Talk:Azykh Cave

Untitled
Nagorno Karabakh is a region with disputed international status, please do not pre-judge its affiliation until an international status is established. Gorzaim (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all before making any drastic changes you must discuss it in talkpage and reach a consensus. I restored the proper information and this is your final warning. Second the region is recognized part of Azerbaijan. Karabakh is within the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan Republic. If you have objective sources confirming that NK has a "disputed international status" that show them. Plus keep in mind that Fizulu region is not within NK. Neftchi (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find more information about Fuzuli district here. Fuzuli district where the Azykh cave is located is not part of the so -called nagorno karabakh, and as such pls keep the accuracy of the entries. I have made relevant changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzuli_District — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

De jure, de facto
I would suggest that both the de jure and de facto situation of the town of Azokh is mentioned on this article, similar to other articles concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, so to prevent a bias, not to practise one. Mugsalot (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To state what you believe to be the "de facto" situation is an opinion. Please establish consensus here before you apply the change again there. Yet Another User 2 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At no time did I state what I believed to be the de facto situation. The de facto situation, as shown on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article, is that the NKR controls Azokh de facto, but it is still largely considered part of Azerbaijan and thus can be considered de jure part of Azerbaijan. I'm not sure what the issue is. An unregistered user removed content and I restored it, I'm under the impression it'd be POV to not include the fact that who controls the town is disputed. Mugsalot (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, I agree with you! Sorry for reverting! Yet Another User 2 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Azokh Cave. 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/20080521004642/http://antiquity.ac.uk:80/ProjGall/King/king.html to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/King/king.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Azokh/Azykh
the title of an article is decided by using commonly recognisable names per WP:COMMONNAME, and not by whether it is neutral or not WP:NPOVNAME. As stated when I moved this article, Google results show "Azokh Cave" (13,500 results) is more commonly used than "Azykh Cave" (5,900 results). The article should be moved back to Azokh Cave. Mugsalot (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. May I remind you that this article falls under WP:AA2. Most Google results come from dodgy blogs and travel tip websites of questionable neutrality. Parishan (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of WP:AA2, it's probably best to leave it as it is then. Mugsalot (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about an archaeological site. Almost all academic publications use Azokh cave, all recent academic publications use Azokh cave. The only recent sources using Azykh cave I see are dodgy non-RS Azeri propaganda sites. Parishan, arbitrarily, without discussion, has moved the article to what is a non standard title with neutrality problems. Worse, Parishan also ignored the fact that there had been a previous title move which should have made any new title move automatically considered controversial, requiring a formal proposal and discussion before any move is made. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is a scientific reserch of the archaeologist Mamedali Huseynov, who in 1960 discovered the Azykhantrop in Azykh Cave, not the Azokh cave. millions read articeles in wikipedia and we see incorrect information based on the votes. And where is the sources of this information? Aydin mirza (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to avoid any missunderstanding when the people read the article. You can read Asykh Cave and Azokh Cave, then below the article consists the information about Azykhantrop or Azykh Man found in the Cave. So, what's the name of Cave? There is konflikt even in Russian Wikipedia because of the name of the village still, but Azokh version has no any acceptable sources. But the cave is only Azykh Cave, because of many sources like Enciclopedy, scientific researches of AS. Could you, please, find solution and write only one right version? Aydin mirza (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Azykh Cave → Azokh Cave – What makes this cave notable for a Wikipedia article is its archaeology. Its notability all derives from that. All the recent academic archeological reports and publications on the site use "Azokh Cave", not "Azykh Cave". For example, the book "Azokh Cave and the Transcaucasian Corridor", with multiple contributors, was published in 2016. Here is a paper titled "Lithic assemblages of Azokh Cave", published in Journal of Lithic Studies. "The Azokh Cave complex: Middle Pleistocene to Holocene human occupation in the Caucasus" was published in Journal of Human Evolution, vol 58, 2009. "Pleistocene to Holocene stratigraphy of Azokh 1 Cave, Lesser Caucasus" was published in Irish Journal of Earth Science, vol 28, 2010. The site was excavated by Dr Tania King, who is described here as the "Director of the Azokh Project". The numerical superiority of "Azokh Cave" (13,500 results) over "Azykh Cave" (5,900 results) has already been cited by Mugsalot. On Google Scholar, "Azokh Cave" gets 109 results "Azykh Cave" gets 77  and a closer examination of those 77 reveals many are Soviet-era publications or citations of Soviet-era publications. Note also that Soviet-era title and text citations will mostly be renderings into English of Russian Cyrillic originals, making the source of the English version an issue (many seem to originate from Azerbajian). Though one is rather interesting - Nationalism and Archaeology in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology: the Homo erectus remains from the Azykh cave in Azerbaijan were advertised as the “first Azerbaijani,” perhaps revealing something behind the assertion that Azykh should be used as the primary title. The neutral title should be Azokh Cave, with also known as Azykh Cave mentioned in the first sentence. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting nom, thanks. What about Azykhantrop, which, if it's really the topics name, would support keeping it as is? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the topic's name - that's a 1960s name assigned by its Azerbaijani excavator to some of the hominid bones found in the cave. The topic here is the cave. No source is saying that the particular species of hominid the bones belonged to lived in just that cave and nowhere else. There could be a case for merging that article with this one, given there is little content in it (note that one of its supposed sources, Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus,, does not mention "Azykhantrop" at all, or anything about bones found in Azerbaijan or Armenia (and with just a passing mention of ones found in Georgia), and is actually dealing with bones found in the Northern Caucasus and Germany). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, "Azykhantrop" gets a mere 44 hits on Google. A large percentage of them are Azeri propaganda websites connected to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Many of the rest are Wikipedia clones. It gets just 2 on Google scholar (and one of them is also a Wikipedia clone). On that other article I'd like to see some evidence that "Azykhantrop" is a term still in use amongst academics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And BTW2, in case I am accused of having some sort of ethnic agenda regarding name choice, exactly the same issue regarding naming and page moving without proper discussion arose at Çavuştepe, so read my talk page postings on that article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional note - Azykhantrop should probably be renamed "Azykh Man" - under that name it gets 15 results in Google Scholar . The majority of those results are from titles that refer to the actual cave as "Azokh cave", indicating that in academic sources the name used for the cave is different to the name of the hominid bones. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Google Books also supports the argument that "Azokh Cave" is more common ( vs. ).--Cúchullain t/ c 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing comment: I note that there is a history of back-and-forth moves between these two titles, most recently 09:10, 3 July 2017‎ Parishan (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (Parishan moved page Azokh Cave to Azykh Cave over redirect: this is the cave's name in most non-partisan academic sources, including the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology), but this is the first formal RM. Andrewa (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azykh Cave which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical errors,false information, what is this?what the heck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaxoul (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Azokh Cave → Azykh Cave – see below — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  07:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have no any remark concerning the article, but the name is not correct in accordance with the sources. Please, see the sources of Azykh Cave:

1. Encyclopedia Iranica (ARCHEOLOGY viii. REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN 6th part you find it) https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/archeology-viii-northern-azerbaijan-republic-of-azerbaijan-1

2. V. Doronichev, "The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches" in PaleoAnthropology 2008, p147, 132, etc. This source is in the current article also.

3. "Azykh Cave". Archived from the original on 2017-12-23. Retrieved 2017-12-26. Also from the current article.

4. Лазуков Г. И., Гвоздовер М. Д., Рогинский Я. Я., «Природа и древний человек» Издательство «Мысль», 1981 стр 71-72 (in Russian)

5. Пещера Азых — The Azykh cave / Mamadali Huseynov [М. М. Гусейнов], [34] с. ил., 5 л. ил. 21 см, Баку Б. и. 1981. Now, please, let me know if there is any independent source concerning this toponym except new scientific studies after 1990 that refer to archeology, not toponym.Aydin mirza (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. All of the sources are pretty reliable and important, especially Encyclopedia Iranica. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  07:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for assistance. Aydin mirza (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please, add more sourses   (in Russian The Great Russian Encyclopedia-article of leonova N.B.) Aydin mirza (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. as per the previous requested move to the current article title. A quick Google search of "Azokh cave" generates 18,500 results whereas "Azykh cave" generates 93 results. Mugsalot (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I've replied on Mugsalot page, but repeat it here to clarify. I'd like to know reg reliability in Wikipedia project. Do you think and confirm that Google search results are the most important and reliable sources? There were no right negociation with reliable sources earlier and the case was closed. But I move now in accordance to the rules. Have I no right to open this subject again? Please, say only what is the most important in this Project - Google search result or sources that confirm and show the correct information? Otherwise we should announce that Wikipedia is not Encyclopedi but the result of voting. I wouldn't like to press but the articles in Wikipedia are for the people applying for the correct information. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure what kind of Google you're using, but "Azykh cave" gave me 6,100 results. And I believe it's more significant what more important sources (such as Encyclopedia Iranica) uses rather than what few blogs write on Google. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) </b> 07:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's 7 days since this request stands by. There is no any serious arguments agains this request. Please, assist to apply to closure. Aydin mirza (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azokh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Azykh Cave/Azokh Cave
Dear BaxçeyêReş, 1. you can't put in the article Azokh Man, there is information about discovery in 1968, when have u found Azokh man? 2. there is alternative name Azoch cave, no need so long sentance to insert. it's enough to note in Armenian the name. 3. as regards to another part of article where you put Azokh cave, it's also not argued. the cave was discovered in 1968, named Azykh Cave. while Azokh cave appeared during the conflict. and there is no reliable independent sources confirmed it. no even foriegn editions without armenian authors, so it's not independent side in this case. and for archeologic expeditions no defference the names. they are responsible for archeologic researches. from 1993 till 2020 all excavtions were under non-azerbaijan authoroties, and it's clear that they note Azokh cave. so. please, argue your undo firstly. --Aydin mirza (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * it's encyclopedic Project, and village Azykh is located in Khojavend destrict of Azerbaijan Republic. Pls, think a little bit about the users of Wikipedia. Keep, pls, exact and official information. --Aydin mirza (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ZaniGiovanni, you can't undo everything without discussion and arguments. My last edition is correct information. do you have objection? argue, pls, what's wrong or false?--Aydin mirza (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained pretty clearly. You don't provide a reliable source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ZaniGiovanni, it was the same situation with the article Shusha (no need to remind you the results). In any case, I'm waiting for the respond of experienced Users to avoid edit wars and provocations. As to the sources -1. Азербайджан : Общегеографическая карта : Масштаб 1:750 000 / гл. ред. Г. В. Поздняк; ред.: Г. Ф. Кравченко, Н. Р. Монахова. — М.: Роскартография, 2005. — (Страны мира «Азия»). — 200 экз. — ISBN 5-85120-235-1.  2.  Azərbaycan toponimlərinin ensiklopedik lüğəti («Энциклопедический словарь азербайджанских топонимов» в 2-х томах). — Баку: Şərq-Qərb, 2007. — С. 69.  3. Название согласно административно-территориальному делению Азербайджана. --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi all, asked for my opinion on this dispute, and I've tried to come up with a compromise solution that includes all of the content that is being edit warred in-and-out, as it all seems relevant information for an encyclopedic article (the country and district it's in, plus the geographic and historic region). I don't think any of these basic facts particularly needs to be sourced, as they can be verified with the provided coordinates and open source mapping. I'll add this page to my watchlist, so I can respond to any potential disagreements with the suggested changes. All the best,  Jr8825  •  Talk  19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)