# Talk:Nakhichevan uezd

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nakhichevansky Uyezd. 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/20070424044332/http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html to http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians, as you may know, the common, prevailing theme for Russian Imperial province article names in English Wikipedia is their commonly-appearing Anglicisation in English sources. For example, the more common "Ardahan Okrug" is used instead of the transliterated "Ardagan Okrug" or "Ardaganskii Okrug" (there is no "h" in Russian, it usually is replaced by "g" or "kh"), therefore, to determine the article title for the Nakhichevan Uyezd, the most-commonly appearing spelling/Anglicisation in English language sources should be found, which is commonly done on Wikipedia by counting the search results from searching each variation on Google Ngram, Google Scholar, and Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET.

Google Ngram Search
–All variants compared
Google Scholar Search
–"Nakhichevan uezd": 0 results
–"Nakhichevan uyezd": 4 results
–"Nakhchivan uezd": 6 results
–"Nakhchivan uyezd": 1 result
–"Nakhchyvan uezd": 1 result
–"Nakhchyvan uyezd": 0 results
–"Nakhijevan uezd": 0 results
–"Nakhijevan uyezd": 1 result
Google Advanced Book Search, per WP:SET (hide “Tools” to see totals):
-"Nakhichevan uezd": 2 results
-"Nakhichevan uyezd": 106 results
-"Nakhchivan uezd": 9 results
-"Nakhchivan uyezd": 103 results
-"Nakhchyvan uezd": 14 results
-"Nakhchyvan uyezd": 0 results
-"Nakhijevan uezd": 0 results
-"Nakhijevan uyezd": 0 results
From tallying these results, it's evident that "Nakhchivan Uyezd" is the more commonly appearing variant in English sources (compared with "Nakhichevan Uyezd" with 7 fewer results), hence, the easiest for readers to find and piece-together in their understanding of the counties of the Erivan Governorate. In conclusion, it can be inferred from the results that the most common name variant "Nakhchivan Uyezd" uezd/uyezd should be used in the article title in place of the others, however, the others should be mentioned in the article, in addition to denoting their etymological origin, and creating redirect articles to the "Nakhchivan Uyezd" page. -Nunuxxx (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nunuxxx: I oppose this change and do not think this change should have happened so hastily without some proper discussion. For one, Nakhichevan was the official name during Russian imperial times, “Nakhchivan” is a more recent version that only came after the Uyezd was dissolved. It’s the same reason we don’t call the Erivan Uyezd- “Yerevan Uyezd” or Jebrail Uyezd “Jabrayil Uyezd,” it’s simply historically inaccurate. It is anachronistic to assign this uyezd the name Nakhchivan when it’s official name anglicized was Nakhichevan. In addition, an 8 result difference isn’t enough to infer commonality, especially when examining the sources most that use Nakhchivan uyezd are not quality WP:RS. TagaworShah (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy pinging page mover @Lennart97: TagaworShah (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ve reverted the move awaiting further discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi TagaworShah, thanks for your articulate reply. To answer your first point, the official name of the county during Russian Imperial times was actually "Нахичевань" or "Нахичеванский уезд", not "Nakhichevan". The term "Nakhichevan" is a transliteration/romanization of the original Russian-form, which as stated above is not the standard or style used in English Wikipedia Tsarist district articles, otherwise we would use "Elizabetpol' guberniia", or "Dzhebrail uezd" instead of their more common and understandable Anglicisiations, "Elisabethpol Governorate" and "Jebrail Uyezd" respectively.
Secondly, I do not believe the term "Nakhchivan" is anachronistic as it has always been the Azerbaijani term for the region since the formation of the Nakhichevan Khanate in Afsharid Persia— To say it is 'out of place' is inconsiderate of Nakhichevan's centuries old ethnic-Azerbaijani population. To use terms such as "Ganja" or "Tbilisi" in place of the "Elisabethpol" and "Tiflis" uyezd pages respectively would in my view be anachronistic as they are completely different from the originals and do no represent the same word, rather a modernist renaming, and do not associate in the reader's mind as belonging to the period of Tsarist Russia.
On your last point, anyone can subjectively claim WP:RS, my point is that by numerical means, the term "Nakhchivan" wins over "Nakhichevan" in English sources, which is important to note given a reader's knowledge of the name of the county may be based on reading one of these sources. However, in consideration of the small difference, as stated in the last line of my initial write-up, it may be worthwhile to add "Nakhichevan Uyezd" as another spelling, something along the lines of:
"The Nakhchivan Uyezd, also known as the Nakhichevan Uyezd, ..."
Let me know what you think of this. -Nunuxxx (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nunuxxx: Unfortunately I can’t agree to that for a number of reasons. Firstly, “Nakhchivan” is not the Russian transliteration but the Azerbaijani one. For example, the redirect of Nakhchivan says “Nakhchivan (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan) or Nakhichevan (Armenian: Նախիջևան, Russian: Нахичевань)” The Russian version is directly based on the original Armenian version which is transliterated as Nakhichevan. The Azerbaijani version is also based on the original Armenian name hence why the article is named Nakhichevan Khanate and not Nakhchivan Khanate. The words have a different pronunciation, while yes “Nakhchivan” may have been used by the Azerbaijani population, the official pronunciation of the Uyezd would still be Nakhichevan as the name was adopted directly from Armenian. This is why I believe it is anachronistic as “Nakhchivan” was not widely used in official contexts until the 1920s. Nakhichevan is still a very common name for the region today so I don’t see how that would be anachronistic and like the examples you showed. Lastly, with something like the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, extreme caution needs to be shown to the sources as many unreliable sources have been published in order to push certain ideological agendas, we need to have a closer examination at them to make sure they uphold Wikipedia standards. To reiterate my position, when people are searching the historical Uyezd, the proper common name would be Nakhichevan, while for the modern autonomous republic it is Nakhchivan. Best regards. TagaworShah (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@TagaworShah: I believe you may have misunderstood me, I was saying that your assertion of the original name of the county being "Nakhichevan" is not accurate as that is a transliteration of the Russian term, which to reiterate is not the policy or style of these sorts of articles, and thus is not the basis of the article name.
The etymological origins of the toponym are not assessed to determine the article name, rather, the most frequently used term in English academia and sources is assessed, which as evidenced by the myriad of links I posted above, is "Nakhchivan Uezd/Uyezd". This is inferred regardless of the ideological or political agenda of the sources (I'm well aware many are made by Azerbaijani authors presenting negative, even outright biased views towards Armenian statehood), however, the political agendas of said sources are not the subject of the question here, rather, by objective standards, "Nakhchivan" is evidently more used than "Nakhichevan" when directly referring to the county, thus, I don't see why it shouldn't prevail in this case. With due respect, I do not see how your counter-points are consequential to the subject of discussion regarding the credibility of the sources and the etymological origin of the term "Nakhchivan", especially as the etymological origin of "Nakhchivan" as you stated is not quite 'anachronistic' given its constant use by the local Azerbaijani population, and its wider-use in English sources when referring to the Uyezd. Cheers, -Nunuxxx (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nunuxxx: I don’t see why the official Russian imperial era transliteration and pronunciation  shouldn’t be used. I don’t agree with the way you grouped together the results, it fails to take into account the quality of the sources, books from Lulu.com can hardly be considered academia. The google scholar search for Nakhchivan Uyezd exclusively produced Azerbaijani sources, in case you aren’t aware why these sources rarely meet Wiki guidelines I can recommend you some Wikipedia discussions and literature. If we exclude self published sources and sources coming out of Azerbaijan(for above reasons), it’s evident that “Nakhichevan” is the most common name used for the Uyezd in English third party academia. I understand this level of detail is not the usual procedure in other articles, but for something as complex as the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, it is a necessary precaution. TagaworShah (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@TagaworShah: We don't use transliteration because it's less common in English sources and thus harder to find and interpret for readers, who may, for example, find the term "Jevanshir Uyezd" more familiar and 'read-able' than the clunky transliterated term: "Dzhevanshirskii uezd". However, if you can link some Wikipedia discussions which by consensus disregard such Azerbaijani publications due to the complex political background of the conflict, I may be agreeable to keeping the name "Nakhichevan Uyezd". Otherwise, without any precedent on Wikipedia, I'm opposed to this kind of exclusive examination and appraisal of sources. Cheers, -Nunuxxx (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nunuxxx: The comparisons you make aren’t exactly fair. Nakhichevan is a word that is still used and common to this day, the difference is only 8 results, most of the difference being made up of self published sources. That is hardly enough to make such a bold claim that Nakhchivan Uyezd is more common than Nakhichevan Uyezd in academia. Both of those spellings are modern, both of them have very similar search results, yet only one is the official transliteration which properly associates the Uyezd to this period in the region’s history, Nakhichevan. As for the reliability of sources from Azerbaijan, I would recommend foremost checking out the article Falsification of history in Azerbaijan for multiple academic testimonies on why we should we cautious about such sources. Best, TagaworShah (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)