Talk:Jabrayil

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Xırdalan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cəbrayil. 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/20110622020159/http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-26&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=x to http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-26&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=x

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 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 Jabrayil (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Cəbrayil → Cəbrayıl – The city is known by its Azerbaijani name, Cəbrayıl, and its anglicization, Jabrayil. Cəbrayil is neither, so the article should be moved to one of those two. – anlztrk (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Correct translation is Cəbrayıl — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil per WP:USEENGLISH to reverse redirect. Current and proposed titles are not typeable or pronounceable by most English speakers. Station1 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Current and proposed titles are not typeable or pronounceable by most English speakers." Nor are Lūžņa, Baħar Iċ-Ċagħaq, Świętochłowice or Söğüt, but that is not a policy basis for a name change. —  AjaxSmack  21:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:UE is policy: "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." Jabrayil is the English name used by sources including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Nation. - Station1 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil per Station1 although it is likely that Armenia will recognize Artsakh [1] and hence the city will be officially renamed to Mekhakavan. Vaan23 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support a move to Cəbrayıl, but oppose Jabrayil. The city is too small to have an "English" name. —  AjaxSmack  21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for accuracy. Jebrail and Jebrayil currently redirects here which is good enough. Juxlos (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: WP:NCUE is policy and the sources provided by Station1 show that Jabrayil is WP:ESTABLISHED.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: as per WP:USEENGLISH. Nicola Romani (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: as per WP:USEENGLISH. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: as per WP:USEENGLISH. LechitaPL (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: per WP:USEENGLISH as Station1 argument above. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: per above. Super Ψ Dro 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: per WP:COMMONNAME, lot of books using this name. Beshogur (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Jabrayil: per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 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.

Video source

This source has video evidence from the BBC. I think that it should be included. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a snippet from a larger report by BBC which is already linked; not necessary. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: we've used an Armenian source for the opening of the church, it doesn't mean we have to use the name it uses. There's a clear common name and since it's not a quote by any person (e.g. a speech), the use of a non-common name isn't justified here. Please see WP:COMMONNAME & self-revert. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What does commonname have to do with it? It's per the source, that's what matters. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The source may call it anything it wants, but this is an article about Jabrayil. Common name should be used. Grandmaster 18:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: and @CuriousGolden: WP:Source trumps WP:Commonname. See "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: and @CuriousGolden: - do I take your lack of response as agreement with the above position? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not say anything about prevailing over common name. Common name must be used throughout the article. Grandmaster 08:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: and @CuriousGolden: Where is it written that "Common name must be used throughout the article"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historical English name for a specific historical context. Grandmaster 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Why did you change it again to Mehkavan? We have already discussed naming conventions. Grandmaster 20:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Reply @Grandmaster: For the very reason you cited above: "unless there is a widely accepted historical English name for a specific historical context.". In that particular time period, during that construction, that was the name that was used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not a widely accepted English name, therefore "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article". Grandmaster 11:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That criterion is not applicable. It is an obscure Caucasian village. No obscure Caucasian village has ANY accepted name in English, widely or otherwise. In that case we use the name used by the residents at that period in time per the exception noted above Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we cannot make up rules here. There are naming conventions that we need to abide by. Grandmaster 12:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no rules being made up. I see a rational interpretation of the rules when part of the conditions ("widely used English") does not apply in the circumstances. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Armenian name or Azerbaijani name?

@AjaxSmack: you were correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ethnic Conflict Jorge Benitez, ‎Querine Heynneman, ‎Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis · 1993 "By the first week of September , Karabaklı forces had sized control of 20 % of Azerbaijan's territory . More than 200,000 refugees advanced toward Baku and Iran from the areas near the recently captured cities of Agdam and Cebrayil ."
• Asian Bulletin 1993 - Volume 18, Issues 7-12 - Page 72 "16 , Azerbaijan's Defense which was attacking Armenian - held thousands of refugees fleeing toward Ministry said that Armenian fighters territory around Fizuli and Cebrayil"
• Ian Jeffries Economies in Transition 2013- page 240 "The Azerbaijani towns of Cebrayil (21–22 August) and Fizuli (23 August) fall to the Armenians, who now occupy large swathes of Azerbaijan around Nagorno-Karabakh, in effect substantially closing the land gap with Armenia ..."

Maybe I misunderstood something?

Dear @Kevo327: perhaps I misunderstood something, but what exactly is the problem here? Artsakh is self-proclaimed by definition, it is an important detail that is fundamental to the NK conflict, Jabrayil was occupied, what exactly is the issue? - Creffel (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Creffel: I have been somewhat inactive lately but I'm back. 1) Jabrayil was occupied, I shouldn't have changed that. 2) I am not arguing whether Artsakh is a self-proclaimed republic or not, me arguing would not change the fact that it is. I'm arguing whether we need to include the fact that it is, personally, I feel it is a needless addition as we don't do the same to other Republics or states or free territories etcetera e.g. the independent republic of X. What is your opinion on this? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

formerly Armenian-majority?

Article stating “formerly Armenian-majority” with link to “Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи, 1897 г. т.63 Елисаветопольская губерния. Н.А.Тройницкий, С.-Петербург, 1904. стр. 138” which doesn’t represent information to probe that statement.

Plus it contradicts with below statement “ According to the census held in 1897, the population of the Uyezd was 66,360, of which 49,189 (74%) were Turko-Tatars (i.e. Azerbaijanis), 15,746 (24%) were Armenians, 893 (1.3%) were Russians, 398 (0.6%) were Kurds and other minorities.[5]”! Which supported with real sources.

Either real prove of former Armenian majority shall be provided or this information shall be deleted.

actually it's the other way around, you have to disprove the sources or reach consensus. Otherwise your edit will be reverted. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It was originally Azerbaijani populated village, according to 1855 statistics, which later had slight prevalence in number by Armenian population, probably as result of resettlement policy of the Russian empire. I don't think mentioning all population changes in the lead makes sense. It should be explained in the relevant section of the article. Also, 43% is not majority, I believe it is called plurality. Majority is over 50%. Grandmaster 20:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jabrayil city, Aerial 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)