Talk:Çaylaqqala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Control[edit]

@AntonSamuel: The village seems to be under Armenian control, but everything around it is under Azeri control, including the main road leading to the village which is in the Lachin District (due to be returned by 1 December). Do you think this village will become an exclave of Armenian control or be given up (Russian MoD maps show this village as Azeri-controlled)? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: It's a good question, since the villages are in the former NKAO and per the ceasefire agreement, the lines of control would be maintained within the NKAO borders. Perhaps it's best to wait and see, but I'll see if I can find more information online. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's best to wait and see. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: Chaylaqqala is under control of Azerbaijani military forces. We must remove (de-facto: Artsakh) from this page. (EljanM talk) 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Anton have discussed this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%C3%B6hn%C9%99_Ta%C4%9Flar#Control . For now, we were able to come to conclusion about control of Kohne Taghlar and not Chaylaggala. Once things are clearer, we can edit this article too. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel: @Solavirum: @CuriousGolden: Çaylaqqala village is controlled by Azerbaijani Military Forces. We may remove artsakh from this page. Thanks! EljanM (TALK) 07:17, 21 December 2020
Yeah, it's pretty certain that it's under Azeri control now. I'll change it after Anton replies. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any sources about Azerbaijani troops entering the village and the Russian peacekeepers leaving? I've looked a bit online and can't find much with regard to updates. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several WP:RS such as Kommersant and BBC (Azeri service) have confirmed it. Source 1 & Source 2. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen these before - these talk only about the Russian MoD map right, and not about reports from the ground? AntonSamuel (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommersant cites several incidents confirming Azeri control, like a video of Armenian soldiers leaving the area. Also, the fact that several Armenian captives have emerged from the area indicates Azeri control. I don't see any source that contradicts Azeri control in the current state. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the video of Armenian soldiers retreating as well, I've linked it before. But yeah, Azerbaijani nominal control is likely so it may be appropriate to change the article - but perhaps the article can also reflect the current lack of clarity/the unknown status of the Russian peacekeepers, similar to the Shosh article. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really similar to Shushakend article since there are contradicting evidence of control and government claims about that village, yet I don't think Armenian government claims they still control this village. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Artsakh control is doubtful based on the sources available so far - the article can reflect that. However, I still think it's appropriate to mention that the situation remains somewhat unclear. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it and included a sentence regarding its somewhat unclear control in the History section. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continous maps released by Russian MoD have all shown Chaylaqqala under Azerbaijani control and I haven't come across any single source claiming that Armenians or Russians still control the area. Therefore, it's safe to assume Azeris control the area, so I'll remove the unclear control sentence. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this CIVILNET video which states that Russian peacekeepers transferred the region to Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2020[edit]

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 section.

Çaylaqqala → Khtsaberd – Move to "Khtsaberd" per WP:AT/WP:COMMONNAME:

Results from Google: Khtsaberd: 88,300 Çaylaqqala: 9,380 Chaylaggala: 355

Results from Google Scholar: Khtsaberd: 2 Çaylaqqala: 0 Chaylaggala: 0
AntonSamuel (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Reliable sources (WP:RS/WP:RSP) utilizing "Khtsaberd" as the name for the village: Reuters Al Jazeera AP AntonSamuel (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Utilizing search results from Google should be done with caution, but is acceptable per WP:NCGN:

Regarding multiple local names: "Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive."

Regarding the issue of current control, I don't believe that this is a valid reason in itself to defend the usage of a name over another - as an example, see the issue of the article title for Madagiz. It may affect what the common name of the place will be in the future since the village has been emptied of its Armenian population.

As this matter concerns a larger issue that is a matter of contention - an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh may be needed if consensus cannot be achieved, as has been suggested before, however I hope the admin that closes this discussion will look carefully at all the arguments that have been made and take WP:VOTE into consideration.

AntonSamuel (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CuriousGolden (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [1], [2], [3])
  • Oppose - this village is controlled by Azerbaijani forces and this village is a part of Azerbaijan (de-facto|de-jure) EljanM (TALK) 11:38, 21 December 2020
  • Support. Original and most common name. The page seem to have been moved to Çaylaqqala without discussion. Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created as Çaylaqqala, it wasn't moved. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EljanM WP:ENGLISHPLEASE on english WP Addictedtohistory (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also used by reliable sources including New York Times, Eurasianet, La Libre Belgique and etc. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thing you linked as New York Times is NYT's blog sections, not WP:RS per WP:BLOG. The Eurasia article you linked has no mention of Khtsaberd except in image captions which are written by photographers, not Eurasianet and the La Libre Belgique uses "Khtsaberd" once and that it's in a quote by Armenian authorities, so not an independent use. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose De-Facto and de-jure part of Azerbaijan just like Hin Tagher it must have an Azerbaijani name for it Carthago814 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Çaylaqqala is controlled by Azerbaijani forces since 14 December 2020[1]. Thus, this village is de-facto and de-jure part of Azerbaijan.Cemsentin1 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google isn't an indicator of WP:COMMONNAME and without a proper common name indicator, using Armenian name for a village fully under Azeri control is wrong. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google is actually the common indicator, it crawls periodically the web and contains more data then any source you can think of Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Addictedtohistory: Ok. If google is important for page titles, we must change Martuni to Khojavend and Martakert to Aghdara. Because Martuni gives 1.580.000 results but Xocavənd gives 2.270.000 results. Martakert gives 868.000 results but Ağdərə gives 3.170.000. Right? EljanM (TALK) 15:28, 23 December 2020
I mentioned the fact that google quantitative measurement of search result indicates commonality. I never said that its a basis for choosing wiki titles. I clearly expressed my view further above - Original and most common name. Neither, Khojavend, Aghdara or Çaylaqqala are original names. Addictedtohistory (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you clarify with English-language "Karabakh" in the search which was done for this request, that's not the case with Martuni and Martakert, otherwise the majority aren't English-language sources which WP:COMMONNAME requires, they're mostly in Azerbaijani. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel: Armenians often use the Latin alphabet when searching for something on Google. We must discuss the names of Aghdara and Khojavend. Thanks. EljanM (TALK) 16:56, 23 December 2020
  • Oppose per others. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are no sources attesting to any real control over the village on the part of the Armenians at any time after 12 December, and the locality is all too insignificant to believe that there would be an established common name for it in English. A Google search does not filter out the results according to reliability (for all we know, it can be someone checking in at a local bed-and-breakfast). The results from Google Scholar are barely above a statistical error. The results from news agencies are also too few, and "Khtsaberd" seems to be used only when they are quoting Armenia's Defense Ministry. Better stick to the official name. Parishan (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Experience shows that localities that have undergone name change are eventually renamed according to their current name, such as in the case of Nur-Sultan, the capital of Kazakhstan, and Dnipro, Ukraine. The original decision in both cases was to keep the old names "Astana" and "Dnepropetrovsk" respectively because they generated more Google results but soon afterwards, the articles were renamed nevertheless. Obviously, if a placename is relatively recent, it cannot pretend to generate the same number of results as a name that has been around for decades. However, Wikipedia also has a responsibility to reflect up-to-date information instead of memorialising outdated toponymy. Parishan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/azeri/azerbaijan-55253513
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Çaylaqqala&oldid=1206584915"