Talk:Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh

Name

The legislation of NKR holds no actual power as the NKR is internationally unrecognized. The objective criteria as required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Multiple local names would be the international borders of Azerbaijan the town falls within and such sources as World Places or World Geographics, which use Khojavend, not Martuni. Brandmeister[t] 17:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Your decision to recognise NKR, or not. But actually, NKR is exist and You can't agree with me. You think that Armenians have occupied the teritory of NKR. But look clearly. Martuni was absolutely Armenian city where Azeri minority was so small, as Armenian minority in Beylagan or Agdjhabedi and You know it. And I'm sure that You remember how Azeris make massacre near Martakert in village Maragha. There were massacres in whole Azerbaijan. You've decided to send away Armenians and Armenians decided to make a self-defence, so what a problem? NKR and Azerbaijan today live separately. You have separated from USSR and today Russia don't claim to the teritory of Azerbaijan.

I'm sure that You know about the principle of the statute of UNO about self-determination of nations. Other countries don't recognise NKR, because there is working Minsk group OSCE. When Azerbaijan will start a war, a lot of countries will recognise NKR. So I reccomend You to stop Your propaganda and to start live in peace with Your neigbours. On every Your source I can give my source with Armenian name, so there is no sence in participation. So I revert Your rename as the name of this city is:

- Khojavend according to the de-jure of Azerbaijan;

- Martuni according to the de-jure of NKR;

- Martuni according to the de-facto situation which is the most important as wikipedia isn't a political encyclopedy and first of all it should view a real situation in the article. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a place for political statements. There are two sides of the story. In your mind it could be "Martuni was absolutely Armenian all the time", in others' - a name Martuni was given to the town and region after Soviet takeover of Azerbaijan and carving out an NKAO in the 1920's thus replacing the historical name of the village Khojavend. For you Armenians always lived there, for others, they migrated to the location en masse after Gulistan and Turkmenchay Treaties in 1813 and 1828, respectively. "Self determination" principle can't be applied to Nagorno-Karabakh because it didn't go through the necessary stages of procedures and referendums. Otherwise, without the consent of Azerbaijan, the separation was illegal along with occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign resulting in 800,000 Azerbaijani IDPs. I'm sure you also heard of the territorial integrity principle. But this is all a part of separate discussion which is to be done elsewhere. Right now, the fact is that Nagorno-Karabakh is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan and the names of its administrative divisions and towns are given by Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, I can deny EACH Your statement.

• You can't prove that Martuni was anytime named Khojavend before the last conflict. And I'll even say You that the name Khojavend was given by Azeri authorities because in the suburb of the city there were an Azeri village Khojavend.
• Armenians have been living in Artsakh for thousands of years. The best prove is Tigranakert and a great number of monasteries which were built since the VI century. According the Azeri point of view the history of Artsakh begins from foundation of Shushi. You know when it was founded.
• According to the Self determination principle, EVERY nation has a right of self-determination. Maybe I'll illuminate You but there were a referendum according to which 99,89% of participants were for independence. Note: there were no refereundum in Azerbaijan about separation from USSR. Azeri and Soviet government make an ethnic cleanings for ages, so Armenians shouldn't wait just when the soldiers would kill them just because they were Armenians.
• Then You've mentioned about "800,000 Azerbaijani IDPs". Why not a million!? Azeri governmend claimed a million. Speaking seriously I can say the next. You have not said even a word about 450,000 of Armenians who lived in AzSSR. Why? I don't know. Then we return to the "800 000". There were census in 1989. According to this census the population of 7 districts is 421,726. The population of NKAO (without Shaumyan district) was 187,789. Even counting that all of 421,726 where Azeris and whole this district are under the control of NKR (but it's not so) and plus 23% of population of NKAO (23% of population of NKR were Azeris in 1989; f.e. in 1970 - 18,1%, in 1959 - 13,8%) is 43,187. So we have 421,726 + 43,187 = 464,913. It's a maximal number of Azeri IDPs which is realy less nearly on 5-10%.
• Right know the city name is Martuni and You know it. It's citisens have never named their city as Khojavend, because the Azeri government give this name after the liberation of city from Soviet troops yet. So the name must be that which was used for everytime. --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really hard to understand what exactly you're trying to say. Khojavend was the pre-Soviet name. It could have been named dozen different names. The fact of the matter is that it's called Khojavend now by the de-jure government. If the de-facto government is not recognized internationally, how can the names it assigns to towns be recognized? I don't doubt that Armenians lived in the region for several hundreds of years. I don't think anybody doubts that, but they have always been a minority in Karabakh in pre-Turkmenchay times and were only relocated to Karabakh en masse after 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay. That's a recorded history by local historians, ambassador Griboyedov, etc. Tigranakert and some of the monastries in Karabakh are still a subject of debate. Many of them had been recorded as monuments of Caucasian Albania before they were armenianized. You can view talk page discussions on several Wiki pages on the subject. However, please note that nobody tries to deny Armenian presence in Karabakh, even the whole potential ancient city of Tigranakert. There could have been an Armenian state or states in Karabakh in the past, but that doesn't give anyone a reason to force out its native population, ethnically cleanse and massacre Azeri civilians and establish a puppet regime on the territory of a neighbor state, just for the sake of creating Greater Armenia. If that were the case, then every empire which had existed on this planet would go on a re-conquering rampage. You would see Italians, Greek fighting all nations from Africa to India, French and German from Brussels to Moscow, and ironically Azerbaijan could also strike Armenia trying to re-conquer its Erevan Khanate, where Azeris were quite a considerable majority in pre-Soviet times.

So, as hard as you can try to portray Armenian majority in the region, you won't succeed. Moreover, after 1828 up until 1988, the Armenian population of Karabakh and Zangezur increased while Azerbaijani population substantially decreased. The most inhuman exodus of more than hundred thousand Azeris from Armenia took place in 1948-53. That's when Azeris were forced out from their historical homes in Zangezur and Yerevan (See Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia and (in Russian) Депортация и переселение азербайджанцев из Армении в XX веке to live in hot and dry lowlands of southeastern Azerbaijan and the living space was given to Armenians from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why Armenia was going towards a mono-ethnic state and expelling Azeris so that one day, when they wanted to occupy Karabakh using so called "self determination", as an excuse, Azeris wouldn't have the same right to demand an autonomy within Armenia. In fact, Azeris never did. Neither with Zangezur, nor with any other region of Armenia. That should tell you about friendliness of Azeris.

I say 800,000 IDP because IDPs are Internally Displaced Persons, i.e. ones that were forced out from former NKAO and 7 surronding regions of Azerbaijan. Apart from that number, there are 200 thousand Azeris forced out from 1987-89 from Armenia proper. If you add that up, it comes to a million. Simple math.

No legitiate referendum was held at any time. On July 18, 1988, Supreme Soviet of USSR rejected any petitions and referendums from Armenians and reiterated that NKAO would remain in Azerbaijan. So, the Armenian referendum held in Karabakh was not approved neither by Soviet leadership, nor by Azerbaijan SSR which makes it unconstitutional. The number 99.89% you so bravely indicated is actually the number of votes by Armenian community of former NKAO. Azerbaijani community never got to vote because it was forced out. I wonder how would you perceive a possible "referendum" by Azeri minority of Zangezur in 1940 which would proclaim a self-established state with total disregard to Armenian SSR.

Again, all of this can be discussed elsewhere. On this page, the fact is that Khojavend is de-jure Azerbaijani and Brandmeister gave you the criteria above according to whic Wikipedia articles are sourced. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough time to take part in historical discussion. I can write some sentences if I disagree with Your some sentences. But I don't have enough time to answer You on historical questions when I disagree totaly with everything You say. I agree only with one of Your phrase "all of this can be discussed elsewhere". So I want remember You, that:

• before the conflict the name was Martuni;
• before the conflict the name was never Khojavend (it's the name of neighbour Azeri village);
• the absolute majority of population always was Armenian;
• Azeri forces haven't controle the city even a minute, the city was liberated by Armenians not from the Azeri troops, but from Soviet troops, however till to the end of war, in 1994 Azeri army actively bombarded the city, fired him from the east and regularly shelling.
• nowadays the city is under the control of NKR and absolute majority of the citisens saved their homes.
• according to the recent administrative division of NKR, Martuni is a district centre of the Martuni district.

So what a problem? A state who destroyed, cut off and forced to leave the homes of the city on which it claims but have never controle want to name it Khojavend. Each state became independent from other state. We can rename Ganja back to Kirovabad and continue this long list. NKR is not a state of terorists or drugs as claim Azerbaijan. There live such humans as You and I, who have a similar rights as You and I. They have a right to a freedom, according to which the proclaimed independence after the referendum. The only Your fact is that Martuni situated in the International borders of Azerbaijan. I repeat that Russia today don't claims to the teritory of Azerbaijan, United Kingdom don't claims on the teritory USA and etc. If USA and Russia, Kosovo and Taiwan, Armenia and Azerbaijan can be independent, so why can't be independent NKR? --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Armenian community of Karabakh has the right to live in peace. They are legally of Azerbaijani citizenry and Azerbaijan does not threaten to force the civilians out, just the puppet regime and their puppetiers with guns in their hands. With your poor vision, you claim Armenians like "you and I" deserve to live untouched and 800,000 Azeris deserve to live in tents, away from their real homes. Bravo to your logic. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Armenian community", "Azerbaijani citizenry", "Azerbaijan does not threaten to force the civilians" - ARE YOU JOKING!? Armenians were always majority in Artsakh, while during different times there were several minorities of Jews, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Russians, Greeks and other nations. How can be Americans just a community in the U.S.!? They are not a minority. The absolute majority of the population of NKR are citisens of NKR, but no one on Azerbaijan. Third phrase is the most interesting. Armenians who ever lived in Artsakh or Azerbaijan, know better than You or official Baku propogand what have doing Azeris with Armenians. If You still don't know, I can illuminate You on a simple historical facts which knows everyone who read even a little info about the last war.

My "poor vision" is wiser than Your in several times because I don't say that there were refugees only from Armenian side, while You everytime speak about myphical 800,000. I've said the real number higher, read attentive. And the last thing I want to say that the government of Azerbaijan spends billions od dollars on Army and that's why Azeri refugees still live in tents after 16 years from the end of war, while in "poor" Armenia this problem was solved yet in 2000. I repeat that in the late 80-es in the AzSSR lived 450,000 of Armenians (from them 270,000 in Baku, 55,000 in Kirovabad, 17,000 in Sumgait, etc). --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is really irrelevant. Here's the facts:

• The area is internationally recognized as Azerbaijan.
• The area is completely, 100%, in the control of local Karabakhis.
• The exiled Azeri name for the town is Khojavend.
• The local Karabakhi name for the town is Martuni.

Now, Khojavend Rayon cannot be renamed; it remains a district of Azerbaijan, as designated by their government. It is a political construct. The city is a different matter. It has not had an Azeri mayor for 20 years, it has had very few Azeris in it for 20 years, and it lies behind the mutually agreed upon line of control, as set in the Bishkek Protocol. For municipal names, I have to give the benefit of the doubt - in the situation that there is no common English name, and there is no common English name for most locations in Nagorno-Karabakh - to the local municipal government. Azerbaijan is known to rename its own cities (Ali Bayramli to Shirvan is one example), but they have no power at present to rename Khojavend to anything. They could try, but it would be a change on paper alone. And unlike a political district, a city actually has meaning. There might be a municipal government in exile (though no link is supplied as evidence for that), but it appears to me that Martuni is the name of the city to 1) the people who live there, and 2) the people who have power there. Wikipedia is charged with reflecting reality. Which is more real: The situation of politicians in Baku, or the situation of people living and controlling the city itself for the last 20 years? --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Golbez with some notes. There are Khojavend Rayon (according to Az.), which contains disembodied Martuni and Hadrut Rayons in the size of the pre-conflict territory. Azerbaijan controls less than 10% of Khojavend Rayon. And there is a Martuni Rayon (according to NKR) which contains Martuni Rayon in the size of the pre-conflict territory and partially a southern part of Agdam and north part of Fizuli Rayons. But NKR don't control the eastern part of Martuni Rayon. NKR controls nearly 85% of Martuni Rayon. So the definitions are different. Mostly I agree with Your other statements. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Khojavend Rayon and Martuni Division exist; they are not coterminous, and both sides have varying amounts of control over the territory. However, this isn't about the division; this is about the *town*, which is soldily on the Karabakh side of the line of control, and has been for twenty years. --Golbez (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, you approach the subject with some understandable logic claiming that if the place has been under control of Armenians, then the names of those locations should be what the people living in the area want them to be named. Yes, it is true and they can call them whatever they want up until ceratin time in the negotiation process, however you forget one big detail. 3-4 Wikipedia users can't change the way the towns and villages are called internationally and incorporate it into Wikipedia. If these towns are still internationally recognized as parts of Azerbaijan and their names are shown as Azerbaijani, then there is no reason to rename them in encyclopedia. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're implying there's any international name for these towns. That the area is nearly universally accepted as being part of Azerbaijan is one thing, but I very much doubt any country or organization has an opinion on the name of towns inside it. I know the US and UN specifically say that they don't care a whit about internal borders, so they probably don't care about internal names.

For 30-some years, the mainland part of China was considered part of the Republic of China... if Wikipedia were around and cities and borders had been redrawn inside that without Taipei's wishes, would we still have catered to them despite the overwhelming truth of the situation on the ground? Or is it difference because the PRC had more recognition, or because the PRC had [far] more people? I'm not saying, "This city has been captured and renamed overnight", I'm saying, at a certain point, and I think nearly two decades is a good one, you have to stand back and say, "The conflict is stale/stable, the people living here have named it that, and no one has exercised any authority otherwise." And, finally: Azerbaijan agreed to the line of control and, thus, de facto control of the area to Karabakh authorities. Do they really get to cede de facto control but still say, "But we get to name your towns!"? My personal opinion is that the articles, in the absence of a common English name (I think Shusha might qualify under that one), should use the names given to them by the municipal governments that have been in power for 20 years. (I feel the same way about Northern Cyprus, which is why I was annoyed to find out that most, if not all, of our articles on towns in the TRNC use Greek names) --Golbez (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, don't you think the international community has more weight than your arguments here? US government and UN that you indicated ([1] or this UN map) realize the situation but yet they put either the internationally recognized name of the town/village/area or both, with de-facto name being in parenthesis which is the correct and commonly accepted way of showing the current status. So, whether you believe the de-facto municipalities administering those occupied regions should name the towns/villages/area to their likes or not, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not be held to your opinion alone. I do value your opinion and considerable inputs for Wikipedia, but this one does not correspond to proper ways of handling the names of locations. One, ten, or hundred should not re-invent the way the administrative units are called, or rather, recorded. Again, I am not against including the current de-facto names either. All I am saying is that when indicating those names, we need to put them in parenthesis just like any normal organization and institution does. Otherwise, this sounds like car being stolen, license plate changed so that everybody recognizes the car by its current plate. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said it should be held to my opinion, and I find your statement to be one of trying to turn this into an argument based on a logical fallacy. If I thought that, I would have moved the article already. As for your 'stolen car' analogy, that would only qualify if at some point, the owner said, "Fine, keep it... FOR NOW" and kept everyone waiting 20 years to make his next move. Finally, see the corner of that UN map? "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations." Apparently the 'international community' has no opinion. --Golbez (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, let me clarify. By saying "your" I didn't mean "your opinion" as in specifically Golbez's opinion. I was just implying that neither you, me nor anyone else should re-write the conventional ways of naming of administrative divisions, especially in encyclopedia. As for your "Fine, keep it... FOR NOW" argument, we both know it's not that easy to start a war, even with somewhat military superiority when these states are located in between local superpowers, if you will, or those superpowers which have immediate interests in the region. So, let me rephrase: car is stolen, license plate illegally replaced, and it's kept in a garage the leasing party of which says: "I guard the garage" :) This is all about politics. The map that I placed there was just an example. We both know that if needed, there are hundreds of maps, resolutions and international documents specifying the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. So, let's not even go there. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NovaSkola has taken it upon himself to very rudely move the article. I won't move it back, but I'll support anyone who does, on purely procedural grounds. --Golbez (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hei, I never noticed this talk page so your support for armenians doesn't put you in neutral level. Khojavand region was formed on the bases of Azerbaijani Martuni and Hadrud regions after the Daqliq Qarabaq Autonomous Region was liquiadated in 1991. It is not rocket science, even in CIA world factbook it goes under name of Khojavand not Martuni.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My "support of Armenians"? Oh, how I love it when someone accuses me of supporting one side or the other. You'll go far here, Nova. And by far, I mean, read the arbitration about Armenian/Azeri arguments. --Golbez (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a support of Armenians, Nova. Golbez is just trying to understand and find the right way. Discussions help both parties and admins to understand and come to consensus. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the discussion is still ongoing, and that NovaSkola didn't even consider to read up on it, I have moved this article back to the version that Golbez had reverted to. I'll add more content to it in the coming future. Until then, let's discuss away.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To achieve consensus, I propose that a neutral user sent a letter to two addresses. One to the "Khojavend, Azerbaijan", and another to the "Martuni, NKR". Which letter comes, those name will be in top of the article. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, that's not bad. However, that has problems: So far as I know, "Nagorno-Karabakh" is not an option for mailing from the US or possibly any other UPU member. So you'd have to address it through "Armenia", and while it might arrive, that certainly would not help anyone trying to say that Nagorno-Karabakh isn't occupied by Armenia. :P --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But at least we can try to do it. :-) --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what was the final consensus, Golbez? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not my job, I have an opinion. --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting the final decision. I don't agree with actions of User:NovaSkola as they were unhonest. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Title

I move-protected the page after a request on RfPP as it seemed to be lurching back and forth. I have no opinion as to which is preferable, and the fact that it was protected on this name doesn't mean it has to stay there. Ліонкінг has said there's no consensus for the current title. The best thing would be to hold an RfC/poll, then ask an admin to close it and decide what the consensus is. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for more information. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Martuni, Nagorno Karabakh, as the argument is that "Martuni" is the common name for this topic, and not that this topic is the primary for that title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Khojavend (town) → Martuni
• Martuni → Martuni (disambiguation)

– "Martuni" is used far more and is far more prevalent in reliable sources than "Khojavend" is. WP:COMMONNAME regarding place names states that a common name is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", a Google search shows far more views for Martuni [2] than Khojavend [3], the same is true for Google Scholar [4] [5]. I would therefore argue that an article move to Martuni would be prudent. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: the Martuni page is a dab page with significant content and is ineligible as a new title for this article unless it is also renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral. This is premature, since the next few days and weeks will clarify exactly what the Russian-imposed five-year peace agreement entails. The text of yesterday's signed agreement omits any mention of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan may be able to impose its nomenclature even on the territory that its troops did not enter. It is not even clear at this moment exactly where the frozen front lines lie: one fairly well-informed video blogger (Yuri Podolyaka), who was one of the first to report the Azeri taking of Shusha even before their own government did so, suggests that Khojavend/Martuni might even currently be in the hands of the Azeris even if they have not announced it. (YouTube, in Russian, at 6:50). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@P.T. Aufrette: As far as I've seen, the town has not been reported as captured by Azeri forces by any reliable sources. A YouTube vlogger cannot be seen as a reliable source - However, the same blogger has utilized a Russian military map showing Martuni under Artsakh control [6]. Even so, I would argue that it doesn't really matter - the basis for determining settlement names on Wikipedia is to utilize the common names of the localities, Madagiz was recently renamed back to its common name (Madagiz) despite it being renamed by Azerbaijan to "Suqovuşan" after it was captured. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That point is not central, so I removed it. However, yesterday's major new development – the Russian five-year peace agreement – strongly indicates that we will have much more clarity in the next few days and weeks regarding not just nomenclature but much else. This is a highly volatile situation, not a frozen conflict as it was previously, and anything we discuss right now might be obsoleted very soon, literally within days. Let's wait on this and discuss it again in a few weeks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@P.T. Aufrette: I think the standard week's wait per Wikipedia procedure is appropriate, also with regards to the cease-fire agreement. If any changes on the ground or other developments come to light - then they can be taken into consideration in the future. As you can see in the discussion above - the move is long overdue, as all the other Artsakh-related major settlement articles utilize the common names of the towns. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment. It is important to note that "Martuni" isn't just the name for this town, but also a well-known town in Armenia and several other things. So the Google results don't say much in this case. I agree with P.T. Aufrette that we should wait until things are clearer. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: "Martuni (town)" as the disambiguation page already specifies, or "Martuni, Nagorno Karabakh" would both be fine in my view as well, if "Martuni" needs to be reserved for the disambiguation page. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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

The article is out of date, the town is under Azerbaijan government control for over 1 month now

Couldn't even posted update tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.104.233 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Separatist Armenian terrorists were defeated by Azerbaijan in 20 September 2023! Azerbaijan re-gained full sovereignty over Martuni. The title of the Wiki-article is now obsolete, and needs to be updated.

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive: Following the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive, the town came under control of Azerbaijani forces on 26 September 2023. Azerbaijan's authorities reportedly dismantled a statue of Armenian militant Monte Melkonian. 212.174.38.3 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Name of article

Why still name of article is Martuni? Its name is Khojavend, because it is already under the control of Azerbaijan both de-facto and de-jure -- Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles are named based on Wikipedia:Common names and Martuni is the common name of the city. TagaworShah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Common name? Who determines that common name of city is Martuni? One year later, people will go here and they see "Khojavend" text not "Martuni". At that time, they will see Martuni in Wikipedia as a name of this city? It is totally illogical. What a funny reason you came up with? Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s the guidelines of Wikipedia, maybe in one year the common name will change, but as of now, the cities native inhabitants who have been forced from their homes have been calling the city Martuni for decades. TagaworShah (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Even now, name of article should be changed. It does not any make sense who call it as Martuni. Its official name is always de-jure Khojavend, prior to victory of Azerbaijan, de facto it is part of breakaway state Republic of Artsakh, but now? Both de-facto and de-jure it is part of Azerbaijan, and its Azerbaijani official name is Khojavend. Greeks call Istanbul as Constantinople, so let's change name of article Istanbul to Constantinople? It is no way to staying name of article as Martuni, no way. You are clearly manipulating the fact. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The common name of the city was Khojavend. Before Armenian invasion and occupation, the city was being called Khojavend. Armeniams changed the name of the city from Khojavend to Martuni. Azerbaijan restored its sovereignty and control over Khojavend by defeating and expelling illegal separatist Armenian terrorists. None of the 193 UN member countries recognized Artsakh; even Armenia has not recognized illegal separatist terrorist regime "Artsakh". Title must be changed to Khojavend.Nepal2000 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As for the common name issue, the Wiki-article "" was started on 18.08.2008 17:52; namely, during illegal separatist terrorist Armenian invasion and occupation. The history of Khojavend dates back to centuries ago. The city was renamed to Martuni just during to 1988-1994 1st Karabakh War after being invaded by Armenians. The city was known to be as Khojavend for centuries.Nepal2000 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Naming dispute should be resolved

The argument for using the so-called common name of the settlement is pure nonsense. Today, this city is de jure under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Therefore, it should be replaced with its Azerbaijani name, Khojavend. 78.190.238.171 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)