Talk:Qazax

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

Requested moves[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NovaSkola The all Azerbaijani city names should be moved to English version as it is official versions. Moreover, there is more results in English version of it and some Azerbaijani letters is unknown to readers, which will cause problems in reading the article such as "Şamaxı". Xoncha (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be directed to the city, while district needs to be just Khizi District.--Xoncha (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - and all other moves. Why should we "move to English version"? What's the rationale. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The rational is you don't write name of Chinese cities with chinese letters. It is unreadable for those who don't speak original language. Xoncha (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is nonsense, Chinese isn't a Latin script; English readers can read the Latin and Turkic alphabet. Rather than single-handedly making an undiscussed bulk moves that affects the stable titling of an entire article corpus, note that recent English books do use Turkic diacritics for Azerbaijani the same as en.wp historically has done for all Turkic geo articles: [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Georgia-Armenia-Azerbaijan/dp/174179403X/ Lonely Planet Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan uses Turkic diacritics] [http://www.amazon.com/Azerbaijan-Excursions-Georgia-Mark-Elliott/dp/190586423X/ Azerbaijan Excursions Guide uses Turkic script] etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All titles should use letters from the English alphabet. Red Slash 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, User:Red Slash. Which letters in Qazax are not English. And should your rule apply to all articles or just Azeri cities? —  AjaxSmack  03:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is, of course, the question of the ı in the third place listed here. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which we use across 1000s of Turkish articles... !Votes that simply express a view contrary to article reality and project guidelines should be justified with some rationale. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2021[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Qazax → Gazakh – Move to "Gazakh" per WP:UE/WP:COMMONNAME/WP:ENGLISH. Proof of anglicized name being the common name:

Results from Google News: Gazakh: 3,600 Qazax: 104

Results from Google Scholar: Gazakh: 1,410 Qazax: 248

Individual reliable sources referring to city as "Shirvan" RFE/RL, JamesTown, CNN, OC Media, Euractive, Reliefweb, Anadolu Agency

This is the same name but an anglicized version (the current name is made up of Latin letters, but isn't the English spelling of the city). Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly large town, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Gazakh" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument.

Additional note: Almost all instances of the English-language media sources use "Gazakh" to refer to the city and not the wider Qazakh District, therefore "Gazakh" being a redirect to the district is wrong. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, your Google Scholar links give only “about 675” and “about 255 results,” a bit less if you exclude “Wikipedia” per WP:SET. Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET (excluding “Wikipedia,” limiting to English-language sources, reading count from the top of the last page of results), limited to the 21st century gives Qazax about 1,020, Gazakh about 1,670 —Michael Z.
  • Oppose per 2016 edition of Lonely Planet Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan = "from Qazax and buses from ..." . Although this town is sizable enough (population 35,102) to register in travel books, they use the modern Azerbaijani spelling. Heaven knows what current books you are referring to that carry more weight than the main guidebook. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can find plenty WP:RS in the almost 4,000 News and 1,500 Scholarly books/articles I've provided. Here's New York Times calling it "Gazakh". — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times article doesn’t lead to any conclusions. Not only is it the only mention of the town on the entire website, the article uses two different spellings, one in the text and another in the map. —Michael Z. 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't, that's the problem. As explained to you repeatedly over several of your RMs, to add a city to list of English exonyms the onus is on you to provide current WP:RS. That means BBC and Guardian etc from 2021. Not a New York Times article from 2012 - which in the corresponding BBC story is Azerbaijani spelling Qazax, not Russian spelling. Please present some convincing support from current WP:RS In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy saying that it has to be recent, you're making up rules to match your agenda. Regardless, you can find plenty of recent sources in the results. Taking a little time to search through them instead of copy-pasting your answers from Talk:Xızı would be much more helpful in having a constructive discussion. Here's RFE/RL, JamesTown, CNN, OC Media, Euractive, Reliefweb, Anadolu Agency calling it "Gazakh". I've provided sources and policies backing my change, yet all you're doing is stonewalling the status quo with no policy that supports it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally jaw-dropping. There is a policy that says that geo names have to be current. How could you not know this? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing things in bold doesn't make them any funnier. Could you link the alleged policy which says the sources have to be recent? Not like it matters since I've already provided recent sources in my previous comment, yet I'd still like to see. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMECHANGES In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting the fact that there's no name change here. That policy is for when a country changes the name of a city to a new name. We're simply anglicizing the already used native name based on the commonly used anglicisation used by major English-language media. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Reliable book sources stopped using the Soviet Russian spellings around 2000. See Financial Times World Desk Reference published Dorling Kindersley 2004 "... medium Landscape typical of the Lesser Caucasus mountains near Qazax in the extreme northwest of Azerbaijan" this is one of the most authoritative reference series there is, and this is 2004, 17 years ago. En.wp editors are hopefully not going to accept a move back to the Russian spelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that "Gazakh" isn't a Russian spelling (that'd be "Kazak"). Both WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:MODERNPLACENAME are for when the name of the city has been officially changed to a new name. This is not the case here. "Gazakh" is the same name as "Qazax" but an anglicized version, which WP:UE tells us to use. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the current Russian name is ru:Газах, which is romanized unambiguously as Gazakh. The pre-1991 Azerbaijani name was also Газах, but its written name was officially changed to az:Qazax. —Michael Z. 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE and the sufficient sourcing provided by CuriousGolden. Gnominite (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC) CU-confirmed sock, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden --Blablubbs|talk 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIACRITICS.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the user above has copy-pasted the same comment mentioning a completely irrelevant policy to every single Requested Moves of mine.
    The first sentence from that policy:

    The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources.

    See above to know which name English language reliable sources use. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose  Latin is the official native alphabet of Azerbaijan, and the native name is Qazax. Any talk about romanization systems is academic here, because the native name is already in the Latin (Roman) alphabet. WP:MODERNPLACENAME is relevant, because in 1991 the town’s native name was changed from Газах (romanized Gazakh) to Qazax. Reliable up-to-date sources and standards mentioned in WP:WIAN use Qazax: the NGIS GeoNames database gives this as the approved name and labels other spellings as variants; the text and map in Britannica’s “Azerbaijan”; CIA World Factbook’s entry on Azerbaijan; Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary’s (2007) map of Azerbaijan. There is more than one spelling in use, but this one is standardized, recommended by current references, and gaining in frequency. It is the “widely accepted name” which WP:PLACE says we should use for the title. Alternative spellings should also be mentioned in the article, as well as historical names in Cyrillic and Persian alphabets. —Michael Z. 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenia claimed that the region was incorporated in antiquity in various Armenian states[edit]

This phrasing suggests it is only a claim that the region was incorporated in antiquity in various Armenian states. The use of the term claim is not appropriate given there are reliable sources in the "Early history" section that state the region was part of Armenian states in antiquity. It's been noted in an edit comment that "Text must quote exactly what the source says", however none of the edits so far are using the quote template. Note Anderson does not describe it *only* an Armenian perspective. An Armenian view or perspective does not downgrade a statement that is supported by other reliable sources. A reasonable interpretation of Anderson writing is that he is rather describing the justifications of nationalist territorial claim, hence the Armenian perspective is referring to Armenian claims and their reasoning, rather than a judgement on the veracity of history. Maidyouneed (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a territory belonged to another nation sometime in the past, it does not justify a claim to the land. Otherwise no European state should exist in their present day borders. The way you edited makes it look like it is ok to claim a land because of history. In reality, it was a claim of the Armenian side, and that is what the source says. You cannot ascribe to a source something that it did not say. The text quoted must be exactly what the source says, not your personal interpretation of what happened. Andersen clearly says that it was the Armenian perspective, that history justifies their land claims:
From Armenian perspective, these territories were historical Armenian provinces of Kazakh-Shamshadin, Artsakh (Karabakh), and Syuniq (Zanghezur). That point of view went back to the ancient and early mediaeval periods of Armenian history when the above-mentioned territories were incorporated in various Armenian states.
You cannot just remove Armenian perspective from the source, because regardless if that perspective is true or not, first, this is what the source say, and second, history does not mean that a modern territory should necessarily belong to a nation who lived there in the past. Grandmaster 08:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazax&oldid=1212202787"