Talk:Zangilan

Armenian name in the lede is unnecessary

Armenian name of course can be mentioned in the body of the article, but not in the lede. Articles of Azerbaijani towns of respective 7 district that has been occupied by Armenia except Lachin and Kalbajar also don't Armenian name in the lede. If there is no more discussion, and as the Kovsakan in the lede of this article isn't a result of consensus or any discussion within this talk page, I will remove it and retain the name just in the body of article. Mfikriansori (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Per established practice here on Wiki, places claimed by the Republic of Artsakh that were formerly populated by Armenian-speaking people have their name in the lead in Armenian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Armenian population of Zangilan was not significant and their present is too recent, so I would like to object. Then, the established practice you've mentioned is based on a reached consensus before, or because long before my edit on this AA topic, that's how editors do? So, what some other users said about consensus, it is not reached through discussion on the respective article? Please enlighten me. Thanks. Mfikriansori (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but your POV editing isn't going to work. Based on your talk page you have been warned multiple times (by various editors) to cease your disruptive editing. And based on your edit history, it seems you are duplicating the same tactics on several articles. You should review WP:POV thoroughly. Archives908 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I really am not trying anything other than editing. That's it. And yeah, you joined them to also warned me, because my edits are disruptive, righ?

From this sentence on link you attached above "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources', adding Turkic name for several articles, specially regarding Armenia or Armenian is okay as far as I am concerned.

Also this sentence "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased" clearly describe what happened to my edit that perceived as disruptive by experienced editors, solely because the perception that either Azerbaijani/Turkic population of Yerevan wasn't as prominent as Armenians and Persians of Ganja or it seems biased. Mfikriansori (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I returned the Armenian name to the lede - it was removed without a satisfactory justification, while the discussion on talk page was open without reaching a consensus that the Armenian name is no longer relevant to the article lede. --Armatura (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Golden See this discussion before reverting (it took you < 1 minute to revert me) --Armatura (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And even less time to revert myself after seeing the opened discussion.

Why would a city with 0.1 percent Armenian population prior to occupation and 0.7/10 of its original population during occupation have an Armenian translation in the first sentence of the article when it's already mentioned in the History section? That name hadn't been in the article since its inception in 2005, until ClassicYoghurt added it with this edit, which was then removed by others and then re-added by what is most likely CY's alt IP with this edit in January. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Thanks for self-reverting, at least after I pointed out your mistake to you. But why did you remove the Armenian name while discussion (opened on 19 April 2022) was still open on talk page in the first place?

2. The discussion on this article's talk page seemed to have consensus for keeping the Armenian name, actually - a user tried to argue against its use, two other users argued that it should be used and that was it - the initiator of the discussion chose not to escalate it to DRN, RfC or anywhere else.

3. What justification a reference to user ClassicYoghurt gives to you in this case? It took me a bit of research to establish that they were permanently banned since 28 July 2021 whereas the Armenian name was added in April 2021. It has been clarified for you just a few days ago that reverting socks should only be done for edits made after the sockmaster was banned.

4. When you speculate that this IP is CY's sock, do you want to notice there were 3 other IPs (1, 2, 3) removing the Armenian name? Any speculation about these?

5. The place was governed under the name Kovsakan by Artsakh government 2 years ago, with people living there 2 years ago using that name, Google uses both Kovsakan and Zangilan as a compromise, why are you erasing the Armenian name from the lede of the article? Who told you there is an ethnic population threshold for erasing the ethnic name? Your argument "A city that barely had any Armenian population prior before occupation and small numbers during occupation" to justify erasing Armenian name from the lede does not stand a scrutiny. See the example of Kalbajar which features Armenian name (Karvachar) in the lede with its recent 600 Armenian population, how is it different from 500 Armenian population of Kovsakan? Same situation - it was not even NKAO territory, yet it has been recently governed by Artsakh and the name was used by its Armenian population.

6. Finally, you replaced a neutral photo that did not feature any POV with a photo from the visit of Ilham Aliyev to Gubadly and Zangilan Districts from Prezident.az website, that features a walking-talking-crying POV "Qarabag Azerbaycandir" composition made with white stones on the ground. If I with my primitive Azerbaijani knowledge am able to understand that it is means "Karabakh is Azerbaijan" (Azerbaijani government's promo), then you, whose native language is Azerbaijani, must have understood what it means. Why would you choose to use that POV photo as a main photo of the article leaves me puzzled about your motives, and competence... --Armatura (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because a few hundred settlers moved into the ruins of a city that had over seven thousand inhabitants only some time prior (seven percent of its original population) doesn't justify a translation in lead. Especially when that translation accounts for less than 10% of the sources:

1. "Kovsakan" "Karabakh": 7,230
2. "Zangilan" "Karabakh": 194,000

Kovsakan accounts for only 3.7 percent of sources, thus it should only be mentioned in the History section. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that Zangilan was inhabited by Armenians not so recently. Search result is irrelevant to the arguments, this isn't a move discussion, it's an alternative name not the article's name. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I support the view that the Armenian translation of the city should be kept in the history section only. It is referred to as Kovsakan only by some Armenian sources and apparently only after the occupation in 1993. There is no need to include it in the first paragraph, as the official, international and local name referred to by its all current inhabitants is Zangilan only. Including Zangilan's Armenian version in the first paragraph is same as including Munich's Italian version - "Monaco" in the first paragraph. User:Golden presented solid arguments as well. I fully support him/her.KHE'O (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Why indeed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (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:

• İlham Əliyev Qubadlı və Zəngilan rayonlarında olub 51.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Attribution

@Golden: Hi again! I have a question on why the Armenian Question Encyclopedia is presented as a non-reliable source needing attribution? As far as I can see, it meets WP:RS standards, written by Konstantin Khudaverdyan, a well established Historian who had decades of experience as a Doctor of History, and published academically by the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia publishing house, I understand why it may be percieved as biased, but per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Do you have any sources that would question the reliability of the author or publisher? TagaworShah (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Per WP:BIASED, "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'". And that's what I've added. It's probably not "unreliable" as I might've implied in my edit summary (sorry!), but it definitely needs attribution due to its bias. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Golden: Ok, thank you! I was confused because of the edit summary saying it was non-reliable. TagaworShah (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)