Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic

Archives
Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive2 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive3 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive4 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive5 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive6 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive7 Talk:Nakhchivan/Archive8

Moving this article back to "Nakhichevan"

I decided to rename this article back to "Nakhichevan", simply because it gets more hits on Google [1] than "Nakhchivan". [2] "Nakhchivan" is also an alternative Azeri (i.e. not neutral) spelling not widely used in English. I didn't know this at the time of the move, which I was foolish enough to initiate and go along with. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have any statement on the move, but I find it strange that an Azeri name for an undisputed region belonging to Azerbaijan can possibly be non-neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Armenians don't make such statements. You should retract it as soon as possible, before you're called pro-Azeri. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you're right. In any case, "Nakhchivan" not widely used in the English language. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Aivazovsky, should not you discuss the page move before actually making it? Roll it back, please, and discuss. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats stopping you from discussing it now? Assume a little good faith and provide your argument. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not be discussed post factum, but before any change is made. Grandmaster (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see, that's not the only changed made without consensus. I restored consensus wording in one section. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Aivazovsky deleted this line: According to Human Rights Watch, hostilities broke out after three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region.<ref name="hrw01">[http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/general/general926.pdf Overview of Areas of Armed Conflict in the former Soviet Union], [[Human Rights Watch]], Helsinki Report</ref> Grandmaster (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This part "According to other versions, the name Nakhichevan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan..." is also seems to be misinterpreted, as both sources (also the one translated and published by "reliable" Ziya Bunyadov) dont say Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan, thay just mark this as another variant for the name (in the source of Kazvani it is a variant of the Nakhijevan town's name). It is well-known that Nakhijevan is the recognized and internationally used name, and any revisions of the name may have only propagandist character. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous title was a consensus, this one is not: [3] Grandmaster (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not an official consensus made by any admin, nor an only Armenian user who discusses there is enough to represent another side's view and make agreement even if he is the so much respected Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky discussed it in May 2007, now it is February 2008. Many Armenian users included Aivazovsky represented new reasons why the moving is justified. Wiki is a free encyclopedia that needs to be developed, we cant keep all the dubious "consensuses" of May 2007 between some Azerbaijani and one Armenian user and close the Wikipedia. Grandmaster, you surely know about this as right after the consensus on Shusha you started the changes. So a "consensus" is a weak justification. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying but I'm failing to make any sense of what you said, what does any of that have to do with the name of this article? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any move is made it should be discussed and agreed on talk. This is very simple. Grandmaster (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it why you moved Shushi Massacres to "Ethnic Clashes in Shusha" without any discussions?:) Nakhijevan is the commonly used name, its too much obviuos you even dont discuss it (am I right?), so what's the problem. How many reliable sources prefer Nakhchivan? Pls represent and surely we will discuss and make corrections. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW the article needs to be checked as some of the sources on the naming are misinterpreted as I represented earlier. Some things that must be NPOVed: the khachkars' case must be updated, as official Azerbaijan didnt allowed specialists to enter (according to neutral sources, not to Azeri officials); and Dashnaktsutiun is not the only significant party in Armenia that claims Nakhijevan and disputtes the treaty between Bolshieviks and Turkey. So an info updating is needed. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd review this six months ago and here we are, I don't have my original notes but it looks to me that the proper transliteration would be "Nakhchivan". I'm moving this back. If you want to request a move, that's fine, but til then it's going back to the 'original' name. And Aivazovsky, you should have known better than to make a controversial move. The Google search is not necessarily a valid indictator. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then again, you moved about 10 other articles too. Good job, making it that much annoying to reverse, and therefore I'd be much likely to just let it lie, and therefore you gain traction for your choice. Well played, sir. So the question is, do I actually undo all your changes, or do we open a discussion, which would just turn into another petty fight between the two groups? No, I'm taking this one on, the proper transliteration is Nakhchivan and thus it will go. That a certain number of google hits disagree cannot change that fundamental fact. One great piece of evidence - when you did your search-and-replace renaming in the article, you changed the name of the region's official website from http://www.nakhchivan.az/ to http://www.nakhichevan.az/ - didn't you think for a minute that, hey, maybe this was an indicator that this move was wrong? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone for all this mess. Let's just leave it as "Nakhchivan" and keep it like that. Thanks for reverting everything back, Golbez. Again, I'm sorry. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being graceful, I will try to be as well and apologize for my tone above. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the problem, Golbez. Aivazovsky, I hope next time you will discuss with others before making any dramatic changes. You and I always managed to resolve our disputes so far. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not agree with you, Aivazovsky, Golbez and Grandmaster, and Ill return to this problem when I have more time for this really annoying topic. Anyways my notes above are valid and (special for Grandmaster) mind that this undiscussed temporary revert is not a consensus. Do not have any illusions that I agreed. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have concrete evidence that this is the proper name; what do you have? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Golbez, at first Id like to mark that Im sure on your neutrality, I see your real and serious interest to Arm.-Az. related topics, and whats more important for me, you're always open for any other opinions, another views and sources. Thank you for it! And to make a serious discussion on this moving I prefer to made some more research, despite some things are obvious right now (at least, the creation of Goghtan Gavar, "Nakhichevan Autonomuos Republic of Azerbaijani SSR" and "Nakhichevan (region)" articles is needed and justified). After that I even dont need to discuss this one with Grandmaster, as any reader will be able to see how historically Armenian Nakhichevan cleansed from whole Armenian population and Armenian cultural heritage by the descendents of 13th century invaders and became "Nakhchivan" first time a few years ago. Is this name changing a political denialism and propagand by Azerbaijan, or no, any reader can understand without Grandmaster's or mine help. But at first I prefer to finish source checking here. Thanks again! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Andranik, it's not worth fighting over changing the name again. User:Meowy suggested changing it from "Nakhichevan" to "Nakhchivan" awhile back while editing and I went along with it by bringing it up on the talk page. It's the official name and we can't change that. Also think that there can be no "political denialism" in this article unless the Armenian history of the area as well as the present demolition of khachkars is completely ignored. I worked hard to make sure that plenty of both were included in this piece. The name is not a big deal. Let's just leave it. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhchivan is as near as we can render into English spelling the way the name is spelt using the current Azeri alphabet. Also, it renders almost exactly how it is currently pronounced. It is NOT pronounced Nakhichevan by those that live there (and, personally, I don't think that it ever has been). Meowy 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No Meowy, in Armenian it sounds very beautyful as it has a meaning. We have an Ijevan too. I really dont know what the Wiki rules say: Shusha is not pronounced as Shusha by 100% of those who live there, so what? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because population of Shusha was ethnically cleansed. The population of Shusha before the conflict was 99% Azerbaijani, and it is part of Azerbaijan de-jure. There's an internationally accepted practice to use pre-conflict names for NK locations, even though many authoritative sources, such as US State Department use official Azerbaijani names, such as Khankendi for Stepanakert. But this region is different from NK, the official name of this region in Azerbaijani is Nakhchivan, and the region is not disputed. Armenia does not officially claim it, and population does not want to break away from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

99 % Azeri acoording to an Azeri source you're using at the Shusha. And surely Shusha wasnt ethnically clensed from Armenians... Azeri soldiers just "suppressed" a revolt with the whole Armenian population. Etc. It looks you're using the info you have to describe a Wiki rule, but what Im asking if such a rule really exists. Just cite pls. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I dont sure if Nakhijevan is not officially claimed at least by the ruling Republ. party of Armenia Ill look after. I just know that there are high-level Armenian diplomats who didnt recognize the Moscow Treaty of 1921 as de jure correct and mark that Nakhijevan wasnt a part of Dem. Rep. of Azerbaijan, the de jure predecessor of the modern Azerbaijan. I need to look for sources. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for Armenia), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhchivan or Nakhichevan

I just searched for Nakhichevan and Nakhchivan at Google and other search engines for reliable links. For Nakhichevan we have a large number of will-known English encyclopedias and reliable sources (f.e. Britannica's article: "Nakhichevan, Azerbaijani Naxçivan, exclave and autonomous republic of Azerbaijan...."[4]). For Nakhichevan see also: Questia: a large number of reliable sources calling it Nakhichevan,Columbia Encyclopedia,The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,New York Times,Hutchinson encycl.,[5],UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?),USAToday,Yahoo Education Project or [6] and even some Azeri sites [7],[8]. For Nakhchivan we have only nakhchivan.az and different Azerbaijani sites (like zerbaijan.com) according to which "Nakhchivan is a historical Azerbaijani region", etc. Grandmaster, I will be grateful if you cite at least 1-2 really reliable English sources for Nakhchivan. Otherways, I'd like to have an admin opinion (or a link to a Wiki rule), if an Azerbaijani (even if it is native) name or transcription is more prefereble for Wiki, than the one commonly used by English sources. PS- And the Russian sources like old Brokgauz and Efron[9], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[10], modern "Geographical names"[11] or "Krugosvet"[12] prefer Nakhichevan too. Thanks in advance. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The transliteration leans strongly towards 'Nakhchivan', and the word itself is not strongly ingrained into English enough so that 'most used' should be an issue. (like it is for, example, Kiev vs Kyiv) One may be more commonly used over another, but not by enough margin to matter, and both versions are rather foreign to 99% of English speakers. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Grandmaster, you talk about misquoting? According to other versions, the name Nakhchivan derived from… and this is accurate? The source provided is over half a millennium or what after Khorenatsi's Nakhichevan (not to mention, it's edited by Ziya Bunyadov). How can a word having originated that far after the original Armenian name be another version for the source of the name? Besides, the word Nakhichevan in Khorenatsi is much closer than that Persian version for the actual word. All published works I know about refers to the Armenian word. What you are doing is original research. Also another distortion [13] consensus or you mean your version? The references provided there say just that, chiefly Armenian, the second one nearly word by word writes that. Before talking about misquotes or distortions you should check your own edits. Also, why this double standard… you have removed and questioned the credibility of sources based on the ethnicity of their authors, when those same authors were recognized in their field. Yet you use a source edited by Ziya Bunyadov who is considered an academic fraud who has plagiarized other scholars and made their works pass as his. Not to include the various historical documents which he has altered to remove Armenian and replace it with Albanian. What you are doing amounts to a grave form of disruption and it seems that you still continue doing the same over and over again. Your problem on leaving the term Armenian alone without having to add anything else without proper and valid justification warrants a review of your behaviour by the arbitration committee. - Fedayee (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nakhichevan 127,000
• Nakhchivan 64,300

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

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

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

Two misinterpretations

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

• Evliya Chelebi: My comment- We see the term of Nakhichevan in the title of the chapter (О том, как, выступив с берегов Аракса, мы отправились по направлению к Еревану и Нахичевани, расположенным в стране Аджем). There is a little part about how the author visited a ...fortress in Nakhichevan. It is titled "The characters of Nakhshavan, [or] Nakhshijahan fortress" where he write: "This town is worthy of its name. Some people call it Nakhichevan, others - Nakhshevan."[14]
• Hamdollah Mostowfi. Nozhat al-Gholub (one of the "sources" edited by Bunyadov and printed in Baku): "Nakhchivan is connected to fourth climate. The town was founded by Bahram Chubin. This is a nice place called "A Picture of the World" (Nakhsh-i djahan)." [15]

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

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

Tags added

The naming of theis article is disputted because:

• I searched for Nakhichevan and Nakhchivan at Google and other search engines for reliable links. For Nakhichevan we have a large number of will-known English encyclopedias and reliable sources (f.e. Britannica's article: "Nakhichevan, Azerbaijani Naxçivan, exclave and autonomous republic of Azerbaijan...."[16]). For Nakhichevan see also: Questia: a large number of reliable sources calling it Nakhichevan,Columbia Encyclopedia,The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,New York Times,Hutchinson encycl.,[17],UNDP Official site (where is the int'l recognition of the name?),USAToday,Yahoo Education Project or [18] and even some Azeri sites [19],[20]. For Nakhchivan we have only nakhchivan.az and different Azerbaijani sites (like zerbaijan.com) according to which "Nakhchivan is a historical Azerbaijani region", etc. Grandmaster, I will be grateful if you cite at least 1-2 really reliable English sources for Nakhchivan. Otherways, I'd like to have a Wiki rule, if an Azerbaijani (even if it is native) name or transcription is more prefereble for Wiki, than the one commonly used by English sources. And the Russian sources like old Brokgauz and Efron[21], Great Soviet Encyclopedia[22], modern "Geographical names"[23] or "Krugosvet"[24] prefer Nakhichevan too. I will add this point for a third party opinion, as Golbez's explanation is not based on any Wiki rules but a POV.
• Aynabend continues misinterpretation by Grandmaster and added false citation to the article so the NPOV checking is suggested:
• Evliya Chelebi: My comment- We see the term of Nakhichevan in the title of the chapter (О том, как, выступив с берегов Аракса, мы отправились по направлению к Еревану и Нахичевани, расположенным в стране Аджем). There is a little part about how the author visited a ...fortress in Nakhichevan. It is titled "The characters of Nakhshavan, [or] Nakhshijahan fortress" where he write: "This town is worthy of its name. Some people call it Nakhichevan, others - Nakhshevan."[25]
• Hamdollah Mostowfi. Nozhat al-Gholub (the only editor of this book is Ziya Bunyadov, mostly criticized for his anti-Armenianism and misinterpretations of sources, author of an "Armenian conspiration theory" and well-known as "Azerbaijan’s foremost Armenophobe" (Thomas de Waal, Black Garden, page 42), Bunyadov printed this book in Baku and two Russian scolars mark his continuous misinterpretations and distortions of primary texts reprinted by him: "Nakhchivan is connected to fourth climate. The town was founded by Bahram Chubin. This is a nice place called "A Picture of the World" (Nakhsh-i djahan)." [26]

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

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

Описание крепости Нахшеван, [или] Накшиджихан

Этот город действительно достоин своего названия¹⁰.

Description of the fortress of Nakhshevan, or Nakhshijihan

This city is indeed worthy of its name.¹⁰

And the footnote says:

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

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

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

And Hamdollah Mostowfi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atabek, you have not rights to give 24 hours to any user, always remember about it! Be CIVIL and read the tag explanation! If you read the talk carefully you will see that Im not the only one. And this article[27] by Russian expert Konstantin Mikhailovski (obviously not a Dashnak nor an Armenian) justifying Armenian claims to Nakhichevan must be incorporated to this article too!Andranikpasha (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurds in Nakhichevan

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

Foreign names in intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grandmaster you err on the very main point. The region indeed is widely known as Nakhichevan in English language sources rather than Nakhchivan or Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Please read WP:NCGN where it is stated that: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). So according to WP rules not only Nakhichevan must be added in the intro, but also it seems that the title of the article must be moved to Nakhichevan by virtue of WP:NC which states that: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (...) The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. According to WP:NCGN we should consult English-language encyclopedias and google to establish the widely accepted name. Nakhichevan is used by Britannica Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia and other sources as Andranikpasha showed [28]. Google search results:

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

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

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

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

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

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