate way of asking for that article to be deleted, but it is not an argument that can stop the article being created. Meowy 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy has a point, Grandmaster. However, the problem then is, OK, so you have your new article, and you're presumably splitting stuff from here into that article. That requires you to cut stuff from this article, and that *does* require consensus. However, it would be extremely stupid to have such a large-scale edit war or, even worse, a move war, especially if all we were doing was ensuring two identical copies (At the time) of information were being created. I would love if all sides appreciated the WP:BRD ideal - Be bold, Revert, Discuss. One edit. One reversion. Then discussion. Period. That said, let's not take this as an excuse to undo any new article Meowy makes; once one's there, the option is then AFD or CSD, not simple blanking. Again, my only complaint was the method with which the other article was being formed, via whole copy and paste. I have no position right now on whether or not the article should be split. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If the new article has no new content, and it is just being copied from an existing one, then it is definitely a fork. I don't think it is the way to go. The only reason why the split is proposed is to have a pretext for inclusion of the Armenian name into this article. At the same time you can see that the same group of users resists inclusion of Azerbaijani names into the articles about locations in Armenia. [27] So I believe we need to find a common solution to this issue, as the name issue is being debated for about 3 years now. Grandmaster 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about a lack of new content on the new article Grandmaster. I'll be sure to expand the history and cultural section so we can have a decent summary about the rich "Goghtan songs" which Movses Khorenatsi spoke about, Armenians under Arab rule and their subsequent uprisings and a great deal of other cultural and historical information. For the NAR article, I'm pretty sure that we can write a lot of stuff concerning kolkhoz statistics and how well the 5-year plans were achieved in the 1960s to 1980s.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You can admire this in the sandbox, there is still no consensus. brandспойт 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still no justification for split, and even if it is split, no justification for the inclusion of the Armenian name, as the Azerbaijani names are still being deleted from the articles about locations in Armenia. Grandmaster 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Grave of Noah

What is the fact tag for? It is the place traditionally believed to be the grave of Noah. I don't believe that Noah ever existed and that he is buried there, but it is a fact that there's a place which local tradition considers to be his place of burial. Maybe a better caption is required or something. Grandmaster 05:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics on population

http://aksakal.info is not a reliable source, especially considering that it copied material from Armenian propaganda website sumgait.info. One must bear in mind that statistical info on NAR is available only since 1926, because the republic was created in 1921. In the Russian empire the territory of NAR was a part of 3 uyezds, so the statistics exist only on those uyezds, but not NAR. Also, it would be good to start the statistics from the times of Griboyedov, when the first statistical info became available. It would show the growth of the Armenian population of the region because of settlement of Armenians from Iran and Persia. In any case, the source of info must be reliable and impartial. Grandmaster 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian name

Come on GM, "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic could not be known to Armenians in medieval times" is a complete cop-out of keeping the lead clear of its Armenian name. Armenian historians mentioned the region as Nakhtchavan centuries before the invention of the NAR. Like Meowy mentioned above, half of this article is not even about the NAR, but the entire history of the region known as Nakhichevan. If it was just about the political entity, you yourself know quite well that the history section of this article would have to begin from the 20th century. You clearly oppose making a distinction between the NAR and the region (which we did with Nagorno-Karabakh, Karabakh, and the NKR) and yet where does that leave the Armenian spelling? Its importance and its etymology is quite obvious just by reading the first paragraphs of the history section and yet you're engaging in highly disingenuous tactics to maintain its exclusion while at the same time practicing double standards on the NK pages, which were broken into several pieces after so much complaining done by you and others.

We have just seen stonewalling attempts above on your side to block anything from being done. Should I refer this to a third opinion or, for that matter, would you oppose mediation? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. The only official spelling is Azeri. We have discussed this before. You cannot include the Armenian name as official for NAR. And we have a separate section on etymology. Also, the issue about Azeri and Armenian names for locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan is a long standing issue. I filed an RFC a couple of years ago with regard to this. I see that Azerbaijani names are being mass removed from the articles about locations in Armenia. You can ask for mediation or any other DR, I don't mind. But I think that the issue with Armenian and Azeri names needs to be resolved once and for all. I see no reason why Azerbaijani name should be removed for instance from the article about Yerevan, where Azeris constituted the majority before the Russian revolution. Grandmaster 13:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, you're just juggling with the issue and just selectively choosing which rules to follow. The article's only about the NAR? Cool, let's now delete all the information about the nakharar families and Arab invasions and the pre-Soviet stuff and place it in an article called Nakhichevan, which encompasses the region's entire history. Otherwise, I fail to see any sense in your argument to keep out the text.

The case for including the modern (post-Soviet) Azerbaijani alphabet in Armenian-related articles is highly dubious. The Yerevan article is a poor example to support this; how far back can Azeris trace their history to Yerevan prior to Sovietization? Two, three generations max? After the Ottoman-Persian wars, Armenians were forced to leave for urban centers like Tbilisi and Muslims eventually settled there in their place, including Yerevan (only calling themselves Azeris in the 20th century, no less), Even with that, there is a far greater case to be made for adding the Armenian text in the Baku and Tbilisi articles, since they not only formed not only significant percentages of the population prior to the Soviet-era and dominated their economies and left a great cultural heritage behind. Just because a people who later called themselves as Azeris lived in Yerevan doesn't mean that we should now add the Armenian spelling to the Boston and Watertown or Brewster articles. The standard cannot possibly be equally applied with the logic, "Well if Armenians have it, then the Azeris should have it too!" --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Azeris did not just live in Yerevan, they formed the majority of population, according to Russian censuses. The city has a long Azeri history that's been erased over the years. As for NAR, there's a section on etymology, but the name of NAR can be spelled only in Azerbaijani, as it is the only official language there. The region has its own history, which is properly reflected in the article, but the political and administrative entity of NAR has no alternative official names. Grandmaster 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In a region with such a varied history, giving its name to an autonomous republic, an ASSR, and a khanate, it seems that a split could be useful. As for what goes where, it's a complex question and I've decided I'm not qualified to answer it. An RFC would be useful. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a long standing issue. I initiated an RFC on it a couple of years ago, but no one commented. Now we have a situation, when a certain group of users removes Azerbaijani names from the articles about locations in Armenia, and pushes Armenian names for locations in Azerbaijan. [28] [29] [30] [31] It does not work one way, and what they do is totally unacceptable. Grandmaster 05:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years ago? You say that as if you're only allowed to do one a lifetime. :P As for the nationalist fighting, if you have a problem with that take it to higher levels, don't just sit and complain. --Golbez (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of discouraging to file requests and get no responses. And another arbitration is not something that can help resolve the problem. But I'll see what I can do. Grandmaster 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

E. Ripley (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Marshal Bagramyan

This request for a third opinion was solicited by me to resolve an issue concerning the content of this article. A little while ago, an editor named Meowy initiated a move that moved most of the history of the content into an article about the historical region of Nakhichevan, thus creating at least three articles revolving around Nakhichevan: two political entities, the Nakhichevan Khanate and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, and one on the historical region (which encompassed slightly different territory throughout the centuries). While certain users agreed with this move, it was undone (see here) because of a technicality ("a copy-and-paste move").

Because all the users agree that this article is about the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, a political sub-unit of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic that was only created in 1924 and has survived with a near-similar status after the collapse of the USSR, it seems logical to split this article into one about Nakhichevan (region), whereby much of the history content of this article, dealing with the geography, etymology and its history from ancient to the pre-19th century era, is moved from here to there. This will allow editors to add far more detailed information about the historical region and its cultural heritage than the restricted amount of space this article permits, since the early and medieval history of the region have absolutely no bearing to a modern political unit. The same benefit can apply to the Nakhichevan Autonmous Republic as well, since many details and statistics about its economy and geographical position in the context of the Soviet era are missing.

We already have several precedents to work with: there exists the article on the Persian Nakhichevan Khanate (another political sub-unit), there is a clear distinction made between the region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the statelet, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Other precedents may exist as well (see Kosovo). The new article on the region can give a proper geographical context of the region and describe its historical importance in greater detail.

Viewpoint by Grandmaster

The only reason the article is suggested to be split is to have a reason to include in the lead the spelling of the name of the region in Armenian language. In fact, people who suggest the split don't even deny this. The history of this region is pretty well described in the main body of the article, and there's no reason to split any info from the article. But since this is a political entity, and the only official name of NAR is in Azerbaijani language, the split is the only way to have the Armenian name included. This is a long standing dispute. These 2 edits by User:Fedayee are quite characteristic for the situation: [32] [33] As one can see, he removes the Azerbaijani names from the articles about locations in Armenia, and pushes Armenian names into the article about location in Azerbaijan. Basically, a group of users from Armenia insist that the locations in Azerbaijan should have spellings in Armenian language included in the lead, but the locations in Armenia should not have Azerbaijani names included. So, this is all about the names in Armenian and Azerbaijani languages in the leads of the articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijani. I do not think that this should work only one way. If we have Armenian names in the Azerbaijani places, there's no reason why we should not have Azerbaijani names in Armenian places, considering that the territory of modern day Armenia had centuries long Azerbaijani history. The name issue was discussed at talk of Syunik: [34], and a third party editor Markussep gave his opinion, which was ignored and the Azerbaijani name was kept on being removed. So in my opinion we should create a guideline for inclusion of foreign names in the articles about locations in the South Caucasus, which should resolve this issue once and for all. The problems in this article should not be taken out of the context of the more general dispute, they are a part of the same name war that goes on many articles about the region. Grandmaster 05:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion by E. Ripley

....

Frankly, I feel a bit unqualified to render an opinion on a dispute of this nature. However, I will say this: whatever way Wikipedia treats this in articles, it should be uniform across all articles. If we are to include the Armenian name in Azerbaijani articles, then the Azerbaijani name should also be included in Armenian articles. This may need to be taken to ArbCom for a decision, similar to what happened with the other Armenian/Azerbaijani disputes you've all already been involved with. — e. ripley\^talk 12:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity would apply if the situation was equally comparable for both countries, which it doesn't. The problem here is that Nakhichevan was a historic region of Armenia, long before any Turkic tribes settled there. The Armenian word "Nakichevan" predates all others in any languages. As it has been stated elsewhere so many other times, it is similar to adding the Latin or Greek origin of English words in dictionaries. The Azerbaijani alphabet is an invention of the 20th century, yet the Azeri identity itself, when several Turkic tribes were identified in the Soviet union with the same term. Prior to the invention of that alphabet, Turkic words were written in Arabic and Persian scripts. So, uniformity cannot exist by adding some modern letters in comparison to the original way a historic region was called and with the original alphabet.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter if Azerbaijani alphabet was invented in the 20th century, or even yesterday? It is just a mean to convey the spelling in a language which the majority of population in the territory of Armenia spoke in the past. You cannot use a technicality to remove Azerbaijani spellings from Armenian locations, and push Armenian spellings into Azerbaijani locations. It does not work one way. Either we use spellings in other languages for locations in both countries, or we don't use them at all. There's no rule that does not allow using modern alphabets. If there's such a rule, please show it to me. Modern alphabets are used even for historic entities. For instance, see the use of modern Russian alphabet in Elisabethpol Governorate, Tiflis Governorate, Moscow Governorate, etc., and Tatar alphabet in the article Kazan Governorate. Grandmaster 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

army base

is there army base from turkey or usa in there? No. IISS Military Balance does not say so. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no foreign military bases in the region. Grandmaster 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Köroğlu

The link of Köroğlu of peasant movement leads to legendary figure of Turkey, far from Nakhchinan (also to a version in Uzbekistan) . So I cleared up the link.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sumerian?

According to Sumerian, Jewish, and Islamic tradition, Nakhchivan and Seron were the only two cities built after the Great Flood and before the subsequent dispersion of peoples.

If this is true, what were the Sumerian names for Nakhchivan and Seron? 70.239.13.230 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

O(h) Nakhchivan

In English, "Oh Nakhchivan" and "O Nakhchivan" are distinct.
If Nakhchivan is being addressed, then "O Nakhchivan" is correct.
Varlaam (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead will need some work

I've had a go at expanding the lead by including a brief summary of Nakhchivan's history .. but as I have very little knowledge of the history of the region I've just going purely off the history section. I hope somebody with more knowledge can go over the lead and condense what I've written, or add a little more information. Perhaps more information about the political situation in the area (which seems to be conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijans) would be useful. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it autonomous still?

From my understanding of things the Nakhichevan ASSR was created to provide autonomy for Armenians living in the region while having it under Azeri rule. Considering that this article places the amount of Armenians currently living in the region as somewhere around 0.00% of the population, this seems a bit dated as a reason for continued autonomy. I can only think of the following reasons from my limited reading into the subject: 1. political favoritism from the government of Azerbaijan; 2. the people of the region want it; 3. Armenia might do something horrible if it's revoked. The article doesn't make known the practical effects and continued reasons for its status. --Mrdie (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its completely cut off from Azerbaijan proper, it makes sense for them to be autonomous, don't you think so? --George Spurlin (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaliningrad is completely cut off from the rest of Russia, but it's still just an oblast. There doesn't seem to be any significant cultural differences to justify autonomy. I'm not here to advise the Azerbaijani Government on how to run its country or anything, but the article should probably mention why it's actually autonomous. --Mrdie (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of the international treaties that envisage that autonomy, and for the Azerbaijani people of the said exclave. --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Peculiarities

This article has serious gaps and handicaps:

1) No reference to the consequent similar Treaties between Turkey and Soviet Russia (16 March 1921) in Moscow and between Turkey and the 3 Caucasian Soviet Republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) (13 October 1921) in Kars that are the basis of the current international autonomous status of Nakhchivan, in the lead.

2) These two Treaties, in which "Turkey" is one of two sides, clearly are intended to protect the Turkish (Azerbaijani) -or if you wish "Turkic", but they take it as an insult in Nakhchivan if you call them so- population of the region. Yet our Nakhchivan article is within WP projects Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iran but not Turkey!

3) Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (NAR) has its own Constitution -approved by the Republic of Azerbaijan- and powers emanating therefrom to enter into international relations by itself. As an actor of international relations, NAR has signed a series of international documents (protocols, memorandums of understanding etc) with Turkey and also with Iran. However, the "International issues" section of the article deals broadly with a case of "Armenian monuments" (gravestones) and what an Armenian diaspora organization thinks or opines about Nakhchivan, while it gives almost no place to Nakhchivan's current international relations. It has three border gates to Turkey and Iran and according to our article is "isolated"?! There are also international flights to and from Nakhchivan to countries like Turkey and Russia.

I will try to edit this article to reflect more of its current Azerbaijani autonomous republic character and not as an "ancient Armenian archeological site of interest". I hope I will find some help from objective users who wish to make WP a better encyclopedia and at least not be hampered by irredentist nationalism on the way. (Read a comment upstairs; someone says Nakhchivan had been made a Soviet Republic to safeguard the Armenian presence... (sic)

I could say "So help me God" but I prefer to say: "Please help me Wikipedian colleagues". Thanks for reading me. --E4024 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)