Talk:Syunik Province

message: Why there is no information about the region in the 2nd millenium?? I don't understand why after 1 millenium comes 20th century?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tebriz (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2006.
: Because it has to be mentioned that the region was part of various Turkic states, such as Ildegizids and Karabakh khanate, and had Turkic population. Apparently, those who wrote this article prefer to think that the region had no history for an entire millenium. Grandmaster 11:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not write about that instead of complaining? Create a section called Syunik under Turko-Mongol yoke or something.--Eupator 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Millenium 

message: I have protected this page.  Please sort out your editing disputes before requesting unprotection.  Please note that I will not change which version is protected, as neither version is blatantly wrong. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Baku, Nakhichevan has millenniums long Armenian history and the word is Armenian. Azeri term does not fit here. VartanM (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Zangezur also has centuries of Azerbaijani history, and was a part of ADR in 1918, when the British placed it under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. So Azerbaijani name belongs here. Grandmaster 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't and it was never part of ADR under any jurisdiction.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Grandmaster, I will not react on your claim that Zangezur was part of ADR since I already reacted on the quote of Swietochowski in the talkpage of ADR. I will only remark that your claim that Syunik has centuries of Azerbaijani history is based on nothing. If you think that the Azerbaijani name of the region must be included in the article, you must come with reasonable arguments based on reliable sources and on WP rules. You even misspelled the Azeri name: indeed it is Zəngəzur (as it is used in the Azeri wikipedia) rather than Zangezur (which is the transliterated Armenian name). As ealier showed, the use of Zəngəzur in English sources is negligable and according to WP rules the common usage of a geographical name is English sources is required to use it in the English WP. --Vacio (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source provided right above shows that Zangezur was under Azerbaijani jurisdiction in 1919. That justifies the inclusion of Azerbaijani name. Grandmaster 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tadeusz Swietochowski? You mean Adil's pawn Tadeusz Swietochowski? Soltanov could not even keept it up with Karabakh, Zankezur? Yeah right!!! If you can provide evidence that Zankezur was writen in Azeri in that period, then you may have something to start debating about. - Fedayee (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. This pretty much slams the nail in the coffin.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: My point of view as an outsider (although I've been in Goris, Tatev and Sisian last summer): the Azerbaijani name of the Syunik marz might be relevant, because Azerbaijan is a neighbouring country, and there is probably an Azeri minority in the marz. However, it should be verified that Zangezur or Zəngəzur is actually used for the current marz, and not only for the (historic) region. Note that Zangezur and (the tsarist Russian administrative division) Zangezurskiy uyezd are mentioned in the article. If applicable, the Azerbaijani name could be mentioned there. Markussep Talk 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There used to be a large Azerbaijani community in this region, which is by now all deported. This article is both for the historic region and the province. Grandmaster 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? there used to be a large Armenian community in Baku before they were deported, much larger than the Azeri minority in Syunik. Do you propose we add an Armenian name in the Baku article's lead? Besides, who said the name Zangezur has anything to do with Azeris?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The article name is "Syunik Province", which can only refer to the present marz IMO. If the article is supposed to cover also the historic region, it might be better to rename it. I suppose the name Syunik wasn't a recent invention, do you know when it was first used for this region? What often helps in these disputes is to add a "names" section, in which the historical and minority names can be described in more detail. See for instance Bratislava. Markussep Talk 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Syunik/Sisakan seem to be more older names, and Zangezur was used in more recent times, but it was also used for many centures. As for the history, this article could be split into 2, one about the region, and one about the province, but I personally think that we can describe the history of the region in the article about the province. After all, every province has its own history, and it can be described in the article without splitting it. Grandmaster 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POINT.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. Grandmaster 12:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the Armenian version for Zangezur is "Zankezur" (in Armenian alphabet: Զանգեզուր, found this in Russian wikipedia). How about adding the Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani names for Zangezur to the section about Imperial Russian rule? Markussep Talk 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean. What I propose is to add the Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani names for Zangezur (Зангезур, Զանգեզուր, Zəngəzur) to the section where the tsarist Russian Zangezurskiy uyezd is discussed. Markussep Talk 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that picture of some men at what appears to be a conference. Anyway, the point of discussion is not so much whether Syunik/Zangezur was ever ruled by Turkic speaking peoples, but whether the Azerbaijani name for the region is relevant for this article. Given the fact that there was a significant Azeri/Tatar population at least around 1900 (and 33 mosques, see for instance this Russian article in the 1906 Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia), the Azerbaijani name seems relevant to me, at least for the historic region. Of course we can discuss about how much emphasis it should get, probably it's too much to put it in the first line of the article if there isn't a sizable Azeri minority at present. Markussep Talk 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, there were no "nomadic tribes" in Zangezur; according to the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopædia, part of 'Azerbaijani Tatars' were sedentary, while their other part and Kurds were engaged in semi-nomadic cattlebreeding. Even if they were - how exactly does being "nomadic" disqualify a group of people from being acknowledged in a certain region? Parishan (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: By the same token, why do you then insist on using the Armenian name in Nakhchivan? The population in the Caucasus was mixed, so why should anyone be able to use the Armenian name in the articles about locations in Azerbaijan and not the other way around? Zangezur was part of the Karabakh khanate, and had a significant Azerbaijani population until 1988. The inclusion of Azerbaijani name is justified. Grandmaster 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "Azerbaijani name"? There isn't justification for including a name spelt using the current Azerbaijani alphabet into the article. The name "Zangezur" is already in the article as an historical/alternative name for the region. Meowy 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Grandmaster, the comparison with Nakhchivan is inappropriate, English sources know the latter by its Armenian name Nakhichevan as showed in the talkpage there() and therefore the Armenian name is included there. Also, your reference to the Karabakh Khanate is not an argument. It had a Turcoman leader and in the late 18th c. most of the present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan comprised such khanates. You also did not react on the remark that similarly Baku had a significant Armenian population until 1988. Your reasoning would imply that the inclusion of Armenian name in the Baku article is justified as well. --Vacio (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said that we need to agree on criteria on inclusion the foreign language names. The argument about history is not relevant, I said more than once that Danzig may have no meaning in German, yet it is included in the article about Gdansk. And Armenia had 80% Muslim majority before the region was conquered by Russia, and most of those Muslims were Azerbaijanis, so the Azerbaijani names belong to most of the locations in Armenia that existed before 1918. I don't know why Panah khan of Karabakh became a Turcoman, while he was an Azerbaijani Turk. I think that foreign language names should be included in all articles about locations with significant Armenian and Azerbaijani population or history. I see no other solution. Grandmaster 05:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the Russian conquest Armenia had no "80% Muslim majority". It was after the Russo-Persian Wars that the Armenians were expulsed from their homeland. And yes, Panah khan was a Turcoman, that comes from academical sources. We do not rewrite articles based on someones personal believes. And again, I don't agree with your proposal which I think is artifical, not to speak about that before 1920 Azeris were not registered as distinct ethnict group, but rather "Muslim" and it is not certain when "Muslims" should be considered as Azeris, when not. --Vacio (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name