Talk:Nakhichevan uezd

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070424044332/http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html to http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Name

Hello Wikipedians, as you may know, the common, prevailing theme for Russian Imperial province article names in English Wikipedia is their commonly-appearing Anglicisation in English sources. For example, the more common "Ardahan Okrug" is used instead of the transliterated "Ardagan Okrug" or "Ardaganskii Okrug" (there is no "h" in Russian, it usually is replaced by "g" or "kh"), therefore, to determine the article title for the Nakhichevan Uyezd, the most-commonly appearing spelling/Anglicisation in English language sources should be found, which is commonly done on Wikipedia by counting the search results from searching each variation on Google Ngram, Google Scholar, and Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET.

Google Ngram Search

–All variants compared

Google Scholar Search

–"Nakhichevan uezd": 0 results

–"Nakhichevan uyezd": 4 results

–"Nakhchivan uezd": 6 results

–"Nakhchivan uyezd": 1 result

–"Nakhchyvan uezd": 1 result

–"Nakhchyvan uyezd": 0 results

–"Nakhijevan uezd": 0 results

–"Nakhijevan uyezd": 1 result

Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET (hide “Tools” to see totals):

-"Nakhichevan uezd": 2 results

-"Nakhichevan uyezd": 106 results

-"Nakhchivan uezd": 9 results

-"Nakhchivan uyezd": 103 results

-"Nakhchyvan uezd": 14 results

-"Nakhchyvan uyezd": 0 results

-"Nakhijevan uezd": 0 results

-"Nakhijevan uyezd": 0 results

From tallying these results, it's evident that "Nakhchivan Uyezd" is the more commonly appearing variant in English sources (compared with "Nakhichevan Uyezd" with 7 fewer results), hence, the easiest for readers to find and piece-together in their understanding of the counties of the Erivan Governorate. In conclusion, it can be inferred from the results that the most common name variant "Nakhchivan Uyezd" uezd/uyezd should be used in the article title in place of the others, however, the others should be mentioned in the article, in addition to denoting their etymological origin, and creating redirect articles to the "Nakhchivan Uyezd" page. -Nunuxxx (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nunuxxx: I oppose this change and do not think this change should have happened so hastily without some proper discussion. For one, Nakhichevan was the official name during Russian imperial times, “Nakhchivan” is a more recent version that only came after the Uyezd was dissolved. It’s the same reason we don’t call the Erivan Uyezd- “Yerevan Uyezd” or Jebrail Uyezd “Jabrayil Uyezd,” it’s simply historically inaccurate. It is anachronistic to assign this uyezd the name Nakhchivan when it’s official name anglicized was Nakhichevan. In addition, an 8 result difference isn’t enough to infer commonality, especially when examining the sources most that use Nakhchivan uyezd are not quality WP:RS. TagaworShah (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging page mover @Lennart97: TagaworShah (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the move awaiting further discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi TagaworShah, thanks for your articulate reply. To answer your first point, the official name of the county during Russian Imperial times was actually "Нахичевань" or "Нахичеванский уезд", not "Nakhichevan". The term "Nakhichevan" is a transliteration/romanization of the original Russian-form, which as stated above is not the standard or style used in English Wikipedia Tsarist district articles, otherwise we would use "Elizabetpol' guberniia", or "Dzhebrail uezd" instead of their more common and understandable Anglicisiations, "Elisabethpol Governorate" and "Jebrail Uyezd" respectively.

Secondly, I do not believe the term "Nakhchivan" is anachronistic as it has always been the Azerbaijani term for the region since the formation of the Nakhichevan Khanate in Afsharid Persia— To say it is 'out of place' is inconsiderate of Nakhichevan's centuries old ethnic-Azerbaijani population. To use terms such as "Ganja" or "Tbilisi" in place of the "Elisabethpol" and "Tiflis" uyezd pages respectively would in my view be anachronistic as they are completely different from the originals and do no represent the same word, rather a modernist renaming, and do not associate in the reader's mind as belonging to the period of Tsarist Russia.

On your last point, anyone can subjectively claim WP:RS, my point is that by numerical means, the term "Nakhchivan" wins over "Nakhichevan" in English sources, which is important to note given a reader's knowledge of the name of the county may be based on reading one of these sources. However, in consideration of the small difference, as stated in the last line of my initial write-up, it may be worthwhile to add "Nakhichevan Uyezd" as another spelling, something along the lines of:

"The Nakhchivan Uyezd, also known as the Nakhichevan Uyezd, ..."

Let me know what you think of this. -Nunuxxx (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nunuxxx: Unfortunately I can’t agree to that for a number of reasons. Firstly, “Nakhchivan” is not the Russian transliteration but the Azerbaijani one. For example, the redirect of Nakhchivan says “Nakhchivan (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan) or Nakhichevan (Armenian: Նախիջևան, Russian: Нахичевань)” The Russian version is directly based on the original Armenian version which is transliterated as Nakhichevan. The Azerbaijani version is also based on the original Armenian name hence why the article is named Nakhichevan Khanate and not Nakhchivan Khanate. The words have a different pronunciation, while yes “Nakhchivan” may have been used by the Azerbaijani population, the official pronunciation of the Uyezd would still be Nakhichevan as the name was adopted directly from Armenian. This is why I believe it is anachronistic as “Nakhchivan” was not widely used in official contexts until the 1920s. Nakhichevan is still a very common name for the region today so I don’t see how that would be anachronistic and like the examples you showed. Lastly, with something like the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, extreme caution needs to be shown to the sources as many unreliable sources have been published in order to push certain ideological agendas, we need to have a closer examination at them to make sure they uphold Wikipedia standards. To reiterate my position, when people are searching the historical Uyezd, the proper common name would be Nakhichevan, while for the modern autonomous republic it is Nakhchivan. Best regards. TagaworShah (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: I believe you may have misunderstood me, I was saying that your assertion of the original name of the county being "Nakhichevan" is not accurate as that is a transliteration of the Russian term, which to reiterate is not the policy or style of these sorts of articles, and thus is not the basis of the article name.

The etymological origins of the toponym are not assessed to determine the article name, rather, the most frequently used term in English academia and sources is assessed, which as evidenced by the myriad of links I posted above, is "Nakhchivan Uezd/Uyezd". This is inferred regardless of the ideological or political agenda of the sources (I'm well aware many are made by Azerbaijani authors presenting negative, even outright biased views towards Armenian statehood), however, the political agendas of said sources are not the subject of the question here, rather, by objective standards, "Nakhchivan" is evidently more used than "Nakhichevan" when directly referring to the county, thus, I don't see why it shouldn't prevail in this case. With due respect, I do not see how your counter-points are consequential to the subject of discussion regarding the credibility of the sources and the etymological origin of the term "Nakhchivan", especially as the etymological origin of "Nakhchivan" as you stated is not quite 'anachronistic' given its constant use by the local Azerbaijani population, and its wider-use in English sources when referring to the Uyezd. Cheers, -Nunuxxx (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nunuxxx: I don’t see why the official Russian imperial era transliteration and pronunciation shouldn’t be used. I don’t agree with the way you grouped together the results, it fails to take into account the quality of the sources, books from Lulu.com can hardly be considered academia. The google scholar search for Nakhchivan Uyezd exclusively produced Azerbaijani sources, in case you aren’t aware why these sources rarely meet Wiki guidelines I can recommend you some Wikipedia discussions and literature. If we exclude self published sources and sources coming out of Azerbaijan(for above reasons), it’s evident that “Nakhichevan” is the most common name used for the Uyezd in English third party academia. I understand this level of detail is not the usual procedure in other articles, but for something as complex as the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it is a necessary precaution. TagaworShah (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: We don't use transliteration because it's less common in English sources and thus harder to find and interpret for readers, who may, for example, find the term "Jevanshir Uyezd" more familiar and 'read-able' than the clunky transliterated term: "Dzhevanshirskii uezd". However, if you can link some Wikipedia discussions which by consensus disregard such Azerbaijani publications due to the complex political background of the conflict, I may be agreeable to keeping the name "Nakhichevan Uyezd". Otherwise, without any precedent on Wikipedia, I'm opposed to this kind of exclusive examination and appraisal of sources. Cheers, -Nunuxxx (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nunuxxx: The comparisons you make aren’t exactly fair. Nakhichevan is a word that is still used and common to this day, the difference is only 8 results, most of the difference being made up of self published sources. That is hardly enough to make such a bold claim that Nakhchivan Uyezd is more common than Nakhichevan Uyezd in academia. Both of those spellings are modern, both of them have very similar search results, yet only one is the official transliteration which properly associates the Uyezd to this period in the region’s history, Nakhichevan. As for the reliability of sources from Azerbaijan, I would recommend foremost checking out the article Falsification of history in Azerbaijan for multiple academic testimonies on why we should we cautious about such sources. Best, TagaworShah (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nakhichevan uezd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I will take this review. Initial impressions favourable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Specifically, the lead section (see below)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Plagiarism percentage 0.0% according to this copyright website.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Olympian, this is a generally excellent article. You will note I have made an edit changing some stuff (redoing the layout, adding to the citations, and some minor prose editing). However, the lead section needs a large amount of work. It should summarise the contents of the article, and the information it contains should mostly be a summarisation of the body. The current lead section, however, contains several important geographical and administrative points mentioned nowhere in the article body but also does not provide any summarisation of the extensive history section. This is a major issue, so I am putting the article on hold until it is fixed. If you have any questions, please let me know below. Thank you, and good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Hello, I significantly expanded the lead to summarise the entire article. Moreover, I've added information only mentioned in the lead to their appropriate sections throughout the article. Please let me know if this is acceptable or if anything further is required. The diffs are shown here.Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 04:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A few more things:

Nakhichevan needs to have a standardised spelling through the article.

The second paragraph of the lead needs work. "81,000 Muslims (Tatars, i.e. Azerbaijanis, as indicated by the 1897 census)" is confusing, and Massacres of Armenians is a rather vague link.

I have made significant efforts to smoothen the disjointed layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the layout. To answer your points,

1. "Nakhichevan" is the commonly-used Romanization of the district capital from its official Russian name "Нахичевань", which is why I wrote it first then added and Wkilinked the city's modern name in parenthesis.
2. In regards to "81,000 Muslims ..." – the Russian Empire avoiding calling Azerbaijanis by their ethnonym (there was no eponymous Azerbaijani state before 1918) and instead referred to them as Tatars, and even in some official publications such as the cited Caucasian Calendar, they completely omitted the term "Tatar" and simply wrote "Shia Muslim" when describing the ethnic compositions of districts – Therefore, describing the cited Russian statistics without original research becomes a difficult endeavour as evidenced by the confusing sentence. If you think that it wouldn't be considered original research to simply state "81,000 Azerbaijanis", I can add that instead, I was just unsure if it's acceptable.
3. Finally, I think that the massacres of Armenians wikilink can be removed (I was attempting to lead the reader towards reading about the ethnic cleansings of Armenians from Nakhichevan, however, I think it's covered in sufficient detail in another article I wrote and wikilinked (Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan)).

Cheers, – Olympian ^loquere 09:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

With regard to point 2, I think if you have a source for the Tatar --> Azerbaijani confusions, it would be very helpful to add it in the note. Otherwise, good work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't insert a citation into the lead's note, however, in the demographics section I cited a reliable source attesting to the Tatar–Azerbaijani misnomer and also improved other wording. Diffs are shown here. Please let me know if anything further is required. Cheers, – Olympian ^loquere 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have done so. Congratulations on a good article! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Nakhichevan uezd was home to more than 54,000 Armenians until they perished through the events of 1918–1920 as a result of the Russian Revolution? Source: Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996). The Republic of Armenia. Vol. 3. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08803-4.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The article has just become a Good Article.

Improved to Good Article status by Olympian (talk). Self-nominated at 11:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Olympian: Great article. This seems to be your first nomination so no QPQ required. However, I don't think that the hook is that interesting. Your hook feels too vague and lacks enough context to be interesting. I feel as if you should either be more specific in the hook you have or create a different hook altogether. Other than that it would be approved. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hook is better so I'm approving on good faith. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)