Talk:Stepanakert

Comment

User:Tabib has listed Stepanakert → Khankendi under Wikipedia:Requested moves, and has linked to this talk page for discussion of this proposed move.

There are two separate articles, both referring to the same city by different names. They should be merged, with redirects pointing to a single name.

Background: this city is in Nagorno Karabakh, which is officially part of Azerbaijan, but has been under Armenian control since a war shortly after the breakup of the former Soviet Union nearly 15 years ago. Today, Armenians and Azerbaijanis prefer to call the city by different names.

Until very recently, both articles were "substubs", but Khankendi has recently been expanded into an article.

• Question: are there also any naming issues with other cities and towns in Nagorno Karabakh? For instance Shusha, or others? -- Curps 18:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a redirect at Xankandi, pointing to Khankendi. With diacritics, it seems the spelling is Xankändi.

The merged article should be entitled "Stepanakert" or "Khankendi" or "Xankandi" or other. Express opinions below:

Stepanakert

The city has only one name Stepanakert. Even under the Soviet era the city was called Stepanakert and before named Vararakn. I don't see the point of this discussion-confusion, besides there have never been a city with this name Khankendi, this causes only confusion. I wish Wikipedia that i respect very much and contribute in this great organization every year, will remove this as dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoghik66ca (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Curps 18:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC).
   • I don't really wish to take sides in this Armenian-Azerbaijaini conflict, but the people who actually control the city call it "Stepanakert". Just like we have articles entitled Taipei instead of "Taibei", and Senkaku Islands instead of Diaoyu Islands, we should probably use the name used by the entity that is actually physically exercising control over the territory, with redirects from the name used by the opposite side. -- Curps 18:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Davenbelle 18:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
   • I agree with Curps; "Stepanakert" is what the folks who live there call their city. Davenbelle 18:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
3. Carnildo 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • Since the city has been under the control of Armenia for a goodly long time, and there's no evidence that control will change in the near future, we should use "Stepanakert". Of course, if there's a long-term change of control, then by all means we should change the name of the article, and all common names should be mentioned in the article. --Carnildo 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. The government of NKR call it Stepanakert. So do the BBC: [1] Dmn / Դմն 20:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • Dmn, leaving "government of NKR" aside, just a quick note that official BBC policy is to refer to both names, calling it Khenkendi/Stepanakert Stepanakert/Khenkendi. See, N-K profile page [2]--Tabib 08:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
5. It is more known under this name and the name is unlikely to change in the future. Second name should be included as alternative, plus redirect. Section on name disputes/changes should exist. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. It was Stepanakert during the time it was in Soviet Azerbaijan, and has always remained so to the split-away government and people. The act of changing the name to one the residents would obviously never embrace seems silly. I (obviously) vote for Stepanakert. --RaffiKojian 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
   • One important clarification, Raffi. When saying "residents" in your comments above, you are one-sidedly referring *only* to Armenian residents, omitting Azeri population of Karabakh (appr. 40,000) and of then Stepanakert (appr. 10,000), expelled during 1991-1994.--Tabib 06:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
     • Fair enough... make that "today's residents, and the majority of residents", since I won't presume to speak for the Azeri residents. --RaffiKojian 09:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
7. I also vote for Stepanakert. It's what the majority of the NKR residents (yes, the *Armenian* ones), refer to it as. Tommmmmmy 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. The only way the people living there will be changing what they call it will be if there is another war and it falls to the Azeris. Until then it makes sense to refer to this city by the name of Stepanakert in Wikipedia. Caerwine 13:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
9. The city is internationally known as Stepanakert Valentinian 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
10. From some points mentioned above, my vote goes to 'Stepanakert'. *drew 16:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• It's been 6 weeks; time to merge, I think... — Davenbelle 17:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• As I said, I will accept any solution that the majority supports, be it Stepanakert or Khankendi or Stepenakert/Khankendi (or vice versa). However, if I am not mistaken, according to Wikipedia rules, the poll should be voted by a minimum of 15 users, and 70% of support is required for any position to be declared acceptable. Is there a way to attract the attention of other editors (hopefully not all of them Armenians and/or Azeris, see what I'm saying... ;-), so that they would read through the talkpage and then vote for themselves? --Tabib 06:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Putting political issues of what the official name aside, the official wikipedia policy, wikipedia uses the most frequently used english name, determined via a google search.

• Well, I get 21,900 hits for Stepanakert and 619 hits for Khankendi. Some of the Stepanakert hits may be from Soviet-era references, but the difference is still pretty large. -- Curps 19:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC).
• Interestingly, "Xankandi" gets 6,790 hits, far more than "Khankendi", but still less than "Stepanakert". Xankändi gets an additional 490 hits -- Curps 19:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khankendi & Stepanakert

I thank you all for your interest in the issue. I do not intend to go to protracted discussions and I will accept the viewpoint of the majority coming out from the poll. However, preliminary elaboration is necessary before making final decision on how to vote in the poll.

I believe the category should be named Khankendi, since this is the most accurate English version of the current name of the town (Xankandi).

Background info: As some of you already know, Stepanakert was the name of the town in Soviet times. The town grew on site of a village named Khankendi. In 1923, with creation of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, this small village was renamed Stepanakert, after Stepan Shaumian, an Armenian Bolshevik who was one of the leaders of the Baku Commune (1918). Soon it became the regional capital of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and the biggest town within that autonomy. After Azerbaijan regained its independence in 1991, the Azerbaijan government renamed the town Khankendi (written as Xankəndi in Azeri).

Spelling variations: Khankendi/Xankandi/Xankändi: As you will see below, most of the maps (and I’m not talking about Azeri maps) refer to the town as “Xankändi”, which is the closest form to the Azeri spelling of the town “Xankəndi”. However, in my view, the correct English version is Khankendi. This is the variant which, I believe, fits the English pronunciation and grammar the best. Xankandi is somewhat confusing, especially for English reader, because it may be read as “Ksan-kandi" or even, “Zan-kandi”.

Please see, 1. UNDP Azerbaijan map (2002) (pdf format) -[3] (The town is clearly indicated as Khankendi)

2. Maps of Azerbaijan from University of Texas (2004): (political) (shown as Xankändi) (topographic) (shown as Xankändi)

For interesting comparison with the ones above, see, Soviet period map from the same source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/azerbaijan.gif (shown as Stepanakert)

3. Merriam-Webster map of Azerbaijan [4] (Xankandi)

I also have at hand World Atlas from Rand McNally (1993) which shows the town as “Xankändi (Stepanakert)”

CIA World Factbook also refers to the town as Xankändi (Khankendi) and not Stepanakert. [5] (see both map and content)

Also see, Columbia Encyclopedia Online entry for Xankändi [6] and Stepanakert. [7] (the latter redirects to “Xankändi” entry)

In short, most of the contemporary maps refer to the town not by its Soviet-period name (Stepanakert), but by the contemporary official name (Khankendi or Xankandi)

Two arguments were used in favor of naming Stepanakert: 1. The town should be named the way the occupying power calls it 2. Google search shows more results for Stepanakert than for Khankendi or Xankendi etc.

I strongly disagree with the first argument. Today Armenian forces occupy roughly quarter of the territory of Azerbaijan. The separatist authorities renamed the Azeri settlements, most of which prior to their occupation had even no Armenian population. In this regard, please see the Armenian web-site Artsakhworld.com.

If to follow the logic that we should rename the towns the way the occupying power calls it, without consideration of legitimacy, then we should change the entries for occupied Azeri towns Kalbajar to “Karvachar”, Gubatly to “Kashunik”, Shusha to “Shushi”, Lachin to “Kashatagh” etc etc., which is a complete nonsense, as these settlements never had such names and until recently even Armenians themselves did not refer to these settlement this way.

Btw, the Armenian site I mentioned above goes as far as calling the Azeri towns of Barda and Agdjabedi, which are not in Nagorno-Karabakh and not even in Armenian control by its “Armenian names” (Barda is shown as “Partav” and Agdjabedi shown as “Baghimej”)...

In short my position regarding the first argument is that it cannot be accepted as a valid argument, because it alters geographical accuracy to politics.

As to the second argument, I accept its validity, however do not agree with it. It’s true that Google gives more results for ‘Stepanakert’ than for ‘Khankendi’, or even ‘Xankandi’. However, in this particular case, I do not think Google can be the appropriate measure for defining the “most widely used term” as stipulated by Wikipedia rules. We should bear in mind that whereas “Armenian” name for the town has only one English variant, the “Azeri” name has at least 3 most widely used English variants (Xankandi/Xankändi/Khankendi). Moreover, Google search is good for determining the most widely used naming in cases when a particular issue is rather well studied and there is a lot of information available over the Internet. This is not the case with Khankendi (Stepanakert), as there is not even a single specialized web-site about this town, whether Armenian or Azeri. Therefore, I believe that considering the understudied nature of the topic over the Internet, Google search cannot be an accurate indicator of the “most widely used term”. Therefore, my suggestion is to hold on accuracy in naming issue and not Google results.

I hope this info was helpful to you and you will consider it when voting for poll. But, certainly, as I said, I will accept any decision supported by the majority, whether ‘Stepanakert’, or ‘Khankendi’ or even ‘Khankendi (Stepanakert)’ or ‘Stepanakert (Khankendi)’ --Tabib 08:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with titling a geographic article based on "who should control the area" rather than "who does control the area" is that it leads to endless arguments over who has the better claim. Using "who does control the area" makes people unhappy, but at least it's easy to determine.

As a case in point: the city of Jerusalem. Who "should" control and name it? The current Israeli nation? The Palestinians? The British? -- they conquered it in 1917. Or should it be Turkey, the successor to the Ottoman Empire, who controlled it prior to that? Egypt, who controlled it in the 13th century? Germany? Fredrick II held it during the Crusades. The Vatican, as spiritual successor to the Crusaders? Italy, as successors to Rome? Any surviving descendants of the Jebusites, who the Israelites displaced in antiquity?

Far too much of the globe is claimed by multiple groups for "what it should be called" to work as a naming policy. --Carnildo 19:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo, probably you misunderstood my point, because the issue here is not naming the page title based on "who should control the area" (position you incorrectly ascribe to me) vs. "who does control the area" (position you ascribe to yourself). I did not make my case in favor of naming the page ‘Khankendi’ based on “who should control the area”. My point was that we should stick to contemporary naming as referred by authoritative maps and sources (adapted to English grammar and pronunciation, i.e. Khankendi instead of Xankändi).

On the other hand, I rejected the second argument (naming based on “who controls the area”) namely because it may alter geographical accuracy to politics. For example, Jerusalem, you mentioned, is called so not because Israelis hold control over the city, but simply because this is its name referred to it by maps and authoritative sources. If tomorrow someone occupies this town and changes its name to “Whatever-town”, we certainly would not rename the Wikipedia entries of Jerusalem. That is why I oppose the “who should control the area” approach, because, as I elaborated in my message above, it may lead to complete nonsense in naming issues, especially if this approach is applied to other towns and regions of Azerbaijan presently controlled by Armenian forces.--Tabib 07:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is labelled Jerusalem because that is the English name for it, like Venice is the English name for Venetzia, and Germany the name for Deutchland (sp?). Stepanakert (as it has been known since 1923) has never had an English name. Again, I sa it's been known as Stepanakert since 1923, and the current people and rulers use that as well. If you want contemporary naming, lets use what the contemporary residents call it. I'm sure most of them have never heard of Khankendi... --RaffiKojian 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to say that your claim that "Today Armenian forces occupy roughly quarter of the territory of Azerbaijan." is completely off base. I don't know if you are knowingly spreading this lie, but you will have no excuse if you ever repeat that again. Armenians hold under 15% of what is recognized as Azerbaijan if you INCLUDE Karabakh. If you don't, under 10%. Either way you're way off base. (Source for legit numbers) --RaffiKojian 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I would very much wish that you dont turn this talkpage to yet another "Armenian-Azeri" dispute forum and avoid irrelevant comments as to the "how much territory exactly did the Armenians occupy from Azerbaijan". This has nothing to do with naming issues and you can address this question in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. My comments were solely about Khankendi/Stepenakert and the background info I gave was also about the city in order to inform other editors about the naming issues (from my perspective) and to help them in arriving at their conclusions by taking into consideration both points of view.--Tabib 06:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib - I agree it has nothing to do with naming issues, but you brought it up, not me. You were "informing" them of a massive fallacy, so I simply pointed out the correct numbers and a source, and hope that you were only using that figure mistakenly. --RaffiKojian 09:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I bring one more clarification on this off-point and irrelevant comments and hope we'll finish on that. I must admit that I had in mind "20%" when writing "quarter", which actually means 25%. This was a technical mistake that anyone even native English-speakers coudl make. "20 %" - is the number that both Azerbaijan and in many instances international media uses most often when referring to the percentage of occupied Azeri territory. However, if to be more exact, this is not 20% and even not "under 15%" that you Raffi argue, but 16% (which if you round-up makes 20%). I think it is counterproductive for you to hold on to this technical issue which is absolutely irrelevant to this talkpage.

Just to finish this discussion once and for all, here's the proof: Please see, UNDP Azerbaijan map (2002), which shows the occupied Azerbaijani territory showing the exact number - 14.176 sq km. Considering that Azerbaijan's overall territory is 86.600 sq km, this makes 16.36% of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Raffi, I call you not to play with such heated words as "massive fallacy". I want to remind you and all that I provided *honest* and *neutral* background info on Stepanakert/Khankendi and then substantiated my personal arguments in favor of naming the entry 'Khankendi'. My post was not about "occupied Azeri territories" per ce, and there is no need for holding on one technical mistake of mine, thus questioning the rest of the arguments I have brought.--Tabib 10:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

20% Myth

Unfortunately Tabib - you're long explanatory message meant to give this subject a rest, doesn't seem like you want to give it a rest at all. Come on, you first mean to use the mistaken 20% (let's say by accident), then accidentally say a quarter (25%) rather than a fifth (20%). Fine. But THEN when you want me to put it to rest, you write three times more than me, including saying things like 16% can be rounded up to 20%!?!? Sure, and that can be rounded to 30% and that to 50% and that to the nearest 100%. In fantasyland. 25% vs. 15% is a huge exaggeration (yes, a massive fallacy), and 20%, is still a large lie. The 20% figure is 33% higher than reality IF Karabakh is included in the calculation, and 100% higher if it is not. Now my biggest problem with this 20% myth, is that it is not just the media that perpetuates it, it is the Azerbaijani government, which knows damn well how much of it's land it is in control of. If you want to argue that it is 16.x percent versus 14.x%, feel free (you can't ever win the arguement though since nobody can know to that exactness just where the lines are). But stop spreading this 20% nonsense, or else hand over an additional 5% of Azerbaijan to the Armenian forces so that you won't be a liar :-) --Raffi May 11, 2005

Frankly, Raffi, I expected a more deferential attitude and more professional discussion from you. First, you brought about this irrelevant comment about percentage of occupied territories, accussed me in "massive fallacy", thus prompting me to get into details by elaborating on this irrelevant issue of "whether it is 25%, 20% 15% or 16%" and now you accuse me in not "giving [this discussion] a rest at all" (?!). I think I have sufficiently addressed this issue in my posting above. I consider discussion on this irrelevant issue over. --Tabib 09:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to dissappoint, but I would have said I expected the same of you, and certainly didn't get it... I considered the discussion over every time I posted, but it seems you really want the last word :-) --RaffiKojian 01:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Tabib: Have you ever been in the Xankendi? The population there calls their capital Stepanakert. We must refer to the city by the name it was named at least since begging of Soviet era. Further discussion will bring to the big topic that what would of happen if Soviet regime would not exist, ever would be thereNagorno-Karabakh and ever would be country called Azerbaijan.

Xankendi

Due the many different names of this city, I have looked up for the official name which is registed in the US state departement. The official name of this city is Xankendi, somebody edit this in the article aswell, thanks!

The US State department does not control what cities are named in Azerbaijan. Since it is occupied (Please take this as neutrally as possible, everyone) by Armenians, and Azeris have little official presence there, it seems most NPOV to use the name used by the local population. (Especially since it is the capital of a breakaway republic, it would be kind of an insult to the local population to call it by the name the country they're breaking away from considers official) --Golbez 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Map Caption & Boundaries

This section is to discuss the inclusion and content of the text "(Boundaries shown are as recognized by Azerbaijan.)" in the caption for the map.

When I added the caption (which had been sitting there peacably for quite a while until this week) the intent was simply to indicate that the boundaries there are not those used by the de facto government.

However, since an argument has arisen, let me point out that it is likely wrong to consider the map as showing de jure boundaries as they make no indication of Nagorno-Karabakh. Unless the Soviet Union had a far different meaning of "autononomous" than would normally be the case, I fail to see how Azerbaijan can de jure eliminate the existance of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast without the consent of the Oblast's government, so calling the internal boundaries of Azerbaijan as shown under the map as the de jure boundaries is a stretch.

The caption text as it is makes no mention of de jure or legal or international leaving the article text to deal with the issue, since it has the space that a map caption does not. Would the following alternative suffice: "(Boundaries shown are not recognized by Nagorno-Karabakh.)"? Caerwine Caerwhine 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be redoing all my maps to handle the new addition of Kangarli in the next few days, so when I do that, I'll whip up a map for the N-K areas (like this) showing the N-K boundaries. That should make everyone happy. Personally, my view is to say they are the boundaries as claimed by Azerbaijan. At least the Cyprus issue is simple, as they didn't redraw any lines or rename any districts when they split. Fortunately, the rayon boundaries do mostly correspond to the borders of N-K, so we don't have to make any statements about the internal boundaries, just the "external" ones, between N-K and Azerbaijan) --Golbez 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let y'all know, I've made a new map, it's really late tonight though so I have to wait til tomorrow to do my post-processing on it. Oh hell, why not, I'll do that one right now, and save the other 77 for tomorrow... And I'm going to make maps for N-K itself, which will have the proper borders and be zoomed in and such. Everyone will be happy. :) Uploading the map now, check out the article for it. --Golbez 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Population numbers

The population numbers vary significantly between different language versions of this article. This English version states 40,000, and so does the russian, dating the number to 2005. The Swedish article claims that population has dropped due to the war to 30,000. The German article claims 53,600 (Jan 1, 2004), and the Slovenian article 56,600 on the same date. I have an external source ([8]) claiming 52,900 on Jan 1, 2002. Does anyone have a reliable source on the correct number? (I have posted this issue on the Swedish and German wikis too.) /Dcastor 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the current article lists two different population figures! Also, I think that the introductory wording "The city population comprises about 53,000 ethnic Armenians" could be improved. I realize ethnicities can be a sensitive topic for people who feel strongly about the region, which is all the more reason to take out the part about "ethnic Armenians". The reader is left to wonder, "... And how many non-Armenians?" or to assume the author is implying a 100% Armenian population (which is contradicted later in the article). Or course, it's been almost 5 years since the previous post on this subject, so maybe I'll go ahead and change this. 65.24.251.91 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vararakn

At some sources, for example Russian Wikipedia, i find that the before the place was called Xankəndi it had an even older Amenian name Vararakn. Is that true? --Amir E. Aharoni 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed called Khankendi before Bolsheviks renamed it after the Armenian communist Stepan Shaumian. The older name is mentioned in all sources, even Great Soviet Encyclopedia. As for the alleged old Armenian name, it's a recent invention and I have not seen it documented in any reliable source. Grandmaster 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster - no offence please, but you may have Azerbaijani POV. Any other views, or better yet - sources? Sources that support Vararakn? Sources that refute Vararakn? Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

yES the CITY was indeed called VARARAKN since it was a village on the river Vararakn. And it was called Stepanakert even when Nagorno Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijan. This means the official version of the name of the city is Stepanakert. Khankendi was a village and not a town before 1923 .--armenianNY 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The current History portion is unacceptable: "The settlement was first mentioned in medieval Armenian sources as Vararakn (meaning “rapid creek,” in Armenian). This toponym survived throughout history as one of Stepanakert’s suburbs called Vyrrakna . The modern city was founded in 1917 after the October revolution in place of a village that was called called Khankendi (Khan's village) in Azerbaijan." First, the Vararakn theory is not correct -- that village or suburb or river creek or whatever else is convenient is not where the city is located. This is same as calling Moscow as "Khimki" just because that's one of the famous suburbs of Moscow, or calling Baku as "Xirdalan" (also one of the suburbs, which is now a separate town). There is not a single record calling the city as such -- not a single chronicle or history!

Meanwhile, the modern Khankendi (Stepanakert) is located on the place of the historic Khankendi that was created during the existence of the Karabakh khanate. Even Armenian nationalist writer Raffi, who wrote his novel Karabakh Melikdoms of Khamsa, refers to Khankandi only by that name, without any "Vararakn" or other made-up names. So the whole theory of Vararakh, that is the first two sentences, should be removed in the absence of any facts and indeed, very contradictory evidence, whilst the third sentence will be modified, as there was nothing special done to Khankendi in 1917 -- it became a recognized city (i.e., upgraded from a town to a city status) only in 1923, together with getting its official designation as the regional center of the newly created NKAO (before that, the center was Shusha). --AdilBaguirov 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as historic Khankendi, it was a village which was named that way officially on mid 19nt century about the same place as a semi-vacated Armenian small town named Vararakn. There was no city there, there is not a single historic map which shows a city being there. It became a city in the Soviet era. Fad (ix) 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You contradict yourself -- first you admit that Khankendi existed since at least mid-19th century (source?), and then say there was no historic Khankendi. I didn't say "ancient", or "medieval", I said "historic", and even 100 years is "historic". Hence, of course there was historic Khankendi -- that was the name of this important village from the day it was found. So that solves this. Meanwhile, there is not a single shred of evidence of some 1) "semi-vacated" (source?) 2) "Armenian" (how do you know, why not Albanian, the original Christian inhabitants of Karabakh?) 3) "small town" (? maybe village would be more appropriate?) by the name of Vararakn being situated on the place of either today's Khankendi or the historic Khankendi, that is when it was founded. Not a single chronicle, not a single historian, including Armenian nationalist writers such as 19th century Raffi, write about any "Vararakn" -- all write about Khankendi. In fact, Raffi writes about Khankendi being named as such already in 1826: "В 1826 году Карабах ждала новая беда: персидский престолонаследник Аббас-Мирза с 80-тысячным войском перешел Ерасх и овладел Карабахом; ... Персидский престолонаследник принял его в деревне Ханкенди, расположенной в нескольких верстах от крепости Шуши." [9] Translation: "In 1826, a new trouble awaited Karabakh: Persian crown prince Abbas-Mirza, with his 80-thousand army, has crossed Araxes, and has seized Karabakh; ... Persian crown prince has received him in the village Khankendi, located in several versts [an old Russian measure of length] from fortress Shusha." Of course if Armenian nationalist writer Raffi, who wrote his book in favorable for Armenians only light, would have know anything about "Vararakn", he would have definitely mentioned it. Just like any other Armenian chronicler -- like Mirza Yusif Nersesov, one of the 6-7 authors of various Karabakh-nameh. Yet not a single author write anything about "Vararakn". It's simple -- because "Vararakn", even if such a village (not small town, but village) indeed existed nearby, didn't have anything to do with Khankendi. --AdilBaguirov 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So I guess the church of Vararakn (called that way), is a collective hallucination. We’re back to your putrid record: ‘’No such thing, if there was one, it must have been Albanian.’’ Khankendi never has become an important village, where is it located in a historic map? Is it even there? Was there Albanians living in 19nth century? Fad (ix) 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there were no Albanians at that time living somewhere in the worl.They were all assimilated. And of course all the geographical names Southers of Caucasus Mountains had Persian names since they were officially part of Safavi and Qajar Persia. It is obvious that Raffi could call the village Khankendi since it was the Persian name of the place. Persia in turn was run by Tyurkic azeri dynasties. That's perfectly fine to call the place Khankendi. But historically that place was called Vararakn as a geographical place of Armenian province of Artsakh. As a town that place was always known as Stepanakert. The inhabitants of the place always called it Stapanakert. We can not call Paris Lutecia now just because Paris was a small habitat Lutecia centuries ago. By the same way we can not claim that the real name of KOsntantinople or Istanbul is Byzantion just because initially it was a small habitat named Byzantion, If we follow the Azeri logic we have to call New York New Amsterdam because the Dutch want to call NYC that way since it was a Dutch custle in 16 century named New Amsterdam.Where would this all go?--armenianNY 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the rules: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [10] Now do you have a reliable third-party source to support your claim that the city was called Vararakn some time in the history?Grandmaster 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, the compromise version that has been suggested in mentioning Vararakn is this: "According to medieval Armenian sources, the settlement was first mentioned as Vararakn (Վարարակն, meaning “rapid creek,” in Armenian) which remained until it was renamed Khankhendi in 1847. Mkrtchyan S. Stepanakert (Ստեփանակերտ). Soviet Armenian Encylopedia, vol. XI, Yerevan, Armenian SSR 1985 p. 124".

This is still problematic. I am sorry, but there are a host of problems with this Armenian reference from the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. First off, I've read many Armenian historic sources, and never seen any reference or comments about Vararakn. Never. I even searched online in both English and Russian, still nothing in historic references -- only modern, suggesting a post-factum invention of the theory. Can you post the entire article of S.Mkrtchyan, his exact quote about Vararakn and his sources, if any.

Second, never have any sources, whether Armenian, Azerbaijani, Persian, Turkish, Russian, or Soviet, mention any Vararakn in relation to foundation of Khankendi. Hence, even if Vararakn is indeed referred to in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia they way it is cited here, the sentence "which remained until it was renamed Khankendi in 1847" would not be correct -- for example, because Armenian nationalist writer Raffi, when writing about 1826, mentions Abbas Mirza coming to Khankendi (see my citation above). Moreover, by 1847 the Karabakh khanate was abolished, and the khan's family mostly migrated to Iran, being enemies of the Russian Empire. Why would then the village become called Khankendi? This is obviously incorrect.

Third, one Armenian source claims that Vararakn is a water spring, whilst few other sources say that Vararakn is a small mountain river near Goris in Syunik -- pretty far from Khankendi [11]. If there was indeed a village Vararakn -- of which there are no historic references -- then it should have been founded on the Vararakn river, which does not flow through or near Khankendi. So why in the world would Caucasian Albanians of the Artsakh region name their village Vararakn, in honor of a river in Syunik region, which was a semi-independent province with its own king?

In fact, the "rapid creek" meaning in Armenian would mean that Vararakn would be associated with river and water, whilst Khankendi doesn't have such a river or even water spring. So the problem is two-fold -- not only does the Vararakn theory for "ancient" name of Khankendi doesn't make sense, but neither does the 1847 date of alleged founding of Khankendi. And once again, never have any chroniclers mentioned that Khankendi was founded on the place of some Vararakn. It is clear -- a village by the name of Vararakn most likely could have existed, but near or on the Vararakn river, which would have been in Zangezur, not at or near Khankendi. --AdilBaguirov 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

File:SAEStepanakert.jpg

The Stepanakert entry in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia.

Can you post the entire article of S.Mkrtchyan, his exact quote about Vararakn and his sources, if any. I got this information directly from personal copy of the 11th volume of the Soviet Armenian Encylopedia. Unless you're able to read Armenian, posting the article will not do you any good but here it is. Ask any Armenian and they will vouch for any part of its translation.

Third, one Armenian source claims that Vararakn is a water spring, whilst few other sources say that Vararakn is a small mountain river near Goris in Syunik. Wrong, as the SAE explicitly states, (transliteration) Stepanakertuh kutnuvoumeh Gharabaghee Lerrnashuggtayee arevelyan lanjee storoteen Karrkar getee dzaq apeen:" - "Stepanakert is found nestled in the eastern Karabakh mountains, on the left side of the Karrkar river." Proximity has little to nothing to do with it, what river they are referring to anyways is irrelevant. Varar- is an Armenian word, it means flowing as in river; its not the name of any river in the area.

So why in the world would Caucasian Albanians of the Artsakh region name their village Vararakn, in honor of a river in Syunik region, which was a semi-independent province with its own king? Azeri pseudo-history aside, why are you so persistent that should the naming of the settlements were upon the choosing of the Caucasian Albanians? Armenians dominated the Karabakh region for centuries on end and were always mentioned in foreign traveler's accounts while the trivial Caucasian Albanians left practically nothing in the wake of their dissipation.

Armenian nationalist writer Raffi, when writing about 1826, mentions Abbas Mirza coming to Khankendi So what, that doesn't tell us anything. He was most probably using the contemporary name of his time. Its as trivial as describing someone traveling to Istanbul in 1898. --MarshallBagramyan 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a source from a tri-lingual Armenian document which clearly says that Vararakn is a river in Syunik, near Goris and thus far from Khankendi. Secondly how do you go from Karrkar to Vararakn? Karrkar sounds like its etymology is from the Gargar tribe, that lived there, and was the constituent tribe of the Caucasian Albanians. Armenians never "dominated the Karabakh region for centuries on end" - the historic facts are clear that Artsakh was part of Caucasian Albania, which was more independent than the double-vassal Armenia, that was split between first Rome and Parthia, and then Byzantum and Persia. Caucasian Albanians left much of current treasures of Karabakh -- 5th century Amaras Monastery for one. But I guess that doesn't count in your "pseudo-history" book?

So again, what does "Vararakn", which means either "rapid creek" or now "flowing" (you guys should realy decide what you want the word to mean and stick to it), and which as a river is located in Syunik near Goris, has to do with Khankendi? WHICH Armenian medieval sources allegedly mention Vararakn being located anywhere in vicinity of present-day Khankendi? Sorry, but there is nothing. And the entry about 1847 by Armenian Encyclopedia is showing how "reliable" it is -- not only does it contradict Raffi's historical novel, on which you guys always relly for "historic facts", but it contradicts logic -- why would Russians allow, and local population, especially if it's, according to some Armenian ultra-nationalists, majority Armenian and "dominated the Karabakh region for centuries on end", name it "town of Khan" -- in 1847???!!! Makes no sense, and is contrary to evidence at hands. --AdilBaguirov 09:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vararakn proper's proximity has little to nothing to do with the etymology of the village. The translation that ArmenianNY gave ("Rapid creek") and the one I gave ("flowing water") don't differ, have virtually the same meaning; it simply depends on how someone translated it. Second, the encyclopedia is describing Stepanakert's location in 1985 when it writes "Karrkar river". Armenian historians were not imcompetent so as to have ignored a 130-year-old history that could easily have been debunked when they wrote that until 1847 the village was known as Vararakn. The Russian Empire didn't make it a mandate to naming every city after an Alexander or an Elizabeth or a Katherine and Vararakn/Khankendi, still a village, was no exception.

You're the one who's making a non-issue out of most of these facts. Raffi's reference to the city has "Khankendi" can be a mistake of his own - nothing more but a trivial reference to a village, not a significant town, by its contemporary name.

Caucasian Albanians left much of current treasures of Karabakh -- 5th century Amaras Monastery for one. But I guess that doesn't count in your "pseudo-history" book?No it doesn't because much of that claptrap comes from non-reputable Soviet-era Azeri historians like Farida Mamedova and Ziya Bunyatov who weakly try to link their history to the land itself. Both of them claim(ed) that Armenians lived in the region beginning in the 1820s and that the architecture, the churches, the language itself were all supposedly copied by the Armenians. Even she is unable to defend her far-fetched theories [12] (p. 154ff) by claiming that Armenians had stolen much of the information and called it their own, going so far as misleading/mistranslating foreign historians when explaining about them on tours. The Azeris claim Dadi Vank in Karabakh is Albanian but of course when they take pictures of it, they make sure the Armenian alphabet is not seen lest their lies give way to their incompetence. Constantly claiming that everything "goes against logic" belies your own argument when most of the sources you provide are spurious and disreputable.--MarshallBagramyan 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, it is amazing that Adil wants the moon as evidence, but has yet to support this: the founding of the town is traced to the late 18th century by the Azerbaijani Karabakh khan, and was thus called Khankendi (Khan's village in Azerbaijani) I have yet to see any records relating to the existance of the village in the 18th century. I doubt there was such thing before the Armenians had evacuated on the vicinities of the military guarnisons just before the Russians had captured. I in fact, question Raffi quote, on whatever it is even geniune. In anyway, given that the zone was right on the Russian guarnisons, this even continued for a long time, even in 1919, the British report the zone as such. There could not have been any town there, at most some insignificant village. Pre military, there is an Armenian church still standing, the church of Vararakn. In any way, accuratly speaking, Stepanakert is very modern, before that, there was nothing and we should probably move of few centuries to find anything, and for that period, only Armenian relics could be found. Fad (ix) 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But again, do you have any third-party reference to support your claim that the town was called Vararakn? Khankendi is verifiable, Vararakn is not.Grandmaster 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a third party reference for a village? There were hundreds of Ottoman villages which were so insignificant that they weren’t even recorded, typical villages at that time had about no more than 25 families, even Lynch during his visit didn’t thought relevant to include many such villages in ‘Anatolia.’ The only thing standing there is an Armenian Church of that name. Also, no, there is no town called Khankendi ever recorded, the only reference we have of it is some small village on a military zone. Fad (ix) 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Raffi made no mistake in his reference - mentioning a small village by name in connection to the crown prince of Iranian Empire residing there cannot be a mistake -- unless you are ready to disqualify the entire book of Raffi as one big mistake. Not sure what Fadix is alleging there, but the book's reference is cited and it resides on the Armenian servers, so not sure what can not be "genuine" there. Meanwhile, both Ziya Bunyadov and Farida Mamedova are also post-Soviet historians, and tower above many of their Armenian colleagues, and despite some mistakes and bumps, have no difficulty in presenting the facts and countering the propaganda from their Armenian colleagues. On the fact that all the ancient and medieval heritage of Karabakh is that of Caucasian Albanians, you can read in none other than Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kalankatuyski). Likewise, there is a reference to C.Albanians even in Russian ethnographer's Velichko. There are many other references as well, which of course some try to supress and otherwise hide, with very limited success. For your info, having an inscription in Armenian alphabet means little in terms of proving this and that is Armenian, just like the fact that we all write in English doesn't mean we are such. Armenian language and alphabet became essentially official for Albanians after around 10th century, as they gradually lost their own due to certain events, such as meddling of the Armenian Church and its catolicos Yelia.

Anyhow, there is abosolutely no credible reference to Vararakn village being located on where Khankendi has been, and absolutely no proof that it was founded in 1847 as that simply could not have been done since the khanate was abolished in 1822 and the khan was a persona non grata, whose heritage and links were supposed to be erased and supressed, not promoted with a "new" village named in his honor (although note that even Armenian encyclopedia, despite its flaws and mistakes, chooses to describe Khankendi as being founded, and not simply renamed from mythical Vararakn to Khankend). --AdilBaguirov 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was relating to the date and the location, we have no clue on whatever Khankendi was anything more than some small insignificant village on a Russian military guarnison. Also, none of your sources support 18th century, the most distant is 19th century, the abolition of the khanate as impossibility is your original research.

Coming to Buniatov, another nonsense from your part. Buniatov head of the Azerbaijani Academia of Science has blatantly manipulated records, fabricated, by deletions and rewrite, those are not just ‘few’ mistakes. If he was a Western historian, he would have been brought to court. This man lead the Academia, this dishonest forger lead the Academia. There is no single Armenian scholar who I ever heard about that has gone anywhere near where Buniatov the charlatan has gone(Armenian scholars are crucified for much less than that). Given that you have the audacity to compare the head of the Academia, a recorded charlatan, dishonest with Armenian scholars, I think there is no need to even answer the rest of your distortions above. It amazes me that Azeris editors have still the audacity to call for the ‘biases’ of Armenian scholars, notable scholars published in the west and peer reviewed, while they find credible, recorded forgers. They are the first to criticise the Armenian government and inject their Academia propaganda on every given Armenian related articles. One could be sure that every Armenian related article will find echoes, if the same things would have been recorded coming from an Armenian scholar, not a typical, but the head of the Academia. But, that’s beside the point, Aliyev message on the destruction of Armenia, repeated and continual, such as his recent one: "The second phase could in fact become the end of Armenia," is rather just an image of the current situation only equalled with the messages from backward country threatening Israel with imminent destruction.

There is no way in the world that you could compare Armenian scholars with Azeri ones. Armenia is much more relevant in scholarship than Azerbaijan, all indicators such as average national IQ (Armenia having the highest in the immediate region), regardless of the fact that intellectuals are leaving the country clearly show that on average, Armenian scholars are much more credible. When the comparison is made between a Diaspora average scholar with an Azeri scholar, then, sorry to say Adil, you are off the mark. And your arguments just support my point, your childishtic “the rich rich Diaspora.” Fad (ix) 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Raffi says "Khankendi" because he was writing in 1870's, and in 1870's that was the name of the city. He never says "in 1826 the name was khankendi." Armenians say "Yerevan" when talking about the city in 19th c. although back then it was called "Erivan."

ASE is reliable because it's third party published source--it's published by a third party--i.e. Armenian Soviet Academy of Sciences (as opposed to by a Wiki member).--TigranTheGreat 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it not an Armenian source? How come it is third-party? Grandmaster 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Vararakn is mentioned by an Armenian source, but it is prefaced with "According to medieval Armenian sources," which in my opinion makes it just as verifable as any third party source. I think we should just keep mention of Vararakn intact. It was never a issue between Armenian and Azeri editors before, why make an issue out of it now? -- Aivazovsky 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is considered third party because it is also a Soviet source. Soviet authorites had to look over and "approve" the text before it was published. -- Aivazovsky 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By that token works by Buniatov and Mamedova are also thrid-party for the same reason. Grandmaster 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, both Ziya Bunyadov and Farida Mamedova are also post-Soviet historians, and tower above many of their Armenian colleagues, and despite some mistakes and bumps, have no difficulty in presenting the facts and countering the propaganda from their Armenian colleagues. Oh brother, if you actually think that and think that respectable scholars and historians around the world think that, then I've got a lake in Michigan to sell you. --MarshallBagramyan 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For Fadix -- Ziya Bunyatov NEVER headed up the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. This is just one of many of Bournoutian's mistakes, as he indeed for some reason (well, obvious for which), makes that mistake. Likewise, never heard of the highest IQ of Armenians in the "immediate region" - and would never say so reading your accusations, allegations and insults. Plus it's a dubious honor -- the "immediate region" is definitely not the much bigger Turkey, and not Iran, in which Azerbaijanis play the primary role, and probably not even Azerbaijan itself or Georgia. You are probably comparing yourself to "NKR"? ;)

Tigran, the Armenian Encyclopedia (ASE) is not a third-party source, never has been, and cannot be by definition. Likewise, the problem is not as much with the fact that it is POV and biased, but that it is simply plain wrong for reasons outlined: there is abosolutely no credible reference to Vararakn village being located on where Khankendi has been, and absolutely no proof that it was founded in 1847 as that simply could not have been done since the khanate was abolished in 1822 and the khan was a persona non grata, whose heritage and links were supposed to be erased and supressed, not promoted with a "new" village named in his honor (although note that even Armenian encyclopedia, despite its flaws and mistakes, chooses to describe Khankendi as being founded, and not simply renamed from mythical Vararakn to Khankend). Also, the logic used in reference to Raffi and "He never says "in 1826 the name was khankendi"", is interesting, but not convincing. Raffi said exactly what he meant: "In 1826, a new trouble awaited Karabakh: Persian crown prince Abbas-Mirza, with his 80-thousand army, has crossed Araxes, and has seized Karabakh; ... Persian crown prince has received him in the village Khankendi, located in several versts [an old Russian measure of length] from fortress Shusha." This looks like historical, chronological presentation, and hence, all names are not contemporary, but historic. If he wrote in 1870s, and the village was only established (note that's what ASE says, ESTABLISHED, not RENAMED) in 1847, that's just some 30 years. Meanwhile, Raffi was born in 1835, and thus, would have been 12 when the "ancient" Vararakn would have been ESTABLISHED (as opposed to renamed) as Khankendi. Hence, Raffi was perfectly able to know all the real names, toponyms and etnonyms, and refer to them appropriately. Had he known an "ancient" Armenian name, he would have noted it in his nationalistic book. But even he didn't, simply because the myth about Vararakn was created later, in Soviet times.

Aivazovsky, I've asked many times what are those mysterious "medieval Armenian sources" that allegedly mention Vararakn -- I've searched Movses Khorenatsi, Aniniy Shirakatsi, Koriun, Hetum, Hovaness Draskhanakertsi, etc., but never found it. Could you kindly point to the right sources -- since ASE is so nice to imply that there are SEVERAL sources, yet for some reason fails to cite even one, perhaps decades later we will have more luck? --AdilBaguirov 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For Fadix -- Ziya Bunyatov NEVER headed up the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences. Quoting from Black Garden, "In May 1989, the historian Ziya Buniatov, who was then the President of the Academy of Sciences and Azerbaijan's foremost Armenophobe..." (de Waal p. 42). Honestly Adil, don't you ever tire of being wrong all the time?--MarshallBagramyan 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Even de Waal write that, he was in the end of the 80s, was in the 90s replaced, assuming there, since in the 90s, he was a vice president, [13] and the foremost scholar on history, he was actually leading History and Oriental study.

As for the IQ comment, this doesn’t mean to be an offensive remark; it was a direct answer to your slanders on Armenian scholars, reducing Armenianess to no more than dumbness. By immediate region, I was referring to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, well, much any countries surrounding Armenia, except for Georgia which is estimated as equal. If you are tired of me answering back, maybe you should reconsider stereotyping Armenians, with such comments as “rich, rich,” money didn’t rain, even not in California. We study hard, and then work hard, this is from where money come for most people.

Oh and, I am still waiting you provide any sources preceding 1847, your assumptions on the words of Raffi have absolutely no value, this is called personal research. In 1919, the Muslims were requesting protection to the British on the village, because the village as it has always been in its recorded history right on a Russian military guarnison. I am also waiting that you tell me from where comes the Church of Vararakn, did it land from the moon? Fad (ix) 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Terms

Whats up with the term Azerification? After the USSR Stalingrad was changed into Volgagrad and Leningrad was changed back into St. Petersburg, was this part of Russian-fiction to? The original city name was Khankendi and it was restored no Azerification or anything like that, it happened everywere. Baku87 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh or NK province, zone or region in Azerbaijan?

Azerbaijan's administrative-territorial division consists of rayons (regions) and cities. As such, there is no official Karabakh or NK rayon (region). However, there is what is officially called, by all people and all government officials, the Shirvan, Mughan, Arran, Naxcivan, and Karabakh "zones" (zona). Adopted for Wikipedia's usage, I call it a province -- to distinguish from rayon (region). Some references on "Karabakhskaya zona" [14], [15], [16] (this one was official), [17], [18], [19] (official), [20], [21]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Here's the official speech of President I.Aliyev, one of many, in which he says "Nagorno-Karabakh region", which of course denotes the general understanding of the word region, not the precise juridical one: [22]. Finally, Nagorno-Karabakh region is how it is referred to by the UN Security Council resolutions, such as this one: "Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic" [23]. Hence, it is valid to call NK province, or even region, of Azerbaijan. I opted for "province" to avoid confusion, but for consistency, we could adopt the more popular language used by UN and Az Government. --AdilBaguirov 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Province" definitely implies an official definition; "region" is far more neutral. --Golbez 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use English sources it would help alot. Nareklm 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm, the usage of "Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan" in English by Azerbaijani and other government and inter-government officials has been showcased already -- the UN Security Council resolutions, for example. Here's an additional from Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs: [www.un.org/webcast/ga/60/statements/aze050918eng.pdf] and [www.un.org/webcast/ga/57/statements/020915azerbaijanE.htm], and [24]. Here's from the Embassy in China: [www.azerbembassy.org.cn/eng/kelbajar01.html]. Here's an article by FM Mammadyarov: [www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/reintegration-cooperation.php]. Here from the UN Permanent Representation of Azerbaijan: [www.un.int/azerbaijan/osce.php]. Here's another: [www.azerbaijan-un-geneva.az/refugees.php]. And another one from the State Committee on POWs and MIA: [25]. Here's another MFA statement: [26]. Here's from a speech by late President Heydar Aliyev: [27]. This can go on and on. There is no question that everyone in Azerbaijan, and around the world, recognizes and call NK as a "region" of Azerbaijan.

Now, the problem is of course that the word region is understood in two ways: one as an official "rayon", and one as some supra-territorial entity. In case of NK, or more generally, Karabakh, it is recognized as a supra-region. In fact, it is even represented on the new Azerbaijani currency of 20 manats (20 Euros) -- not sure if I can find that proof online, but on every poster issued by the Central Bank (National Bank of Azerbaijan), each currency had a name, and the 20 bill is named "Karabakh".

Also, when weather is announced, often they in Baku do it by supra-regions - i.e,. weather in Shirvan or Apsheron, weather in Mughan or Arran, weather in Karabakh.

A chocolate chip cookie for Adil.

Addiitionally, I know that the Ministry of Economic Development divides all the territory of Azerbaijan into several supra-regions. Examples can go on -- this is a definite historic carryover, since these regions existed far longer than the 59 "rayons" created by the Soviets and retained by independent Azerbaijan Republic.

I agree with Golbez that province is not a best choice, and thus, to be consistent, we should perhaps opt for the "region" instead, just like all the people and government of Azerbaijan refer to (the other choice, "zone", does not sound right in English, it is not really used in such a way by native English speakers). --AdilBaguirov 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I found the reference that the 20 bill is dedicated to Karabakh at the National Bank website [28]. And here are a few more websites that mention the supra-regions: [29] and [30] (the last one is a report from the Ministry of Health) --AdilBaguirov 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much all Azerbaijani sources. Nareklm 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And that was the whole point (!), to show that in Azerbaijan, and beyond (yes, United Nations has become an Azerbaijani source, as are I guess other websites, publications and agencies listed there, such as State.gov, C-r.org, and Grida.no) but of course you didn't know, since you are not interested in the issue itself, but pursuing some agenda. --AdilBaguirov 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs a chill pill, sadly im not the one pursing an agenda, but just trying to keep everything calm, it was a brief mistake. Nareklm 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

you know how to spam Wikipedia by uploading cookies? Impressive skill. --AdilBaguirov 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange...last time I checked, Narek's username was neither Pathoschild nor was it Sarge Baldy [the people who actually uploaded the cookie image in the first place]. -- Aivazovsky 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Asian Capitals Tag

Some newbie user, possibly another sock, keeps inserting Asian capitals tag into this site. NK is not a de-jure recognized state, so this tag's placement is not appropriate and shall be removed. Atabek 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how it mentions "unrecognized". If you want it gone, go directly to the template. --Golbez 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This slow-motion edit war ends. It's time to stop mindlessly rolling back and undoing and it's time to discuss. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Khankendi

Some editors wish to state that Khankendi is "Azerbaijani language" for "The khan's village". However, Azerbaijani is a modern language. The word "khan" is not specific to Azerbaijan or to Azerbaijani, neither is the word "kend", and both words have been around for centuries. The dialect of Turkic language used during this period in this region would be classed either as western Oghuz Turkic (also called Anatolian Turkic) or Central Oghuz Turkic. For this article I suggest just calling it "Turkish", since the wikilink to Turkish explains more about the development of the various branches of Turkish. But if "Turkish" is not acceptable then it should be either "Oghuz Turkic" or "Turkic". Meowy 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A new Tatar-like tale? No OR please. During the khanate period Azerbaijani language already existed, familiarize yourself with the relevant article. I provided an English reference by native speaker and accompanying wiktionary links. Even Armeniapedia testifies that. Brand[t] 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote me a specialist source that says there was such a thing as a "Azerbaijani language" before the 20th century. It was developing into a distinctive language during earlier centuries, but did not become a language until the Soviet period. But that is besides the point - you can't deny that neither "khan" or "kent" are specifically "Azerbaijani" words. Meowy 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this hundreds of times, yet you still try to make this Tatar vs. Turkic vs. Azeri deal an issue. I think it is finally time to realise that any attempts to disassociate Azeri from its origins because of its alternative archaic names are a dead horse. Tiens:

Lars Johanson, in Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world, [31]:

"An Azerbaijanian koiné functioned for centuries as a lingua franca, serving trade and intergroup communication all over Persia, in the Caucasus region and in southeastern Dagestan. Its transregional validity continued at least until the 18th century."

Glanville Price, Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe, [32]:

"The earliest Azeri texts date from the 14th c.; their language is that of contemporary Anatolian Turkish (Old Ottoman) texts. In the 15th and 16th centuries, as a result of political and cultural polarization, Azeri underwent the influence of Central Asian Turkic literary works, grammatically, lexically, adn to some extend orthographically. These are the main characteristics that mark off the Azeri of this time period from the unitary literary language that was by then current in the Ottoman doimain. It was in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries that Azeri became uniform by shedding the parallel grammtical and lexical forms current in the previous two centuries."

Lev Gumilyov, The Middle East in the Medieval Period, [33]:

"By the fourteenth century, Eastern Turkic dialects of the region of Anatolia, Western Iran and Transcaucasia already established themselves as distinct. Famous poet Nasimi who lived in the Arab countries is considered one of the earliest Azeri poets."

Dowsett C. J. F. Sayat-Nova. Peeters Publishers. 1996. p.173. ISBN 9068317954

"In any case, early 1758 seems to have been a time of feverish activity on the part of Sayat-Nova in the Azeri field. Although one cannot be sure, since Azeri was the lingua franca of the Caucasus and well understood at the Georgian court, it is possible that Sayat-Nova performed his songs in this language in public, in and outside Tiflis and T'elavi <...> The 1758 Azeri poems are mainly didactic ogut'lama (öyüdlämä) but there are four fairly conventional songs."

Jan J. Ginkel, Hendrika Lena Murre-van den Berg, Theo Maarten van Lint. Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Peeters Publishers. 2005. p.356. ISBN 9042914181

"Sayat'-Nova devoted another poem to Surb Karapet, written half in Azeri and half in Armenian. The poem is a mukhammaz, composed of stanzas of five verses. In the first stanza each first half-line is in Azeri, each second one is in Armenian, while in the following four stanzas only the fifth verse starts with a half-verse in Azeri, the four others starting in Armenian. It relates the facts about John the Baptist, well known from the gospel, in accordance with Sayat'-Nova's habit, it would seem of dealing with Christian topics in his Azeri poems."

As for the origin of Khankendi:

• There is no evidence that there have been other Turkic languages spoken in Karabakh besides Azeri (in fact, after discussing the formation of Azeri in the said book, Gumilyov mentions Karabakh as one of the two centres of Azeri cultural life in the fifteenth century);
• Khan was never an used as an official title in the Ottoman Empire and the pronunciation of the word in Turkish differs from that in Azeri;
• Any Azeri-English dictionary will give you the translation of kand as "village", whereas the Turkish word kent denotes an urban settlement. Parishan (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you, quote me a specialist source that says there was such a thing as a "Azerbaijani language" before the 20th century. Today, Azerbaijani (or Azerbaijan Turkic) is one of the eight separate written Turkic languages. "Azeri" is not "Azerbaijani" - Azeri was an Oghuz Turkic dialect, and the words it contained were mostly Turkish with a mixture of Persian. "Kend" (or "kent", the way it is officially spelt in today's Turkish republic) is a Turkic word, it is not "Azerbaijani". Meowy 14:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just quoted five academic sources that use the phrase "Azeri language" in historical contexts that pre-date the 20th century. What more do you want? I do not intend to waste my time proving that "Azeri" means the same as "Azerbaijani", you can look it up in an Oxford dictionary and see for yourself. Azeri is a language with Turkic (not Turkish) vocabulary as much as English is a language with Germanic vocabulary, which clearly does not mean we should refer to English as "Germanic". It is weird to claim that the word "night", for example, "is Germanic, not English", just because it happens to share its origins with similar words in German, Dutch and Yiddish, where "it is spelled differently." "Khankendi" thus is both Turkic and Azeri, and given the Karabakh context, it is fair to say that it is, first and foremost, Azeri. Parishan (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's put this in easy English:

Lars Johanson

Azerbaijanian koiné refers to a Turkish language in the geographic region of Azerbaijan. The term Azerbaijanian when used by linguist does not necessarly refer to the Oguz Turkish language of the republic of Azerbaijan, but rather the Turkic languages in the geographical Azerbaijan. Non-Oguz Turkish languages like Kalaj are also often considered as Azerbaijanian so this term should not be equated with Azerbaijani or Azeri some scholars like Johanson do, but it is not shared by everyone, and Johanson Azeri is more broad than generally aknowledged.

Your second source is not Glanville Price but the Turkish scholar Tourkhan Gandjei, I suppose you will claim him as originally Azeri, but I won't debate about his origine. Note the contradiction: The earliest Azeri texts date from the 14th c.; their language is that of contemporary Anatolian Turkish (Old Ottoman) texts. In short, the said Azeri of the 14th century was nothing more than Old Ottoman language. Then he continues: Azeri underwent the influence of Central Asian Turkic literary works, grammatically, lexically, adn to some extend orthographically. Up until then, same as several Turkish population like those in present day Eastern Turkey or Irak. I suppose you will call them as Azerbaijani, that's open to debate. Here, your comparaison with Germanic and English does not make sense, as Azeri, Turkmen and Turks can still understand eachother quite well.

Your other source is Lev Gumilyov, but Soviet historians ethnogenic studies are not well perceived, particularly those of scholars like Lev Gumilyov.

There are several sources which consider the language spoken there as Turkish for the given period, your reference refering to a lingua franca for example can also be replaced by this one: The lingua franca of the entire Caucasus was Turkish, then termed Tatar. (The North Caucasus barrier: the Russian advance towards the Muslim world by Marie Broxup, Hurst, 1996, p. 71)

That they were Azeri or not is open to debate and interpretation, stick in doing a synthesis of what the sources say, and they are all contradictory... so I guess no one disagree to the fact that it was a Turkic language.

Moewy opposition to the use of Azerbaijani as different than Azeri has ground, Azerbaijani read as people from Azerbaijan, it's akward to use it to refer to any particular language.

Also is akward to have an Azeri language prior to the existance of an Azeri ethnic identification setting them apart for several centuries.

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth Source:New Terror, New Wars by Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003, p. 61

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend Source: National Identity and Globalization by Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106, note that ut's from Cambridge University Press.

the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. Modern Hatreds by Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation Source: Language Policy in the Soviet Union by Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124

There are two opposing view, Gereth M. Winrow present them as such: In recent Western literature at least two conflicting arguments have emerged with regard to Azerbaijani identity. According to Audrey Alstadt, Azerbaijani nationalism was fostered among the intelligentsia in the Russian-occupied part of Azerbaijan by the end of the nineteenth century. These Azerbaijanis regarded themselves as 'Azerbaijani Turks', in spite of the fact that until the Russian conquest earlier in the century, all Azerbaijan had been a part of the Persian Empire. Without the pressures of the industrialization and Russian occupation, the 'Azerbaijanis' remaining within the Persian Empire continued to identify themselves with Persia. Shireen Hunter has argued, though, that Azerbaijani nationalism in the territory of today's independent Azerbaijan only really took shape as a result of Stalin's deterination to stamp out the Iranian heritage in the area. In Soviet Azerbaijan a Turkish consciousness was artificially instilled in most of the inhabitants... [34]

Some call the given language for the given period, Turkish, Turkic, Azeri... no one oppose either way it was Turkic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabu (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your free interpretations of Johanson are nothing but POV. You cannot take liberties with terms used by academicians and claim references that are not found in the source ("refers to a Turkish language in the geographic region of Azerbaijan" - says who?). You are yet to react to the others sources. Keep in mind that while your sources may contradict mine, they certainly do not undo them. The "Azeri theory" is represented in scientific literature quite well, and you would still need to account for that.

Your criticism of Gumilyov lacks substance. Tourkhan Gandjei is not a Turkish source. Where did you get that from?

In mentioning German as an example, I meant to point out that mutual intelligibility is not an absolute factor in describing an idiom as either a language, or a dialect, and any scholar will agree with me, because this is Linguistics 101.

Remember that we are not talking about national identity. National identity is a sociopolitical process and has little to do with the formation process of a spoken language. Being able to communicate in a language is a basic feature of any society-exposed human being who may or may not possess a national identity. All these petty arguments about the Soviets instilling Consciousness A instead of Consciousness B do not affect the fact that there was really a uniform language with its own literary tradition spoken in the Caucasus and Northern Iran starting at least in the sixteenth century, having evolved from a greater linguistic unit spoken between the Aegean and Caspian Seas; and that an accepted scientific conventional (albeit modern) term to call that language is Azeri, a.k.a. Azerbaijani, a.k.a. Azerbaijanian, regardless of how awkward you or Meowy may find that. Languages can pre-date national identities of their speakers; in fact, it is more common for a group of people to first obtain a language and then gain national identity than vice versa. For some nations, the process is almost simultaneous, for others the two phases are set a little more apart. Italians, for example, did not have a uniform national identity until Garibaldi's political movement in the nineteenth century, yet no one would deny that the language in which Dante wrote in the thirteenth century was Italian, and not some abstract "Florentine Vulgar Latin." So please, no more pondering over what the Turkic-speaking Muslim population of the region chose to call itself. This is not a discussion about Azeri identity. Parishan (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "we are not talking about national identity" - that is my point. Despite your words, you are trying to assign an ethnicity to a place-name. I am trying to explain the meaning of a place name. (Your Italian example is not really valid. In Dante's time there would have been a local Florentine version of Italian, with local pronounciations and probably a number of words specific to that region alone. But Italian is still the central language, just like Turkic is the central language). Meowy 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Azeri is not just an ethnonym, it is also a name of an existing language. Florentine was a dialect of Italian. Azeri is not a dialect. Italian is a name used for a language that is native to a specific region. Turkic is a name of a language group that ranges from Balkans to the Far East, and classifying something as 'Turkic' in the given context requires further clarification and narrowing down. Parishan (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Azerbajiani (which is what you want to wikilink Khankendi to) is the name of an existing language, but Azerbiajani did not exist as a language when the name "Khankendi" was coined. At that time, what was to evolve into Azerbaijani was Central Oghuz, a dialect of Western (Oghuz) Turkic, and the words "khan" and "kend" (and the "i" suffix) are not specific to Central Oghuz, or even to Western Turkic. Meowy 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, you have asked for scientific sources that define Azeri as a language that existed prior to the twentieth century and you were shown a few. I wonder why those sources do not suffice to state that Azeri was in fact a language, while I must sit here and listen to your baseless original-research claims about some kind of "Western (Oghuz) Turkic" (sic) at the end of the eighteenth (!) century. And another thing: the existence of the words "khan" and "kend" in other Turkic languages does not deny or undo their existence in Azeri. I am not going to argue with you further about Azeri's lingustic status. That the toponym "Khankendi" is Azeri is a given. This discussion is one over the relevance of Azeri as a Turkic language to this article, and I have reasons to believe that Turkic languages such as Uzbek or Kumyk are not relevant in the given context. Parishan (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the words in Azerbaijan/Azerbaijani are not the issue. We are talking about the origin and the meaning of the words "Khan" and "kendi". For example, look at the Turkish wikipedia entry for Amerika Birleşik Devletleri. Its native name is also given - "United States of America" - and the words are called "English", not "American", even though the words "united", "states" and "America" are used in the USA and the coutry is full of Americans. Same for New York Şehri - its "The City of New York" name is called "English", not "American". Meowy 23:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, Grandmaster and future others; "de jure"

What the UN resolution on azerbaijan is isn't about Stepanakert, the city. I have mentioned it and if you don't agree to it, bring reasons and explanation what it has to do with the city. If not, then leave it. If no agreement. A dispute will be open. WH'll explain first? Aregakn (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Every area of conflict has a certain status, which is an important info about such location and needs to be mentioned in the article about it. I really see no point in your mass reverting and editing against consensus in articles that resulted in a number of arbitration cases. Reach consensus first, and then make your edits. Grandmaster 15:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You absolutely have to mention the disputed status; it is the capital of a country that is disputed and completely unrecognized. See also: Tiraspol, Sukhumi, Hargeisa, and Tskhinvali - All are capitals of countries with similar or equal status that mention the dispute in the opening paragraph. Especially since Stepanakert is the capital, the dispute needs mentioning. And GrandMaster is right: The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. That's it. One reversion, then discussion. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I am not seeing reason to bring other articles as a proof or bases to act one way or an other as these issues are different.

2) I see no connection of both your statements with how Stepanakert is connected with the UN resolution. The UN resolution is about territorial integrity, then we can either put it in Nagorno-Karabakh War or NKR or both these articles. there is no sense to mention the resolution in an article not about it.

3) The status of the republic is already mentioned, if it's about the status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aregakn (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not understanding your complaint. Where is this UN resolution being mentioned? All I see is a statement that the NKR is unrecognized, de facto independent, and a citation verifying said remark. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A little surprising it is, that you do not remember a revert of your own [35]. I see that you don't even read the information you are editing. Aregakn (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

... And, where in this diff is the UN resolution mentioned? Is it in the source? Then say you want a better source, rather than criticizing the diff itself. Where, in the version prior to it, was Azerbaijan mentioned in the intro, apart from having a separate name for the city? Please start making sense. --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the point of the discussion. There is only 1! here is the edit that is reverted by you and others: "largest city and capital of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, a de facto independent republic which is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan." Whatever the De-Facto independent state is recognised by whoever, it is not relevant to the article "Stepanakert". It is relevant to the article of that state.

For example, if I write in the Article of Königsberg: "The city-fortress was captured by the 1st Baltic Front and the 3rd Belarussian Front in April 1945, and 2 days later the Northern German Army was totally destroyed by the same 2 Fronts and the remaining forces - captured." Even though those 2 events are relevant to each other in in some ways interconnected, because the same German army-division was defending Königsberg and that the same soviet forces, that captured the city in some days forced the Northern German Army succum, the 2nd sentence I write "...and 2 days later the Northern German Army was totally destroyed by the same 2 Fronts and the remaining forces - captured" are NOT relevant to the article under the name Königsberg. It is relevant to articles of the North German Army, 1st Baltic Front, Assult of Königsberg etc. but NOT the article of Königsberg as it has no DIRECT relevance. Aregakn (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant to point out that it is the capital of an unrecognized country and is otherwise recognized as part of Azerbaijan. You claim that applies only to NKR, but the rest of us here are saying that it also applies to things within the NKR as well. Your analogy is flawed. How about this: Instead of poorly attacking our edit, why not supply one of your own? Note that it will still have to mention Azerbaijan in some fashion. The articles on the other capitals I noted above do that, and they're doing it right. --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is not recognised as part of either and the process is in continuation. Secondly and once again, tell me what relevance the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has DIRECTLY to do with the CITY Stepanakert. If you do not, I shall start the 3O process. You don't present any reasons why it is about Stepanakert. Aregakn (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it is recognized as part of Azerbaijan. It sounds like what you're saying is, everything within the NKR need not mention Azerbaijan at all, so long as only the NKR article itself does? Not gonna work. Never. Go to 3O, but I note that precedent - as indicated by the capitals I linked earlier - is well on our side. I also note that you again failed to supply a suitable suggestion for an edit, choosing again to attack our work. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think that every signle town, village, monastry, tree, dog and cow articles about NKR has to mention, tat it is on something like "de-jure Azerbaijan", then you probably do not know what article is about what. Do you want to see the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh recognised by the Azeri president on an official document? FACTUAL? I can show you. Aregakn (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. I said, at the very least, the capital needs to mention the disputed status. Period. --Golbez (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, I appreciate the sarcasm but I don't think it's about "trees" and "dogs". The geographical locations including the region, cities, villages, etc need to mention that they are a de-jure part of Azerbaijan. If you do mention the trees, dogs or monastries are located in "NKR", then de-jure status automatically needs to be mentioned. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the bases that you think, that companies, NGOs, Scientific Patents etc. (that i kept short in my "sarcasm") should not be mentioned about the dejure, and the towns and villages should? And you didn't tell me, guys, if you want to know when it is, that your President has recognised the Republic. Aregakn (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis. I am not sure where you're going with this. If articles about NGO's, companies, Scientific Patents contain the information about their location, then the de-jure location needs to be mentioned. It's very simple.

PS: What do you mean by "your president recognized the republic"? President of US? or Azerbaijan? If you're talking about the President of Azerbaijan, then please do post the relevant link. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. So you mean, that either there shouldn't be mentioned the location of the company or NGO or whatever, or should the "de jure" come along? :) And if I am writing about the ministery of defense of NKR the fact that it's mentioned not recognised state should be also said, that it is on the "de jure" azerbaijan territory? Or the president of NKR? And it's not that people who want to know about where NKR is or why it isn't recognised they have to click and read?

No, not the states :). I have not yet found the book free on the net, but I can send you the file (if you know Russian) and it is from Kazimirov's book. Regards, Aregakn (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the proper way of doing by indicating the de-jure status. The reader may click or not click on the wikilink to go on to read about "NKR", but including a couple of words on the de-jure status in the original article won't harm anybody.

Sure, you can send the file to me by email, although I doubt the President of Azerbaijan would ever recognize "NKR" as you claim. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If this supposed admission that Azerbaijan represents NK is only in a Russian book that isn't available on the internet, then I'm reasonably confident it didn't actually happen and is either a construction or a misinterpretation by the author. Such a statement would be major news; the fact that it is not means it did not happen in any relevant fashion. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Golbez, but the process of discussion of ceasefire had been taking place and the mediator is Russia. What makes you think that an official document signed by the president of Azerbaijan and sent to NKR through Russia (as a mediator) does not exist. Are there any reasns to call Russian head of the mediator mission and the Russian Official docs false? If you think so, maybe one can find them in Azerbaijan as well, because the documents are registered and you can see the numerical number.

As for the "de jure" thing, I am sure it is irrelevant to (for example) the company article, that is registered in NKR by NKR legistlation to be spoken about the "de jure" status of NKR. For Azerbaijan that company isn't registered and doesn't exist if it considers the NKR legistlation and all activities there non-existant. Aregakn (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because if it was actually said that Azerbaijan recognized the NKR, it wouldn't be relegated to some Russian book; it would be widespread knowledge. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about Kazimirov, then you must know that he always makes controversial statements. In the light of firm statements from Aliyev, I doubt he would ever sign something recognizing Sahakian's rule on Azerbaijani territory and even if he himself wanted to, it would have been prevented by his advisors. So, please so send it to me. I'm interested in seeing the document you received from Kazimirov.

No, even if a company is registered in "NKR", that makes it de-facto because it's on de-jure Azerbaijani territory and for your information, Azerbaijan considers the current residents of "NKR" who lived in NKAO prior to 1988-94 and were born there after the ceasefire Azerbaijani citizens. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They consider them their citizens... without any way of counting them or knowing their names, and certainly without asking them their opinion on the matter. I think that just sums up how ridiculous this whole conflict is. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but only those who lived in NKAO prior to 1988-94 and were born there after the ceasefire, not ones dragged there from Middle East by incentives to populate the occupied territories and increase in numbers. And we've been over this. Opinion matters in the context of international laws. Nobody seemed to have cared about opinions of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis in mass deportations from Armenia in 1948-53 and 1987-89. Of course, it's ridiculous. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am talking not of Kazimirov himself. I am talking of the official document signed by the president of Azerbaijan refering to Nagorno-Karabakh as a republic. I am not asking anybody to comment and analyse the author as it is not propper if you do not have those comments published. What I am speaking of is published.

As for de jure, those companies are non existant DE JURE for Azerbaijan. Or one can claim something different? Aregakn (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"per Tiraspol"

In this regard, Lihaas is correct. Tiraspol and Hargeisa are the countries closest to Nagorno-Karabakh in status, and both of the other articles describe them as cities in Moldova/Somalia first, and as capitals second. Tshkinvali and Sukhumi describe themselves as capitals first, but on the other hand, they are capitals of recognized countries, which the other three are not. That is why I did not immediately revert the change, which MarshallBagramyan now has. So, how about some discussion on this? Are Tiraspol and Hargeisa wrong, or is Stepanakert?

(Also, if the article is going to be placed at Stepanakert, then is it poor form to say that's a city in Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan would say that Khankendi is a city, not Stepanakert.) --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

re ISO

The attempt to place and give certain prominence to the ISO label for the sahar seems like an attempt at inserting or maintaining a particular POV, and should stop. I can think of no other place in the entire Wikipedia where we place such prominence on the naming used by the ISO, and of course the ISO naturally and uncontroversially uses the official Azeri name for it, so there's no need to double up on said officialness. That the ISO uses the Azeri name for an Azerbaijani division is uncontroversial; however, this article is obviously about more than merely the sahar. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please change the name of the article as "Khankendi"

Why this article is exist with a name which "occupied country" uses? It's internationaly recognized as Azerbaijan's city and Azerbaijan calls that city as "Xankəndi".

In this case we should call Istanbul Constantinople right? This argument is absurd.

=====================================================================

If not, please change the city names of Northern Cyprus also. Change them; Morphou is currently "Güzelyurt", Keryneia is "Girne", Nicosia is "Lefkoşa", Kokkina is "Erenköy" and Trikomo is now "İskele" in Turkish. They are same subject. You are not objective about this subject, and completely doing cringe for Armenians. There is Azerbaijani city and its name is "Xankəndi" (Khankendi)!.. *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ^{...and his friends} 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it is the capital of a country, and unlike all the other cities in Nagorno-Karabakh that we use the Azeri name for, it seems particularly impolite to use the outside name for the capital of a country, even an unrecognized one. Furthermore, okay, so Azerbaijan owns it... so what? Does the Azerbaijan national government in Baku have sole rights of naming cities, or do the people in those cities have the ability to call themselves by their own title? I'd like a source that states that Baku maintains sole, unilateral rights over naming municipalities within the borders of Azerbaijan. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it important? Then why Northern Cyprus's cities are exist with their Greek names? If (so-called) NKR is exist, the TRNC also exist and its cities must be exist with its Turkish names. *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ^{...and his friends} 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an argument to bring up on those pages, that has little to do with this one. And really, the only comparable city here is Lefkosa, being the capital, and that's a complicated matter because it's the capital of two countries. If it were solely the capital of the TRNC then I would indeed support renaming the article Lefkosa; however, the complexity of its name means it isn't really the best example to live by. But this isn't the article on Nicosia/Lefkosa, it's the article on Khankendi/Stepanakert, and the two aren't exactly analogous due to the shared nature of one. --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason for calling it Stepanakert is that the city was bearing this name before the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Azerbaijani government renamed it Khankendi when it already lost control over it. The situation with Cyprus is (as far as I know) the other way around, the cities had Greek names before Turkish occupation. That's why most of sources (on which WP is assumed to be based on) prefer the names beforethe conflicts, for objectivity. Another example is Shusha, which currenlty is called Shushi by Armenians, but the corresponding wiki article calls it Shusha, since it was the Soviet name. Хаченци (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the case with Shusha; it could well be, I just don't know. I just assumed we went with the Azeri names for all towns in Nagorno-Karabakh except for Stepanakert, since (at least in my opinion) it's rude to use a different name for the capital of a country, even an unrecognized one. It was basically, Armenians get Stepanakert, Azeris get everyone else, everyone happy? :P --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"it's rude to use a different name for the capital of a country" is not a legitimate reason, especially in politics. It's only because the city's name was Stepanakert in the Soviet era. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a prime example of that. I don't know why in this world someone would not translate "Nagorno" to "Mountainous", but apparently they (whoever it is) chose to use the Russian version of the region to show neutrality. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rude was perhaps the wrong word. Here's how I put it seven years ago (holy crap): "Especially since it is the capital of a breakaway republic, it would be kind of an insult to the local population to call it by the name the country they're breaking away from considers official" --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about what the governments of Karabakh, Armenia, or Azerbaijan call it. This is about WP:COMMONNAME. I think finding the common name may bring us closer answering the question at hand. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

Also, according to WP:WIAN:

Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.

Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That easily gives the edge to Stepanakert, but that's because Stepanakert is an easy, common transliteration from Armenian, whereas there are multiple ways to transliterate the Azeri name of the city. However, I tried several and added up they didn't come close to the usage of Stepanakert. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Khankhendi can be spelled many ways but so can Stepanakert (i.e. Stepanagerd, Stepanagert, Stepanakerd, and etc.). I think the reason why Stepanakert is more of a common name is because the city was known as Stepanakert throughout most of the past century and today's geo-political situation enforces that as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stepanakert. 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/20131105220142/http://www.yerevan.am/3-233-233.html to http://www.yerevan.am/3-233-233.html

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: 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) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stepanakert

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stepanakert's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Constitution":

• From Slovenia: "Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia". National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. Archived from the original on 23 December 2010. Retrieved 26 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Republic of Artsakh: "Constitution". Nagorno Karabakh Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 23 July 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stepanakert. 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/20151119100032/http://www.1tv.am/hy/news/2015/01/06/%D5%8D%D5%BF%D5%A5%D6%83%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%BF%D5%AB-%D5%B4%D5%A1%D5%B5%D6%80-%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%B3%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB-%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%BC%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%81%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4%D5%A8-%D5%B0%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%A5%D5%AC-%D5%A7-%D5%BE%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%BB%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%B6-%D6%83%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%AC%D5%AB%D5%B6/6354 to http://www.1tv.am/hy/news/2015/01/06/%D5%8D%D5%BF%D5%A5%D6%83%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%BF%D5%AB-%D5%B4%D5%A1%D5%B5%D6%80-%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%B3%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB-%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%BC%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%81%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4%D5%A8-%D5%B0%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%A5%D5%AC-%D5%A7-%D5%BE%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%BB%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%B6-%D6%83%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%AC%D5%AB%D5%B6/6354
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922120409/http://agbu.org/publications/article.asp?A_ID=603 to http://www.agbu.org/publications/article.asp?A_ID=603
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927215801/http://www.armtown.com/news/am/aza/20060829/3300/ to http://www.armtown.com/news/am/aza/20060829/3300/

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) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepanakert Coat of Arms

(Copied from my talk page to a more suitable venue. --T*U (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

Hello. I saw your recent edits on Stepanakert article. Don't want to meddle in this topic too much myself and wanna know your opinion regarding official coat of arms of this city before making any move. The city is officially under Azerbaijani jurisdiction and it has different Coat of Arms than in the article. Please note that all UN countries, including Armenia officially recognize the city being part of Azerbaijan. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: Hi! I am also not a regular editor in the topic area, I just came there by chance as a spin-off from somewhere else. (I usually get my fair share of drama from editing in Balkan-related topics, so I do not have need for any more excitement.) Just off the cuff I would say that both COAs (with proper, neutral captions) could be presented in the article in a similar way as the "Country (de facto) / Country (de jure)" solution. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: As a precedent and in terms of maintaining consistency; please note that the other three "states with limited recognition" in the Post-Soviet region (Transnistria and it's capital Tiraspol, Abkhazia with it's capital Sukhumi and South Ossetia and it's capital Tskhinvali) do not include the de jure Coat of Arms. Also note, that the main pages of all four of these articles (including Artsakh) do not include any de jure emblems either, ie. the flag of Georgia or Moldova, etc... Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Parallels are not correct. As a matter of fact, all these mentioned cities don't have de jure COAs, also in de jure country language sections. Unlike Abkhazia or S.Ossetia, which are recognized by several countries, N.Karabakh is recognized not by any single UN member. --Verman1 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: I don't think you understood my earlier comment. Not one of the four Post-Soviet disputed republics have any de jure emblems. That includes Transnistria, which like Artsakh, is not recognized by any UN state. Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: You're correct regarding recognition, but I disagree in terms of COAs. Tiraspol doesn't have a different COA under Moldovan jurisdiction, but Stepanakert does under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. This is the main point that needs to be reflected in the article to give it more neutrality. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: You talk about "neutrality"; if that is your argument then you would also have to add former Georgian emblems to the capitals of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and then all the other capitals of states with limited recognition like Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Taiwan, etc.. I'm afraid this will open up a Pandora's box full of edit wars. Archives908 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Please don't accuse me of something that I am not intended. Parallels between N.Karabakh and the above-mentioned countries are not valid since their capitals simply don't have any different emblems by respective de jure countries. --Verman1 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: I haven't accused you of anything. What you don't seem to understand is that all of these disputed states used to have former emblems in some capacity. Example: South Ossetia's flag was the flag of Georgia. Northern Cyprus's COA was the COA of the Republic of Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion. So, if you are going to update one capital of a disputed republic- then for consistency- all should be updated. And this task will result in lengthy talk page discussions and countless edit disputes. Archives908 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: The key word in your argument is "former". Azerbaijan doesn't have any former emblem for Stepanakert/Khankendi, the emblem used by Azerbaijan is contemporary and official, recognized internationally since the international community accepts the city being part of Azerbaijan. Former emblems of other cities are irrelevant, they can only be used in the History section of respective articles. This won't result in any kind of edit war or whatsoever. --Verman1 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: No, the key word is "consistency", which again is not getting across. In addition, you are aware that the current de facto government in Stepanakert only accepts one "contemporary and official" seal. Do you have any academic sources which show that both emblems are recognized by the de facto government? Do you have any academic sources proving that the de facto seal is not recognized? Just because a country isn't internationally recognized, we cannot assume that their emblems are outright invalid as well. You need proof of this. Archives908 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I am talking about recognition by de jure government. De facto government emblem is already in the article. I am not suggesting to delete the existing emblem, rather add emblem of Khankendi recognized by de jure government. The third-party user above also suggested this version. I don't see any point to continue the discussion since all your concerns have been resolved. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1: Do not assume my concerns have been resolved- they have not. And by no means have we reached a consensus. For the fifth time, NONE of the other partially recognized states (or their capitals) have de jure emblems, therefore, as per (WP:CONSISTENT); we must respect consistency among these articles. Archives908 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Wrong. Stenpanakert/Khankendi has de jure emblem. --Verman1 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Verman1:Beyond the ridiculousness of using this article as its own precedent, this emblem does not appear to actually be official. It is just an imaginary emblem created by a Wikipedia user, and these emblems have been removed from other wikipedia articles such as Agdam. In light of this, can someone with permissions please remove it? Achemish (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Achemish: Done. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion started in my TP, I could not help getting interested, so allow me a couple of comments from the outside. Archives908, it is not as if WP:CONSISTENT trumps all other arguments. On the contrary, the scope of WP:CONSISTENT is to regulate article titles, which is not relevant here; it says nothing whatsoever about article content. Regarding article content we have WP:OTHERCONTENT, which specificly warns against using arguments like "Article X has / does not have such information". The situation concerning disputed states varies from state to state, so we need to look at the specific circumstances of each case. If the former government of Khankendi keeps up a de jure municipality-in-exile, they may well have a de jure Coat of Arms, perhaps also a de jure mayor (like most municipalities of what is now Northern Cyprus have had for decades), and such information may certainly be relevant to have in the article. But Verman1, the information needs to be properly sourced. As far as I can see, the CoA shown in az:Xankəndi is not sourced in Commons, so it can not be included here without a source showing that it really does exist and that it is in official use. --T*U (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Again you are adding wrong information from the source. The source doesn't clearly mention about any ground attack to the city, it only says about the "attacks", which might involve only aerial or artillery strikes, which is not ground attack. Khankendi airport is actually located in Khodjaly, which was under Azerbaijani control until February 1992 and in fact Armenians attacked it in February 1992, not Azerbaijani forces. --Verman1 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

All this talk about the coat of arms for a city that is de jure part of Azerbaijan, as if Baku controls what the coat of arms is. Unless a source can be given that they do, or that a recognized municipal government-in-exile exists, then the people who actually live in the city and run it have chosen a different coat of arms. Full stop. None of this stuff about recognition is at all relevant to that. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose?

I didn't get the meaning of uploading a photo of "Serzh Sargsyan with Ilham Aliyev and Dmitry Medvedev, June 2011" on the Notable natives part? Is one of the mentioned politicians relates to this section? The photo itself was even made in Tatarstan and has no connection with Khankendi at all. So I propose to consider it as "unnecessary" and delete it from the article--Hilal knight (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Huge NPOV violation

Why does this article not gives us an info about which country it de jure belongs? "also called" should be changed into officially considering it is part of Azerbaijan. See Kobanî. Edit: anyway restored the deleted contents. Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive and the original version of this article has been restored. Refrain from further vandalism. The article covers significantly the de jure status/information already. Any other issues, can be brought before the talk page for a general consensus to be reached. Archives908 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Further vandalism? A joke right? I restored the original content which was present for years. Putting Armenia into infobox is clearly pov pushing. You should watch your edits. Already reported you. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea, I see. Completely baseless and quite inappropriate to report an editor because an articles' narrative doesn't fit your agenda. I see you are very quick to falsely report editors before even allowing a discussion on the talk page. Very irrational behavior to say the least. As for this article, you do realize that Stepanakert is a city and not a country, right? Not only is the de jure status already adequately mentioned here, but is also significantly covered in the Republic of Artsakh article; the capital to the state which it is in. Your edit was not an improvement to this article. Archives908 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do not know how it should be, see Kyrenia. Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I still fail to see what your point or logic is? I have said this (now my third time) de jure status is already covered in this article. How many times can we possibly include the same information before it becomes completely redundant? Archives908 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, this page has experienced an increased amount of vandalism the past few days and even today...considering the events going on, I think it may be worthwhile to protect this page. Thoughts from other editors? Archives908 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Using bold doesn´t make you right. Plus I added pre vandalism version on the report page if you wonder. Beshogur (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Critiquing how I use italics doesn't make you right. Nor does ignoring the recent increase of vandalism or ignoring my suggestion to amicably discuss your concerns. Archives908 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if I am lying or not. Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I just wanna say that this so called President "Library" "source" is not WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Archives908 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What? Any source on that. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Wikipedia and Tourism. Az amongst others. Before I get accused of racism (again) by someone, people might wanna google what freedom of press means. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you, Beshogur, even arguing about anymore? I am utterly perplexed. I have, very politely, asked you 3 times to make clear your concerns. Archives908 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it? Plus, didn't expected this from you. Did you even read what you reverted? It says Armenia on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

4th time now, what are you arguing about? What is your primary issue with this article? We are trying to understand. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran does not have freedom of press? You sure? The next thing you are probably going to tell me is that the sky is blue ;). Also, what Iranian sources do you see here? Are they part of Khamenei's library? I didn't know he had one. Anyhow, enough banter. Beshogur, you might want to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground/forum. Read my comment again if you didn't get it, and you might wanna answer Archives908 as well. Sorry if I made this thread even messier, just wanted to point something out, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908:, can you explain why didn't you change it at the first place? When blocked ip users removed contents, did nothing but suddenly when I restored contents which were present for years, I am doing vandalism right? I did put the earlier version of the article, why are you trying not to see it? 17:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Beshogur (talk)

No worries at all, HistoryofIran, thank you for pointing that out and I appreciate your assistance in reverting the recent vandalism on this page! Beshogur, I have done nothing wrong so please stop with the accusations. This page has seen an increase of vandalism lately and I simply restored the page to what it was prior to the IP editors unsourced and unexplained edits. Your edit/source provided is not an improvement to this article. I will await to see what the Admins have to say about all this, since you have unjustly reported me. Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a proud papa, seeing an entirely new generation of Wikipedians argue over pointless shit in the same articles that I was working on 15 years ago. Godspeed, you crazy jerks. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified smugness, Mr Golbez? Perhaps if you had been better as an administrator all those years ago then those that today seek to use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda dissemination would not be able to. And see how smugness spreads, now I am doing it! It would have been more productive if you had just cited your 8 March 2006 comment on the name issue. I noticed a quite unusual bit of bias in the article though - you can listen to the "official" Azerbaijani name of the town (a name nobody who has lived there has used for a century), but you can't listen to the real official name of the town! 88.108.77.10 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

did... did you just accuse me of pro-Azeri bias? oh. my. god. on the same day I was accused of pro-Armenian bias. I haven't been this happy on wikipedia in years. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Stepanakert (Степанакерт) J-38-010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

change Stepanakert to Khankendi Leyla Husainzadeh (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

@CuriousGolden: The same argument as the name (Stepanakert vs Khankendi) applies to the coat of arms. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not deleting any coat of arms, I'm including both. You're the one trying to delete Azerbaijani coat of arms. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC, seriously misleading map

The current map is used in the articles of the currently controlled towns Republic of Artsakh including Stepanakert, however it displays the former Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and the Artksakh's claimed areas of the former soviet Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in the same color as Artsakh. Without any difference in color tone or any kind of map marker. ListeningBronco (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

In order to fix this, I've removed the areas of formerly Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh from the map which are no longer controlled or claimed by Artsakh, and added a different color tone to claimed areas of the former soviet Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, to show the difference. ListeningBronco (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Current map

Proposed map

@AntonSamuel, Jr8825, Beshogur, Impossiblegend, RopeTricks, Steverci, EkoGraf, Գարիկ Ավագյան, El C, and Solavirum: ListeningBronco (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, unfortunately, at the moment there are no sources that would confirm/reject Artsakh's claims and official position to the previously Armenian-occupied territories. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Գարիկ Ավագյան: Is Artsakh not kinda defunct? Haven't heard anything for a while. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Beshogur Nope. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Գարիկ Ավագյան is there any source that confirms that Artsakh ever controlled or claimed these territories, since the they are called the Armenian occupied territories. ListeningBronco (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  ListeningBronco Sure. These territories were part of Administrative divisions of the Republic of Artsakh. You can find sources there. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. ListeningBronco (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi ListeningBronco. Requests for comments are generally used to solve content disputes: is there such a dispute going on? JBchrch (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think an RfC is needed here at this stage. I agree the current map isn't ideal but there hasn't been much discussion on this and hopefully we can find a solution without the need to drag in other editors, particularly as it's a rather technical issue for those unfamiliar with the region. I support adopting the proposed map as it better reflects the situation following the 2020 war. Although I think Գարիկ Ավագյան raises a valid point – it's unclear (as far as I'm aware) what the official Artsakh/Armenian position is regarding the territories which Artsakh previously occupied outside of the former NKAO – I agree that your proposed map, displaying Artsakh's claimed 1992 borders (i.e. the former NKAO + Shahumyan and other miscellaneous claims), is the most logical solution. The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh never had any recognition as part of Artsakh anyway.
  As an aside, have you edited in this topic area before, ListeningBronco? This RfC, complete with vector map and pings to regular editors on other pages in this topic area, strikes me as something an entirely new editor would find difficult to produce. Jr8825 • Talk 19:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  To respond to your second paragraph, JBchrch I have made minor edits using an IP adres in the past. The user's I've pinged here were all recent contributors to the 2020 Karabagh War article, I've pinged them considering they would have an interest in the current topic. ListeningBronco (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  JBchrch, Jr8825 There is indeed a dispute going on with creator of this file AntonSamuel. He has reverted me as I overwrote the file, and is refusing to discuss at the file talk page or here, but reported me to commons administrators for what he called overwriting his file, hence I opened this RfC. ListeningBronco (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've recently made the current map, hoping that it would be an improvement in quality with regard to the previous map(s). I modified an older location map and modeled the map's color scheme and layers of borders approximately according to the previous lower quality jpg map that was a bit skewed/out of place regarding coordinates and inaccurate regarding borders: [36]

I think it's informative that the map shows and/or differentiates between (in some manner):

• The pre-2020 war borders/line of contact
• The post-2020 war borders/line of contact
• The post-2020 war Lachin corridor
• The former NKAO
• The areas of the former NKAO controlled by Azerbaijan after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War
• The Artsakh-claimed Soviet Shahumyan region that took part in the Artsakh declaration of independence.
• The Artsakh administrative regional boundaries

If the current border and color format is a bit problematic or confusing in that it doesn't differentiate enough between the aforementioned layers of borders, the map can certainly be changed with regard to this - I don't have an issue with that. I did try and experiment a bit regarding that with the first couple of versions of the map that I uploaded, however, having a lot of lines dotted or thinner made the map a bit unclear and confusing when shown in a smaller format - as it is on most articles where it's used, so I elected on having multiple layers of borders with the same width and character for the purpose of clarity.

AntonSamuel (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is justified (see WP:RFCBEFORE) so I'm removing the {{rfc}} tag - just continue to discuss in the usual way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sorces and Old name of the city

Dear all! I have request. 1. Regarding to source Mkrtchyan, Shahen. Is he reliable source if he has no any historical education? ahs he published in any reliable edition? 2. considering that nobody can accept him as reliable source, why do we find the information from him about the old name of the city "Vararakn"? I put the tample unreliable sorce and after 2 weeks according to the rules remove it if nobody discuss and show us the reliable sorces --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: what makes you think that Shahen Mkrtchyan is unreliable? The source he's being cited from is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, produced by the Armenian National Academy of Sciences. I don't have expertise on sources for Armenian history, do you have any particular reason to question its reliability, other than the fact that it's Armenian? Admittedly it's an old source produced during Soviet times, but outside of political issues related to the USSR my presumption is that it's a reasonably scholarly work, acceptable in the absence of more modern alternatives for information on Armenian history. Jr8825 • Talk 01:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You're telling other editors "Pls, discuss firstly in Page Talk" regarding reverts [[37]], yet you changed these pages first without discussing your decision anyhwere [[38]], [[39]]. Here you claim that the source "isn't reliable", despite the source being from Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia produced by Armenian National Academy of Sciences, a Soviet time state publishing company. The only thing I see here is that you just don't like it being Armenian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni, 1.I say about Mkrtchan Sh.who is not historian, so, in this case is not reliable. 2. I put template and haven't changed, deleted or edited any information in the article without discussion. 3. as regards to Armenian Encyclopedia, in another cases it could be reliable, but the article of non-historian in this encyclopedia seems strange. additional to this we can't find any confirmation of this idea in another sources, considering that it's having been ancient name. 4. the last, in the articles refers to both sides(Azerbaijan and Armenia), as usually, local sources are not preferable, in some case even unacceptable. I have this expirience and think that this terms and conditions for all on this Project, isn't it? please, show us the independent source that confirms this idea. --Aydin mirza (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: Consider listening more carefully before replying. First of all, adding tags like "unreliable source" should absolutely be discussed here, given the controversy surrounding the topic, and you didn't do it [40]], [[41]]. Other editors have every right to revert your edits before the discussion is over (Stable version). Moreover, you have already been shown that both Armenian and Azeri sources consider Shahen a historian, yet somehow you find other "whataboutisms" to continue your "arguments". Edit-warring is prohibited on wikipedia bear in mind. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni, I don't wish editwarring. I will open the discussion this reliable source. maybe, really it's only way. Reg these both sources like azertag.az and artzakhtert I told before, but you don't want accept(I will try use such kind of source in the future and back to you when it will be rejected). Honestly, I'm suprised that you seriously apply to azertag. I didn't know that such kind of sites announce or decide professioanl skills. I don't mind if the information about the ancient name of the city is right, but please, put reliable source. Has anyone confirmed this version? if Mkrtchan took it from source, pls, put it. if it's encyclopedia, so, put it. but Shagen Mkrtchan is not historian, we can't apply to him like only one reliable source. I didn't changed anything in the article, I just put template and no rules prohibit it. is my position clear now?--Aydin mirza (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

He is a Soviet Armenian historian, and reliable enough. Other sources have also been added confirming his research, see history of the article. I'd also appreciate basic grammar from you. Thomas De Waal while not even being a historian, is cited many times regarding Karabakh topic. All of these recent "arguments" from you just seem like a one big WP:JDL. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni, as I see, no way to negociate in this way. at least I can use this discussion for the future, considering your way to definite the reliability of the sources. as regards to Thomas De Waal, he was writting the current events, not historian research of the past needs professional skills. Additional to that I don't think that he's absolute acceptable reliable source. I apply to more independent sides in this projecy if there is of cause. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point you are just not listening to anyone here, or pretending to not understand what multiple editors have told you already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

dear User Talk:Jr8825, pls, see WP:SOURCEDEF, espcially this: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Can you argue which terms pass in this case?WP:SOURCEDEFAydin mirza (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Being a notable academic reference work, I'll presume the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia had a reliable peer-review process unless a trustworthy academic source says otherwise or criticises it. I can't vouch for Mkrtchan's reputation in the field as I'm not an expert, but the fact that he was chosen to write in the encyclopedia, and that the only references to him I can find online describe him simply as an Armenian historian, means I haven't seen any particular warning signs about his reliability. I take it at face value that he's an expert on Armenian history. Regarding your claim that he's "not a historian", do you have any basis for this allegation? Point to a reliable, secondary source that describes him as a charlatan, or this is going nowhere. Excluding him as a source because you personally don't like him would ultimately be WP:OR. Jr8825 • Talk 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Jr8825, I don't Mkrtchan Sh. personally to like or not him. my only argument that he has no historian education(he graduated Pedagogish Institute) and all his published researches and books, except Armenian editions, are not reliable. There are many intelligent people from different fields make research in history and publish the books. we can read it, some of them are accepted by worldwide centers or associations and publish their books. In this case we can apply to them in encyclopedi project (like wikipedia) but with notice another really professional reliable sources. Sorry, but with all respect to Mkrtchan Sh., which worldwide editions accepted his researches? I think our negociation should be over, if you ask me such kind of question. I push in this case, because I faced in some article to so hard requests to confirm every sentance and more than once I've heard that Azerbaijan sources are not preferable. I request equel rules and conditions for all. besides, I told you and repeat(last time), please, find reliable source to the information. I don't mind the information, but request more reliability. I think we can over here. I just really soory for the users of wikipedia, especially young generation, considering the level of professinal side.--Aydin mirza (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been raised in the edit comment that Mkrtchan is not a historian. In both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources he is described as historian. (https://www.artsakhtert.com/arm/index.php/carriage/item/21149-shahen-mkrtchyan, https://azertag.az/store/files/2021/APREL/04/Hesabat%202020%20eng_Layout%201.pdf p210).Maidyouneed (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

both sources are not reliable and in another situation and another articles nobody accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin mirza (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox formatting of Armenian and Azerbaijani names

Both small villages and large settlements in the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh alike have a mostly uniform Wikipedia layout in regards to naming: The romanized Armenian name is oftentimes displayed as the official name and thus in bold, while the Armenian name in the native alphabet, as well as the Azerbaijani name, are put into the native name box and formatted regularly. Alternatively, the romanized Armenian is occasionally rendered as the common name, the name in the Armenian alphabet is "native", and the Azerbaijani name is displayed as the official name and thus in bold yet smaller than the other designations.

Excellent paradigms for this formulation are the Martuni, Karakend, and Umudlu articles; the Vank and Chartar articles are great examples for the second option.

My call is not a political one, but one for uniformity and impartiality.

Stepanakert, among some other articles on (formerly and currently) Armenian-majority settlements, features the Armenian and Azerbaijani names side by side in the infobox. However, it would make more sense for historically Armenian-populated settlements in the current NKR to have a uniform infobox, with the Armenian name taking priority by virtue of WP:COMMONNAME (for at least the last 98 years) and Template:Native name. The Azerbaijani name would, of course, be also displayed by virtue of international law. This would self-evidently not apply to historically Azerbaijani-populated settlements in the NKAO/NKR like Khojaly, which was only somewhat recently renamed to Ivanyan, a name which is virtually unused, even among Armenian communities. Similarly, it would make sense for the city of Shusha to retain its (romanized and native) Armenian name in the infobox, but subordinate to the Azerbaijani name for sake of the current status, which is to say, again, international law. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone possibly append their opinion on this matter? It has been a week, and I believe this to be a relaitvely significant issue. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Option A i.e. the Martuni format. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A for Stepanakert only. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged:; @Kevo327: Thanks a lot to you two for your input. I would like to wait a little for other people to join in and opine, but I don't believe this to be a major point of contention. Either way, I'll wait, and thank you for adding your thoughts in the meantime. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Keep. Edits like that are not NPOV. Stepanakert has special importance in Nagorno-Karabakh, same as the town of Shusha. The latter's article is featured using slash for the two names, although the town was Azeri-majority before the war and the Azerbaijani name was the official name before the conflict. The current wording was just fine. Also, historic names should not be mentioned in the top of the infobox, especially when we do not know the exact dates - there is special place for that in the history section. --Mastersun25 (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 ::While Stepanakert and Shusha both have mixed Armenian and Azerbaijani history, they are in two separate socio-political situations, which is why I proposed highlighting Stepanakert AND Shusha at the same time (also for WP:COMMONNAME purposes). BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and Stepanakert/Khankendi/Vararakn (compare ancient names with Tashkent, Dushanbe, etc.) last had an Azerbaijani majority in 1915 (according to the "Caucasian Calendar"—even though right before and after that census, there had been Russian and Armenian supermajorities in the city, respectively. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• Keep The official name of the city is Khankendi, not Stepanakert. An unrecognized country cannot do official work. The city is located in Azerbaijan according to international law. Thus, Khankendi should be the official name in the information box. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 09:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:EljanM

this isn't a keep or delete vote, the word keep is invalid here, you two should familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia before wasting user time. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You've not replied my comment in Talk:Aşağı Ağcakənd yet. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 12:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:EljanM

• VivaEspana11 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is fine the way it is. Both names should be mentioned in bold. Grandmaster 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Per above. However, I tend to think that places that were reclaimed by Azerbaijan during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war should contain only Azerbaijani names in the lead (because of both de jure and de facto Azerbaijani control). Brandmeister^talk 21:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

**It is truly bizarre that Grandmaster and Brandmeister—both Azerbaijani accounts with a variation of the word "master" in their name—commented on this discussion almost a month after my initial posting. Around half an hour apart. Sockpuppet investigation might be suitable sometime. (?) BaxçeyêReş (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • Indeed. Artsakh articles are a honey pot for sockpuppets. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey! My name includes word "Master" too so don't forget to report me for that as well. It clearly would make more sense to try to get other users banned instead of carrying out a healthy discussion, isn't it? --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

*****Hey! There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against you, so opening a new one until the current one is resolved would be senseless, much like your "attempts" to foster "healthy discussions" while using ad hominem attacks. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • • Also the information in the infobox that the name "Vararakn" was used until 1923 is factually incorrect and absolutely unsourced, would someone bother to edit that? Or is it not that important in your opinion? --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

*****I suggest you visit an ophthalmologist, Mastersun25. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:ClassicYoghurt

• • • • • Well, I suggest that you should stop using a sockpuppet account to pretend being a third party to this conflict, pushing disruptive edits to every AA-article on Wikipedia. User who accused everyone of being sockpuppets, turned out to be Armenian sockpuppet himself. What an irony! --Mastersun25 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Etymology

Your text – "Another sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century, as a place of rest for the heads of the Karabakh Khanate."

Your added sources:

1) Russian encyclopedia doesn't say the settlement "was built" in 18th century, morover it actually confirms Armenian historians' attestment. Quote from the source: "According to the middle century Armenian sources, settlement on the site of the present. cities under the name. Vararakn has existed since the end. 5 c. and belonged to Caucasian Albania. In 10-16 centuries. was part of the arm. of the Khachen principality, in the 16-18 centuries. arm. Melikosti Varanda. From ser. 18th century as part of the Karabakh Khanate... From the end. 18th century used the name. Khankendi (Azerb. - Khan village)."

It doesn't say "the settlement was built in late 18th century", it says From the end. 18th century.... So what you're trying to do with your text and edit is called WP:OR.

2) We can probably leave the Az source, but it has to be properly attributed like it was with long-standing article version, e.g. "Most Azerbaijani sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century"

3) Verlag Dr. Köster is a WP:SPS publisher. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ok, I will change. ok, no problem, remove it till I find another one. Aydin mirza (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to change. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, what about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923"? Both sources say that "local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian, was officially renamed 'Stepanakert'" and "at Stepanakert (Khankend, Vararakn)". You are very carefull with the sources and expressions, so it should be edited. do you edit it? --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: The sources match exactly what is said in the article, Norman Davies is unambiguous in saying that when the city was renamed Stepanakert(1923) the Armenian name for the city was Vararakn. The other source presents the same thing that until 1923, there were two names for the city, one Armenian and one Azerbaijani. That’s quite literally what the sources say, there is no problem with that. What there is a problem with is your edits. They mess up the flow of the article, are poorly sourced, and add nothing new expect turning neutral statements into partisan statements. I suggest you revert back to the previous well sourced version.TagaworShah (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Armenia: A Historical Atlas the book you've used doesn't reflect what you've written. You just copy-pasted 7th reference witout even bothering to change the page. Neither does this supposed Russian encyclopedia. It only says the names was used not renamed, which was already written. Do not edit-war and revert without reaching consensus, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

TagaworShah, reg to the sources, firstly, Davies says "local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian". So it should be reflected in the article according to the source. Is it right? Secondly, Payaslian say "Stepanakert (Khankend, Vararakn)". If you think that my editions mess up the flow in the article, we can add Azerbaijani name. is it ok? --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, 1. I didn't copy paste 7th references, I've just changed the sentance and kept the same citation. 2. reg Russian Encyclopedia, where is it(Khankendi) already written? You reverted editions with the source(I mean in the section Etimology). you could just change "use" with "rename". but as usually, you prefer to revert. In this case, don't say me about edit war. I make editions, not revert like you without any discussions. Let me remind you, that users and editors are free to challenge. 3. are you going to edit now? (I mean to note Azerbaijani name Khankendi as both sources note). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin mirza (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

eg Russian Encyclopedia, where is it(Khankendi) already written? – yes, it is already written. are you even reading the article before editing? Quote from the section: " By the 19th century, the settlement was renamed Khankendi ("village of the khan" in Azerbaijani) [42]. Btw, 7th reference says 19th century, and it is already mentioned as “renamed”, so your edit literally doesn't provide any improvement to the article.

Accorning to Azerbaijani sources a settlement was built in late 18th century... – your change isn't properly attributed, and the long-standing version of that section is completely fine and needs no change, since no reliable source(s) say that the settlement “was built” in 18th section, and contrary to that, most sources confirm the Armenian Vararakn settlement as first. The current wording of "Most Azerbaijani sources claim that the settlement was built in late 18th century" is properly attributed, hence you were reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin Mirza: The article already perfect reflects what the sources say, look at my previous comment on explanation on why that is, there is nothing wrong with the way that it is right now.TagaworShah (talk)

I'd also recommend you to read my respond. I explained you why it is not perfect. Khankendi is shown once in this section as supported only by Azerbaijani sources, but it's not indeed. My editions are reverted very quickly and easy even with revieble sources, because inserted sentance or even the word is not the same as in the source. Ok, I'm agree. So, I'm asking now about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923", where both sources say about two names. Why is only one name reflected here? As I can destroy the perfect flow in the article, so, it'd be great if you edit considering a.m. issues. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say, quite frankly, you're not making a lot of sense. Everything is written according to reliable sources cited. Khankendi is shown once in this section as supported only by Azerbaijani sources, but it's not indeed – the claim that's attributed to Az sources is the "18th century built" claim. The Az name isn't attributed to anyone, it just says and I quote: "By the 19th century, the settlement was renamed Khankendi".

So, I'm asking now about "Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923", where both sources say about two names. Why is only one name reflected here? – because of chronological order? What are you even trying to say? For Armenians, the name always (or at least till the year cited) remained Vararakn, and it's correctly shown in the section. It's already noted that the name changed to Khankendi in 19th century. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that you understand what I'm trying to say. We'll back to this subject with third party voice. --Aydin mirza (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

@Grandmaster: Your edit is simply inaccurate. Per the sources in the article, the majority of the time during the Russian empire, from the first census in 1886-1912 the population was recorded as mostly Russian. Only the 1915 census saw an Azerbaijani majority and then by 1921 the next census was majority Armenian. Saying the population was majority Azerbaijani in the Russian empire is WP:TEND as you are misrepresenting the sources, only for a short period of the Russian empire were Azerbaijanis the majority. Also, pre soviet censuses are already discussed in detail in the demographics section, they do not belong in the lede. Please revert yourself. TagaworShah (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What he said. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My edit says: In the Russian empire, the population of the town was predominantly Russian or Azerbaijani. As is clear from the sources, at different times, there was either Russian or Azerbaijani majority during the imperial rule. What is inaccurate here? Even if recorded only in 1915, the town of Khankendi had an Azerbaijani majority at one point. And I do not see why Soviet censuses belong to the lead, and Russian imperial ones are not. I already proposed to keep all the demographics out of lead, but it received no support. Grandmaster 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Saying Russian or Azerbaijani is not a fair assessment, it was Azerbaijani for a minuscule period and Russian for the grand majority of the recorded censuses of the Russian empire. We don’t use non official censuses in the lede, they belong in the demographics section, it is already mentioned in the demographics section. The lede should accurately reflect the sources with due weight, the very brief Azerbaijani majority does not have the same weight as the Russian or Armenian majorities, a few years versus centuries. TagaworShah (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If we are summarizing demographics, then all the major changes need to be reflected, especially if they are mentioned in the demographics section. I do not think that there is a rule that does not allow to use Russian imperial statistics, and use only Soviet ones. WP:WEIGHT certainly does not apply here. Also, all Russian imperial sources are official. Caucasus calendar was published by Russian authorities who were in charge of Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a rule that does not allow using Russian imperial statistics, and use only Soviet ones. Statistics aren't the issue here, the issue is adhering to WP:DUE weight. One year's Azeri majority from 1915 doesn't have the same due weight as Russian or certainly Armenian populations, which have been majority (especially Armenian) for far more years. If you have arguments to present pertaining to this discussion and to WP:DUE, and how come one year's statistics of population is significant enough for the lead, then go ahead. Don't change the conversation again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE does not apply to selective use of historical records. It does say that you can remove a historical fact because it was short term. WP:DUE is about minority and majority scholarly views, and not historical facts. If you could prove that majority of reliable sources disagree with the fact that Azerbaijani people constituted a majority in this place in 1915, then WP:DUE would apply. Otherwise, it has no relevance here. Also, it is not one year, it was from 1915 on, at least until early 1920s. Grandmaster 20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It does say that you can remove a historical fact because it was short term. - Your fact is still in the appropriate section of the article, the issue here is that it isn't significant enough for the lead. Please read carefully and don't misinterpret my position, and yes, WP:WEIGHT does apply in cases such as this. One year statistic doesn't have enough significance to be included in the lead with the city's 100+ yr/o population record. And the info is only for 1915, I don't see anything abt "until early 1920s". But even then, it wouldn't change anything, and it would still be WP:UNDUE for the lead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Though I can probably guess it, I'm frankly puzzled on why there is such a grand obsession over demographics in the lede section. While I disagree with Grandmaster's initial edit, TagaworShah's has, inconceivably, made things worse, burying important information about the town in a section whose only aim is to provide broad outlines of the town. This oneupmanship has to be tamped down. Nobody cares about the swelling size of the Russian or Azeri population in 1886 and then in 1915 and then again in 1921 in the introduction of an article. They just want to know where it is, how big its population is, and what its current status is. I'd cull it myself if I knew I wouldn't be immediately reverted and I'd trigger an editing frenzy. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Fix the lead in whichever way you see fit. I was just trying to accommodate all viewpoints so we could no longer see conflict and expand the short lead, if you want to remove the historical demographics from the lead go right ahead, I won’t revert you, that’s just how I thought the lead would be better. TagaworShah (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what I proposed from the very beginning, to keep details on demographics out of the lede. Anyway, it looks better now. But where does the claim the "local Armenian population continued to use the former name until the 1920s" come from? It had no Armenian population before 1920s. Grandmaster 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I’m glad you like the lead! That statement comes from Norman Davies “The autonomous republic's capital, whose local names were Khankendi in Azeri and Vararakn in Armenian, was officially renamed 'Stepanakert.” Local Armenians just means Armenians of the area not necessarily the town although there was a small population in the town before 1920, Davies confirms that Vararakn remained the local Armenian name for the town until 1923. TagaworShah (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That quote certainly does not say that "local Armenian population continued to use the former name until the 1920s". At best, it could be interpreted as Vararakn being used at some point in the past. But the only official name for the town in the Russian empire was Khankendi, and you can see it also on Russian imperial maps. It had no significant Armenian population either before 1920s. So it is good that it was removed. Grandmaster 17:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Care to explain why you deleted the entire history section of the lead? I consulted multiple good and featured articles for different cities around the world to construct that, they all had the major history of the city in the lead. I heard your concerns about going into specific demographics in the lead, so I took that out but just outright deleting the entire history section from the lead? I have not seen a single good city article that has its history entirely missing from the lead. And then you also deleted sourced content from the history section, why? Statements from Raffi were given due attribution, the rest was sourced by the Russia encyclopedia, the history section is supposed to be an in depth look at the history, not a summary. TagaworShah (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some of the edits. I gutted the introduction because it was too detailed and most of the information is stated, in almost as many words, in the body of the text. A lot of it was also filler. The agreements and treaties and passing from one ruler to the other had almost no bearing on the settlement itself, meriting brief mentions rather than passages heavy on context, but shorn of any information about the town itself. I also made more stylistic changes to improve on readability and prose. I am open to providing some history, but it would have to be very concise. Maybe something like, "With its foundations in the earlier period, Stepanakert has enjoyed a long history..." Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I don’t see why the history in the lead need be extremely short? Other similar city articles have it just like this. What I think is important is mentioning all the former names in the lead and when they were changed, the first history paragraph was crafted drawing inspiration on the Los Angeles article. The second paragraph is also very important as Stepanakerts soviet past and the Nagorno-Karabakh war are very significant to the city’s history and touched upon extensively in the sources. It’s not like the lead is too long, it’s pretty standard for an article of this size. I also don’t understand why you removed the stuff about the meeting of the Armenian meliks with Abbas Mirza in the city or what part of the Russia empire it was located in? TagaworShah (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Stepanakert is not Tokyo or Los Angeles. It's OK to have a shorter article if the content is simply not there. Indeed, some of the sources cited are not by specialists (Norman Davies for one). When you start adding all the filler, the lede just becomes cumbersome. The lede is for essential details, a Sparknotes version about the city. As it stands, you're providing far more context than the article currently merits. I didn't notice if the meliks and Abbas Mirza met in the settlement, but that wasn't clear in the text itself. If they did indeed meet in Vararakn, that of course can be added. I disagree with your recent re-insertion, but I won't be the one to revise or remove it. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Ok, I have cut the lead down significantly to only be the most basic and important details. It now matches the length of other cities of this size. What do you think? Also, I understand that Norman Davies may not be a specialist of the region, but a highly distinguished historian is a highly distinguished historian. Yes, Raffi does mention a meeting between the meliks of Karabakh and Abbas Mirza in Khankendi(what he called it), I will go ahead and add that back. TagaworShah (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. I would still gut the second paragraph in the lede because it's too detailed, or reduce to about just one sentence and combine it with the third paragraph. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I too think that it looks better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I reduced the second paragraph to one sentence and combined it with the third. What do you think? TagaworShah (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Much better. The article could definitely do with some other sources (mainly in Armenian or Russian) that could help expand on the city's history and development during the Soviet and post-Soviet eras. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Most definitely, i’ve been collecting sources from the Russian and Armenian wikis to expand the section in order to get it to good article status. If you know any good sources or anyone who is experienced with Russian and Armenian sources than that would be much appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: The quote says that at the time of the renaming of the city to Stepanakert, the local names were Vararakn and Khankendi respectively, Payaslian implies the same thing. We are not talking about official name, it is already stated in the article that the official name changed from Vararakn to Khankendi in 1847, we are saying what the local Armenian population called it. And the city DID have a significant Armenian population before 1920, the caucasian calendar of 1915 cites a significant Armenian minority, there has always been at least some Armenians living in the settlement per the history and demographics section, and local Armenians means Armenians of the surrounding area too, who still called it by it’s original name, there was also the church of Vararakn as well in the rown that has since been destroyed in the 30s but evidences that the name was still in use by Armenians but, we already have two historians confirming that so I won’t bother with that detail. TagaworShah (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me at least one Russian imperial source using the name Vararakn? I can show you many using Khankendi. It was a location of a Russian garrison. But Armenian presence there was minimal. I wonder how come that the official name of Khankendi gets no mention in the lead, but Vararakn for which there is no reliable evidence is mentioned as a matter of fact? Grandmaster 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also refer to the discussion above on why we are keeping the lead section concise. TagaworShah (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It is good to keep it concise. But some mention of an official historical name would make total sense. Grandmaster 17:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is from Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Stepanakert (until 1923 - the village of Khankendy) is a city, the center of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan SSR. Renamed in honor of S. Shaumyan. [43] Soviets kept track of their renaming activity. Do you see any mention of Vararakn? Grandmaster 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: No reliable evidence? So John Everett-Heath, Robert Hewsen, and the Great Russian Encyclopedia and all the other citations for the name are just making it up? Yeah no, we have reliable third party historians confirming the antiquity of that name going up to at least the 10th century. Khankendi is already mentioned in the lead, it’s literally one of the official names, we don’t need to mention the name of the small Russian military outpost that occupied less than a century of the city’s history in the lead. If you remember, I did originally write that also but, took it out since it’s already covered in the history section and not needed in the lead. Also, i’m a mobile editor and can only reply at the very end of the discussion to one reply so if you could condense everything you have to say in one reply that would be much appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Yeah i’m more inclined to believe what modern historians have to say instead of what the soviet encyclopedia has to say, why use that when we have the Great Russian Encyclopedia published in 2016? (I know you speak russian so i’m just gonna leave it the way it is)

Со­глас­но ср.-век. арм. ис­точ­ни­кам, по­се­ле­ние на мес­те совр. го­ро­да под назв. Ва­ра­ракн су­ще­ст­во­ва­ло с кон. 5 в. и от­но­си­лось к Кав­каз­ской Ал­ба­нии. В 10–16 вв. вхо­ди­ло в со­став арм. кня­же­ст­ва Ха­чен, в 16–18 вв. арм. ме­лик­ст­ва Ва­ран­да.

Or Robert Hewsen published by the University of Chicago?

Originally called Vararakn, this Armenian village on the right bank of the Gargar (Arm. Karkar) River

Or John Everett-Heath published by Oxford University?[44]

Khankendy replaced Vararakn in 1847

Or Rouben Paul Adalian?

Originally Vararakn, renamed Khankend in 1847 during the Russian period

Or Claude Mutafian?

…the former Armenian Vararakn, then a small town

As you can see we have a multitude of reliable third party historians confirming the name Vararakn, I would understand if it was just the Armenian soviet encyclopedia (i’m not inclined to believe what the Azerbaijani soviet encyclopedia says either) but when you have this many historians confirming it, there is no denying it. TagaworShah (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That was not my point. My point was that the official name of Khankendi is not mentioned, while Vararakn is, despite never being official. You argue that both were in use before rename in 1923, but GSE does not support the claim. In any case, I don't think that this revert was justified. [45] And mentioning the Azerbaijani official name is not the same as mentioning in historical context. Khankendi was the official name not just in Azerbaijan, but also in the Russian empire. Grandmaster 18:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Vararakn was the official name of the town for at least a thousand years per the Great Russian Encyclopedia. By the time the Russian empire renamed it, it was a semi-abandoned village with barely any houses or villagers. It was then turned into a small military outpost inhabited by a few russian soliders and there descendants. This is not a significant part of the city’s history at all. Following the lead of other similar cities, we mention the original name of the ancient settlement and the significant periods, which is the soviet period as that is when it regained significance, a name given during the Russian colonial period where the city had no significance and was barely inhabited isn’t needed in the lead. TagaworShah (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This place never had any significance before 1923. Why more than a hundred years of Russian history deserve no mention whatsoever in the lead? Grandmaster 19:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually think that all historical information is better be removed from the lede, considering that the place does not have much history to talk about. The way they arranged the lede in the Russian wiki makes more sense. Grandmaster 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Yeah exactly it had no significance before 1923, why should we mention anything from the Russian empire in the lead? I removed all the history from the Russian empire from there since it simply wasn’t significant, it just clutters the lead. The original name of the ancient settlement it was built on is significant as that was its name for over a thousand years. The Russian colonial name that lasted less than a century and comprised one of the least significant periods of the city’s history is not necessary. TagaworShah (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That settlement was of no importance at any time of its history before 1923. At least in Russian times it was a military headquarters. Btw, that deserves a mention too. Grandmaster 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, the Russian wiki article is not a good standard to look at. If we look at the good articles for cities similar to Stepanakert they all briefly mention the most ancient period of the city in the lead. History is important in the lead, i’m planning on getting this article to good article status so i’ve followed all the guidelines and examples to create the best lead. TagaworShah (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: The military outpost is mentioned in the history section, I will be expanding that even further soon, I did include it in the lead then cut it out because it wasn’t important, the lead is good as it is now. TagaworShah (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead section tag

Hello @Jr8825:, I hope all is well. I saw that you added the “lead too short” tag on the article so I expanded the lead based on how I saw other leads formatted for different cities. I went ahead and removed the “lead too short” tag but now I realize I probably should’ve asked you if you think the lead now properly introduces the article content in enough depth? I’m open to any suggestions, i’d like to get the article to good article status (if that’s even possible for something so controversial), and a solid lead is a good start. Thank you in advance. TagaworShah (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! :) I will be reviewing this article for GA status! I will be using the GAProgress template below to show my progress of this review. Once I am finished, I will be placing everything in the GATable GAList2 template to explain what needs to be changed for GA status. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 20:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article is well made, but there are a few issues, listed below, that need to be fixed before promotion to GA.

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:

   The portion quoting the OSCE Minsk Group in the Air section should either be placed in quotes (although it may be too long for a quoted copyrighted section) or paraphrased entirely, check MOS:QUOTE for further information.
   The Twin towns section contains a word to watch: the word "purportedly" is used when explaining Azerbaijan's description of Montebello's twinned status with Stepanakert. As it is already stated that the sentence is of Azerbaijan's view, saying that it is "purported" adds more doubt to their point of view.
   Fix these and this part is good!

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:

   References and bibliography are listed

   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:

   For the most part, sources are reliable, but I do not know if the Great Russian Encyclopedia (second bibliographical citation) is trustable when it comes to disputed territories like Stepanakert, as there will be some Soviet/Russian bias (noting the GRE's articles for Sevastopol and Donetsk).

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig did not bring up any major copyvios aside from the OSCE Minsk Group portion, although that is quoted. Addressed in 1b's comments

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to cover all the main points

   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:

   This is a very important part of this article, as it discusses a disputed territory. That being said, I reckon neutrality has been handled well.

5. Is it stable?

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

   Not many new edits since the article got nominated for GA, but the article remains quite stable as a result.

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:

   One of the images, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, is currently being nominated for deletion as a result of incorrect and unknown attribution, so I will hold off on this until the deletion discussion is complete.

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

   The aforementioned image, File:Первая правительственная трибуна. г.Степанакерт.jpg, doesn't seem to be that relevant, as there appears to be no mention of a tribune in the article's prose.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold until issues listed are completed. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: Hello :) Thank you so much for reviewing the article and providing helpful information on how to get it to GA status! I have implemented the suggested changes. I paraphrased the OSCE statement (feel free to let me know if it is sufficiently different or too close) and I removed the word purportedly. As for the image, I removed it altogether and replaced it with a 19th century Russian postcard that claims to depict the garrison of Khankandy which is discussed in that section. I completely agree with your concerns about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, however, at least for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it seems editors on both sides have a rough consensus that Russian/Soviet sources are generally ok to use, in addition, the controversial information that it is used to support is also confirmed by corresponding western sources. Please let me know of any other changes I can make to improve the article! Best, TagaworShah (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Thank you for responding so quickly, I truly appreciate it! Your work on the article has been excellent and it's very worthy of GA. Here are the rectified issues:

1b - OSCE: So I think I've made a mistake in the review, in which I hadn't checked Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing when dealing with the OSCE statement... now I think the best solution would be to put it in quotes as per MOS:QUOTE, something like:

The OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, stated that "operation of [Stepanakert Airport] cannot be used to support any claim of a change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh" and "urged the sides to act in accordance with international law and consistent with current practice for flights over their territory."

So that section is  On hold until corrected

1b - Word to watch: As you said, the "purported" section is fixed  Done

6a and 6b: The postcard image contains correct attribution and is copyright-free as per Russian law, which is another plus. So, I will confirm that part as  Done

2b: I agree with your explanation, and so as such, I will also confirm this as  Done

Thank you once again :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: Hello, Thank you again for your review and helping me fix the issues in the article! I have replaced the paraphrasing with the quote you provided. I truly appreciate the help! Best, TagaworShah (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Awesome! In this case, that means this article is now GA! Thank you so much :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Xankəndi

after September conflicts in Qarabağ this city is controling by Azerbijan so we should change the name of article Abolfazlyashar (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani army hasn't entered the city proper yet and the flag hasn't been raised as it happened recently e.g. in Aghdara. This says that until 2025 Khankendi will host Russian peacekeepers and the city will be governed on a mixed basis, with no Azerbaijani police yet. I think we should wait a bit until the city is brought under full Azerbaijani control. Brandmeister^talk 16:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient. Emreculha (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Али2008 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Здравствуйте! Город Ханкенди является Азербайджанской территорией, видь НКР никто не признал, пожалуйста опишите его частью Азербайджанской Республики"

Али2008 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please write in english, and please provide reliable sources to support your change if you would like to change the name of a city. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)