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)

Khankendi

1. --Tabib 08:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) I vote for Khankendi as elaborated in my message below.
2. --Baku87 20:01, June 26, 2006 (UTC) I support the name Khankendi
   • The above vote was added a full years after the decision was made; the proper thing to do would be to start a new vote. --Golbez 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Xankandi/Xankändi

(specify a preference among the above, if any)

1. Xankändi. At least from the references provided by Tabib, the most commonly name used in diplomatic fora and by reference sources (the BlankVerse Anti-Google Test) is Xankändi. Even though that transliteration does not result in the most accurate pronunciation by English speakers, it still seems to be the most common one BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • The name has been Stepanakert for a looooong time, and never changed for the locals. Why change it now? I vote for Stepanakert. --RaffiKojian 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The page Xankəndi contain references to "Armenian terrorists" etc which is not in a neutral and encyclopadiac tone which wikipedia aspires for. Please remove those references. Manik Raina 11:01, 24 August 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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)

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)