Talk:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic/Archive 8

message: I found another source on population of Nakhichevan after submission to the Russian empire. American missionaries traveled to Nakhichevan in 1833, and their information generally corresponds with what Griboyedov wrote in 1828:
Page 62
Nakhechevan contains, besides perhaps 2000 moslem families, between eight and nine hundred families of Armenians, of which 100 or 120 are original inhabitants, and the remainder emigrants from Persia. It is the capital of a province of the same name whose governor is a moslem khan. We had a letter to him from the governor of the whole province of Armenia, on our return from Erivan, but he was not in town, and we failed of seeing him. The Russian major commandant, however, who formed one of the body of responsible advisers, with which government has carefully surrounded him, treated us with attention at both visits. Respecting the province we obtained very little statistical information, except that before the war it contained not more than 300 families of Armenians. The number of that nation which subsequently emigrated from Persia, was stated to us by their bishop, from documents lying before him, at 9000 families. But how many of them settled in this vicinity we were not informed. We afterward found several villages of them in the province of Erivan.
Researches of the Rev. E. Smith and Rev. H.G.O. Dwight in Armenia, Volume II. 
Grandmaster 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and? Nobody ever disputed this information to begin with. Armenians were resettled in Nakhichevan. -- Clevelander 11:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clevelander, read the archive 4 and the other previous discussions. For a reason you now seem to have some critical sense, so maybe you will view the article in a more critical light. Regards. Fad (ix) 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of Nakhichevan 

message: Check in archive 3 and 4. Fad (ix) 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have already quoted those sources 

message: The small map has the Kerki exclave (in the northern part of Naxcivan), but the larger, oversized map does not. It should be added. --AdilBaguirov 08:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's a problem with the source - it's a CIA or UN map, and while it's possible to add it, it would probably look sloppy and unprofessional. --Golbez 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand. But what if just put a black dot and the usual double-edged arrow between it and Naxcivan? Would that too look pretty bad? There are maps that show it, like here: http://www.un-az.org/karta.jpg , http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/azerbjan.htm --AdilBaguirov 09:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should modify the UN map.  The one directly above it as well as both the Nakhichevan ASSR map and the Nakhichevan subdivisions map both show Karki. -- Aivazovsky 11:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Naxcivan - Kerki exclave 

message: Only on the web, can this sort of thing happen, thanks(an ironic thanks) to google. Francis, I will blame you here to not come and step. Francis, where have you seen Grandmaster ever providing ANYTHING which shows that Muslims from Nakhichevan were resettled? The only thing he provided was in relation to moving of population while Persia and Ottoman were fighting which does NOT EQUAL to resettlment as in changes of residency. He is shouting on his feet and doesn't even know it yet, Kengerli being placed as governor under Abbas actually shows that he is wrong, since the region after its Armenian population was resettled in Iran was placed under Turkic juridiction once again. And the claimed delimitation of Nakhichevan is simply a fabrication, it was only under Shah Nader in the 18th century that there was any real delimitation which still was different than those of today, Kengerli's Nakhichevan is not todays Nakhichevan.
Also, that Grandmaster include this quote reach simply sarcasm: the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. EXACTLY MY POINT!!! That Armenians were resettled, not just moved, I have documented that, that Armenians were specifically targetted, this too I have documented. Armenians were not simply moved during wars when population movement are important in the area affected, the Armenians were then transported in Iran and transplanted there, this too I have documented while Grandmaster will always requote his same soyrce again and over again, which only shows population movement and NOT resettlement, NO 'transplantation.' So Grandmaster: the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Fad (ix) 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very tired of Armenian POV pushers too, who seem to stop at nothing. But facts are stubborn -- and they have been provided in abundance. I see that now Fadix is no more claiming that Georgians too were resettled. Good. Then let's see if in addition to all other facts presented, including by Grandmaster, we can have some more in regards to Muslims. Well, heres from Tarih-i Nadiri (History of Nadir shah), by Mirza Mehdi-khan of Astrabad, published in Moscow, 1938, Vol II, edited by Ivanov P.P.:
11 По словам Мухаммед Садыка Мервези Шах Аббас I, завоевав Мерв, поселил в нем один из каджарских родов —иззэддинлю. См. рукопись Публ. библ., V. 3; 23, л. 84а; ср. В. А. Жуковский. Развалины Старого Мерва, стр. 78, 79. Автор “Насих-ут-таварих” относит переселение племени каджаров к 995 г. х. (1586/87 г.). По приказу шаха Аббаса, каджары были переселены из Гянджи и Еривана и водворены на землях Астрабада. Те из каджар, которые поселились вверху крепости Мубарек-абад, были названы, говорит он, “юхари-баш”, а поселившиеся внизу крепости — “ашак-баш”. Другую половину каджаров шах Аббас поселил в Мерве. Этим мероприятием имелось в виду “охранить округ Астрабада и Мазандерана от набегов туркмен и оберегать земли Хорасана от беспокойств, причиняемых племенами узбеков” (“Насих-ут-таварих”, стр. 8).
The relevant sentence excerpt is: "By the order of shah Abbas, Qajars [Azerbaijani Turkic tribal confederation] were resettled from Ganja and Erivan, and put into the lands of Astrabad." Note - Astrabad is Gorgan city since 1930 name change. 
http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus9/Mechdi/primtext.phtml
 
As promised, there are many more interesting references and scholarly accounts available. --AdilBaguirov 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the name of the Armenian editors here in Wikipedia, I REQUEST you to appologize for your prejudicial remark. If you have a problem with me and accuse me of POV pushing do so against me and don't use prejudicial remarks such as this, it is unacceptable. Neither Ganja nor Erivan are Nakhichevan, and Qajars were not moved from Nakhochevan and there was a purpouses in Abbas decision which could not have been applied to others. There were unrest of Lezgians, Ouzbeks and Turkmen applicable to the other regions, from which Abbas reorganized tribinal groups in respectif regions, this is how some Turkic majority were carved in some regions of present day Azerbaijan. But again, those are tribs and throwing words like 'Azerbaijani Turkic tribal confederation' won't give those tribs with limited population any grounds for your claim. You are simply searching for few words to support your position and it is evident that you lack the knowledge to process the data you accumulate, it isen't by searching like this that you will get this knowledge. Now, if you could please find relevant materials for Nakhichevan. Also, I am waiting you to appologize for your prejudicial remark. Fad (ix) 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have never denied anything in regard to the Georgians, I concentrated on Armenians, because I was referring to the Armenian plateau. Fad (ix) 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You yourself have not provided a single reliable source on the population of Nakhichevan and the numbers of people resettled from Nakhichevan, and since you’ve been talking about “plateau”, info provided by Adil is quite relevant and shows that not only Armenians were deported from that “plateau”, but Muslims as well. And I think it’s you who should apologize first for calling other editors POV pushers. Grandmaster 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By taking his defense, you are simply digging a hole. I have provided various sources which mention Nakhichevan, Adil source has nothing to do with Nakhichevan, Qajars resettlement into three spot is much well documented to silence unrests of other groups(which further confirms that even small groups resettlements are documented while your claimed resettlement of the Muslim population of Nakhichevan is not), it has no connection with Nakhichevan, neither do few small tribunal groups in Erivan qualify as any evidence for Nakhichevan. And no, I don't have to provide any figures unlike what you claim, since my proposed version does not contain any figures at all, and my documentation clearly mention that a large part of the entire Armenian population from the entire region. This is really implicit, it is not about few Armenian cities or towns, but rather a resettlement of large scale. Your claimed resettlement does not exist. Also, indeed you are a POV pusher, assuming good faith, there is no way anymore. But I won't go on to say 'Azeri POV pushers.' Fad (ix) 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far the sources only show that the entire population of Nakhichevan was moved to the other side of Araks. There’s no reason to think that the Armenians were the majority of population or were specifically targeted. If they were targeted, why moving the entire population, which was not Armenian? You provided sources claiming that Armenians were resettled from Armenia, Adil provided a source, showing that Muslim were resettled from the same area as well. While both your and his sources have nothing to do with Nakhichevan, it was you who started discussing resettlement of people from Erivan, instead of providing sources on Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not reading me. First, Nakhichevan is NOT the Autonomious republic, second Arakel specificaly discribes Abbas tragectory and third, now pay a careful look at this. Resettlement does not amount to population movement. War was fought there, the Ottoman and Persia were fighting, the population movement was important, both side moved population where they were fighting, the differences being that the Armenians who were moved were transplanted in Persia, onces the war was over, slowly the Muslims who moved returned, THEY WERE NOT RESETTLED, THEY WERE NOT TRANSPLANTED. After Abbas, Arakel only report Muslims left there and even on Ararat plain which was controled by the Ottoman Empire and Kars, the Armenian population dropped significantly while the Muslim population did not, and further the Muslims returned. Adil referrence is totally unrelated with Nakhichevan, Qajars were not removed the same years and their removal is totally unrelated, they were removed to shut Lezgian, Turkmen and Ouzbeks revolts and they weren't the only tribs in that regard, Abbas moved significant numbers of tribs and formed 'sedentarism' out of nomads to screw the geoethnographical situation and further secure his power. But on the Armenian plateau, the Armenians were those whom mostly were affected, and this is what I have documented and which you refuse to accept. Fad (ix) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tired with POV pushers 

message: I suggest to use Ottoman Tax Registrars covering 1724-1727 to study the ethnic composition of not only Nakhichevan, but also Gandja-Karabakh, Lori, Irevan and etc. when these territories became under control of Turks.  As far as I know Armenian and Georgian scholars have started to study this source even earlier than Azerbaijani ones did it in 1996 and onwards.  There is said to be also Safavi Tax Registrars dating back to earlier centuries, however, I have not seen any editions or translations of them.  Starting from these days, I will cite info on ethnic composition of Nakhichevan, and especially Julfa, which is very interesting.  I think those that claim that Moslems returned after 1604 deportations, but Armenians did not, are jumping ahead and to wrong conclusions.  If someone from Armenia who is aware of this source's Armenian edition and want to cross-check their version with mine, that would be very nice.  These tax registrars registered all adult men (above age 14), be it Muslim or non-Muslim who were supposed to pay tax.  It goes to village by village, mentions each name of such an adult.  It also shows which non-Muslim villages were already converted to Catholisism by the Ottoman's ally in those days - the French and their religeous missionaries.--Ulvi I. 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are pre-Ceride-i Nüfus Nezareti(1831), with no centralisation. And above all, they're over a century after Abbas. Pre-Ceride-i Nüfus Nezareti aren't even used for central Anatolia. For NK, we already have the official census of 1820s. Fad (ix) 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we know though, is that the Ottoman recorded 2,4 million Armenians in Anatolia in the 1840s, mostly Eastern Anatolia, but past where Safavits were one time on another in power, the Armenian population was insignificant, there was a huge 'whole.' Without Abbas, clearly Nakhichevan would have been populated by its majority of Armenians, it is on the innerside of the plateau bordering the Ottoman, on the other side of the frontier Armenians were constituting a majority. So definitly the depopulation of Armenia by the Safavits is what made the demographic change. Fad (ix) 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Tax Registrars as source to study demography of Nakhichevan in early 18th c. 

message: I don't know why to include 19th century German scholar as a reference, but origin of the name is clearly Persian.  I am sure some people editing this entry knows Armenian and/or Persian.  I have deleted the section it said it is originally an Armenian word.  And, please leave it like that.  It is nonsense to state an obvious Persian word as Armenian.
: In Wikipedia we must be neutral and show all views. That means you're not allowed to delete the section about Armenian name. In Armenian language Nakhichevan means the place of descent. Vartanm 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter even if what you're saying is true. Besides, original research is prohibited.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually Armenian is an Indo-European language, and hence, its foundation is based on ancient Persian. As such, our unsigned poster is right -- the "Armenian" etymology is in reality Persian, which is hardly surprizing, considering the language family of Armenian being Iranic. Plus, depending on the pronunciation of Naxcivan, in Persian جهان means "world". What is disturbing though, is that here Vartan and Eupator passionately argue for leaving in the Armenian etymology because of "doesn't matter even if what you'are saying is true" (nice!) and "In Wikipedia we must be neutral and show all views" (if only the writers of these beautiful words were to abide by this advice!), yet above contradict all this (plus his own acceptance, in case of Aivazovsky) by trying to argue against the inclusion of the Azerbaijani etymology. --AdilBaguirov 08:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a single word in the above paragraph is based on facts.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How do you know? --AdilBaguirov 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research; continue. I have already documented that all notable sources on its etymology claims it to be Armenian. I have also provided a work written by a Muslim author. Oh yeh, OK since Armenian is Iranic, every Armenian word is indeed Iranian. Much like every Armenian kings are not Armenian, or all Armenian historic monuments are Albanian..., good going Adil. Continue even during the Arbcom case. Fad (ix) 03:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the Name 

message: Since there are several historic structures of interest to UNESCO, we should include this into the article: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1173/ It can be inlcuded either in the Culture section, or in the line: "In 12th century, the city of Nakhichevan became the capital of the state of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, also known as Ildegizid state, which included most of Iranian Azerbaijan and significant part of South Caucasus. [21] The magnificent 12th century mausoleum of Momine khatun, the wife of Ildegizid ruler, Great Atabeg Jahan Pehlevan, is the main attraction of modern Nakhichevan." --AdilBaguirov 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be added. Grandmaster 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNESCO 

message: Once again, clarified the wording about EP to: In March 2006, Azerbaijan did not give permission to a few European Parliament members from inspecting and examining the burial site, accusing them of "biased and hysterical approach". European Parliament: Azeri Authorities Committed Flagrant Vandalism Act. Added citations that both Orontids and Artaxiads were Persian and otherwise of Iranian origin. Added back the Azerbaijani ethymology of the word with two citations that were removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above is your pov interpretation. I suggest you open an RFC, because this is becoming tiresome.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your words are not enough for a revert -- what is the substance of your accusation? Can you read the text? Then read please -- even The Independent article clealy says barred the delegation of MPs, not the EP itself. Or are you disputing that Orontids were Persian, and Artaxiads were of Iranian origin as well? I have presented extensive references, which are all scholarly and verifiable. You presented nothing, only your own personal point of view. --adil 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes 

message: Who were Ekmouladdin Nakhichevani, Hindushah ibn Nakhichevani, and Abdurrakhman en Neshevi?  I just assumed that they were military leaders, but I could be wrong. -- Aivazovsky 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were medeival literary figures. Grandmaster 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :) -- Aivazovsky 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous people from Nakhichevan 

message: A Google test shows the following:
*"Nakhchivan" (the official spelling) gets 400,000 hits, 
*"Naxçıvan" (the Azeri spelling) gets 362,000 hits, 
*"Nakhichevan" (the present Wikipedia spelling) gets 178,000 hits, 
*"Nakhijevan" (the Armenian spelling) gets 572 hits, 
Hence this page should be moved to "Nakhchivan" as it is the most common name in English language. -- Aivazovsky 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 'Nakhichevan' is a direct transliteration of the Russian version of this name. Parishan 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. But not for Aivazovsky's reasons. Nakhichevan will be by far the most common version used in the English language. Google does not represent the whole internet, and the internet does not represent every English language publication ever published. That variant in the spelling is actually a transliteration of an Armenian version of the name, not a Russian one. I think Nakhchivan should be used because it more accurately represents the pronounciatiion of the place. Now, who is going to change Nakhichevan to Nakhchivan in all the other Wikipedia pages that mention it?!! Meowy 09:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with the move for the reasons mentioned above. I think all articles linking here will be gradually fixed. It is hard to do it at once. Grandmaster 09:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The origin of the Nakhichevan spelling of the name is actually mentioned in the entry, becasue by spelling it that way the name in Armenian means something like the place of descent. I think it is 19th century in origin, and is a bit of folk etymology, the spelling being an attempt at making  clearer what was believed by some to be the meaning of the placename. Meowy 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, I've already begun changing the name in various articles and templates on Wikipedia. -- Aivazovsky 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be good to explain your last edit - removal of one of the versions of the name.--Dacy69 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two main reasons I had for removing that text: it was added by an anon (with the IP of 85.132.16.7) and it was unreferenced.  Another reason was that its inclusion was never discussed at length.  This is important when considering that the etymology section, like the rest of this article was built on a series of compromises and discussions.  A dubious, unreferenced claim can, if left unchecked, lead to problems in the future.  -- Aivazovsky 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving page 

message: I have questions about this map . Who is the author, when was it produced?  I think we have another conflict of interest here, if it is produced in Armenia after 1991 or so, when some amateurs and biased Academy of Sciences staff in Yerevan have started to make their own maps, as they desired, without any scholastic approach.  We have same ones here and similar maps.  Then let's post both.--Ulvi I. 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I decided to rename this article back to "Nakhichevan", simply because it gets more hits on Google  than "Nakhchivan".   "Nakhchivan" is also an alternative Azeri (i.e. not neutral) spelling not widely used in English.  I didn't know this at the time of the move, which I was foolish enough to initiate and go along with. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I have any statement on the move, but I find it strange that an Azeri name for an undisputed region belonging to Azerbaijan can possibly be non-neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro-Armenians don't make such statements. You should retract it as soon as possible, before you're called pro-Azeri. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm...you're right. In any case, "Nakhchivan" not widely used in the English language. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aivazovsky, should not you discuss the page move before actually making it? Roll it back, please, and discuss. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats stopping you from discussing it now? Assume a little good faith and provide your argument. VartanM (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should not be discussed post factum, but before any change is made. Grandmaster (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text:  Also, Aivazovsky deleted this line: According to Human Rights Watch, hostilities broke out after three people were killed when Armenian forces began shelling the region.Overview of Areas of Armed Conflict in the former Soviet Union, Human Rights Watch, Helsinki Report Grandmaster (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This part "According to other versions, the name Nakhichevan derived from the Persian Nagsh-e-Jahan..." is also seems to be misinterpreted, as both sources (also the one translated and published by "reliable" Ziya Bunyadov) dont say Nakhichevan derived from Nagsh-e-Jahan, thay just mark this as another variant for the name (in the source of Kazvani it is a variant of the Nakhijevan town's name). It is well-known that Nakhijevan is the recognized and internationally used name, and any revisions of the name may have only propagandist character. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The previous title was a consensus, this one is not:  Grandmaster (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an official consensus made by any admin, nor an only Armenian user who discusses there is enough to represent another side's view and make agreement even if he is the so much respected Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky discussed it in May 2007, now it is February 2008. Many Armenian users included Aivazovsky represented new reasons why the moving is justified. Wiki is a free encyclopedia that needs to be developed, we cant keep all the dubious "consensuses" of May 2007 between some Azerbaijani and one Armenian user and close the Wikipedia. Grandmaster, you surely know about this as right after the consensus on Shusha you started the changes. So a "consensus" is a weak justification. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying but I'm failing to make any sense of what you said, what does any of that have to do with the name of this article? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Before any move is made it should be discussed and agreed on talk. This is very simple. Grandmaster (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it why you moved Shushi Massacres to "Ethnic Clashes in Shusha" without any discussions?:) Nakhijevan is the commonly used name, its too much obviuos you even dont discuss it (am I right?), so what's the problem. How many reliable sources prefer Nakhchivan? Pls represent and surely we will discuss and make corrections. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Then again, you moved about 10 other articles too. Good job, making it that much annoying to reverse, and therefore I'd be much likely to just let it lie, and therefore you gain traction for your choice. Well played, sir. So the question is, do I actually undo all your changes, or do we open a discussion, which would just turn into another petty fight between the two groups? No, I'm taking this one on, the proper transliteration is Nakhchivan and thus it will go. That a certain number of google hits disagree cannot change that fundamental fact. One great piece of evidence - when you did your search-and-replace renaming in the article, you changed the name of the region's official website from http://www.nakhchivan.az/ to http://www.nakhichevan.az/ - didn't you think for a minute that, hey, maybe this was an indicator that this move was wrong? --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize to everyone for all this mess.  Let's just leave it as "Nakhchivan" and keep it like that.  Thanks for reverting everything back, Golbez.  Again, I'm sorry. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being graceful, I will try to be as well and apologize for my tone above. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for resolving the problem, Golbez. Aivazovsky, I hope next time you will discuss with others before making any dramatic changes. You and I always managed to resolve our disputes so far. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not agree with you, Aivazovsky, Golbez and Grandmaster, and Ill return to this problem when I have more time for this really annoying topic. Anyways my notes above are valid and (special for Grandmaster) mind that this undiscussed temporary revert is not a consensus. Do not have any illusions that I agreed. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concrete evidence that this is the proper name; what do you have? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez, at first Id like to mark that Im sure on your neutrality, I see your real and serious interest to Arm.-Az. related topics, and whats more important for me, you're always open for any other opinions, another views and sources. Thank you for it! And to make a serious discussion on this moving I prefer to made some more research, despite some things are obvious right now (at least, the creation of Goghtan Gavar, "Nakhichevan Autonomuos Republic of Azerbaijani SSR" and "Nakhichevan (region)" articles is needed and justified). After that I even dont need to discuss this one with Grandmaster, as any reader will be able to see how historically Armenian Nakhichevan cleansed from whole Armenian population and Armenian cultural heritage by the descendents of 13th century invaders and became "Nakhchivan" first time a few years ago. Is this name changing a political denialism and propagand by Azerbaijan, or no, any reader can understand without Grandmaster's or mine help. But at first I prefer to finish source checking here. Thanks again! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: No Meowy, in Armenian it sounds very beautyful as it has a meaning. We have an Ijevan too. I really dont know what the Wiki rules say: Shusha is not pronounced as Shusha by 100% of those who live there, so what? Andranikpasha (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because population of Shusha was ethnically cleansed. The population of Shusha before the conflict was 99% Azerbaijani, and it is part of Azerbaijan de-jure. There's an internationally accepted practice to use pre-conflict names for NK locations, even though many authoritative sources, such as US State Department use official Azerbaijani names, such as Khankendi for Stepanakert. But this region is different from NK, the official name of this region in Azerbaijani is Nakhchivan, and the region is not disputed. Armenia does not officially claim it, and population does not want to break away from Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 99 % Azeri acoording to an Azeri source you're using at the Shusha. And surely Shusha wasnt ethnically clensed from Armenians... Azeri soldiers just "suppressed" a revolt with the whole Armenian population. Etc. It looks you're using the info you have to describe a Wiki rule, but what Im asking if such a rule really exists. Just cite pls. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS- I dont sure if Nakhijevan is not officially claimed at least by the ruling Republ. party of Armenia Ill look after. I just know that there are high-level Armenian diplomats who didnt recognize the Moscow Treaty of 1921 as de jure correct and mark that Nakhijevan wasnt a part of Dem. Rep. of Azerbaijan, the de jure predecessor of the modern Azerbaijan. I need to look for sources. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me an official document from modern Republic of Armenia, which claims Nakhchivan. Grandmaster (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says modern Armenia officially claims Nakhijevan? I dont know if a decision on naming for Wiki is related to the official claims by different states. Maybe such a Wiki rule exists but I dont know. If yes just show me. FYI as I know official Armenia also never officially claims Karabakh (Armenia just supports NKR independence). By my opinion, at Wiki we prefer the commonly used (in English) name. Transcriptions (we cant use the Armenian or Persian original form for Armenia), other language versions (then maybe Hayastan not Armenia) or claims are not significiant. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving this article back to "Nakhichevan"