Talk:Talish, Tartar

NKR

 * Talish is de fact a part of NKR since 1994, and de jure a part of Azerbaijan. By the neutral pov both facts must be at the lead. Lkahd (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't change it anymore, it's still a part of Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not a recognized republic by the United Nations. Beshogur (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Stop vandalizing this page, it's still a part of Azerbaijan, and it's recognized as Azerbaijan by UN. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ban the guy (37.157.217.91) who change this page 8 times!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.157.217.91 Beshogur (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think all the reverting is especially useful. To break the cycle I have restored the article to the state it was before the recent spate of reverting started, and then added back such content as I felt was neutral and sources. If I've missed something out, it might be unintentional. For its international status in the infobox, I've used the same wording that is currently used for the Shushi/Shusha article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, the "official" name is not Talış - this settlement has not been under Azeri "officialdom" since 1994. The official name would be the name the actual current governing authorities use. Neither is it the common name under WP:COMMONNAME, Talish or Talysh would be that - those are the most frequently used for this topic by English-language sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still recognized as a part of Azerbaijan, by the UN. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to the issue of what the settlement is called. The UN does not decide on place names or recognize place names. The primary guidance should be what is its Common Name, after that, what name its actual current governing authorities use, and after that what the native population uses (if different), and after that any alternative names or obsolete names or former names. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism about its current state
Talış, Tartar in its current state is de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan. However user Rs4815 and TU-nor keep reverting these edits. Even though the article also confirms that the region is de facto and de jure part of Azerbaijan now (since 2016). MrUnoDosTres (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-Reliable sources
I have removed several non-RELIABLE sources used for citations in the article. These include BARE-URL citations to YouTube and Twitter. See Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for details. Proven, official twitter feeds may be present in the External links section in some instances, but almost never used as citations. YouTube has its own rules, too (see link above). Thanks, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 15:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2021

 * 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. The majority of guideline-based arguments supported a move. The opposition is noted and respected, but the visibility of this village in recent conflict has resulted in much more English-language coverage than might be expected for something this size, and the relevant section of WP:ENGLISH for if it didn't have such coverage can be read in several directions of supporting or opposing the page move in this case. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Talış, Tartar → Talish, Tartar – Changing the name as per WP:COMMONNAME. 1. The population through recorded history until 2020 was overwhelmingly Armenian and referred to the village by the native name "Talish". 2. Reputable media refers to the village solely by Talish, can't find any instances of the use "Talış". 3. Google Scholar: "Talish" "Karabakh": 230 ; "Talış" "Karabakh": 69 ; 4. Finally, and most crucially, I can't find any evidence that the official name used by the Azerbaijani government is actually "Talış". Maybe I am just failing to find it, and if so please provide a source, but even when announcing the capture of the village in 2020, Aliyev used the word "Talish", not "Talış". Thus, this may be both the WP:COMMONNAME AND the official name. In either case, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case for page moving, but I am using this template to address any possible concerns regarding this issue, so please reply if there are any. Achemish (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Both Armenian, Azeri and international media refer to the village as "Talish", using anglicized version is preferred per WP:ENGLISH. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  06:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per other RMs a village of 581 people doesn't have a "common name" in English. So there is no anglicized version, and WP:ENGLISH is opposed to these RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USEENGLISH. The English language sources use "Talish" more. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2021 (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.

Location in article of sentence regarding Armenian population
Dear, you made an edit first removing the sentence entirely without explanation, then after that removal was reverted, you moved the sentence from the lead into the body. I disagreed with this change and reverted it, stating that it is appropriate to be in the lead, but you reverted again. Let's discuss the change - why do you feel that the sentence should not be in the lead, but rather in the body? The former Armenian population of the village is a very important fact, and according to Wikipedia guidelines, the lead should summarize the most important points. What is your reasoning for removing it? Achemish (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Location of info about population
Why is the information about population prior to 1989 stated in the beginning of the article? Are you trying to inject political propaganda of yours into article? If it is really important to mention it in article then should we mention this information in every village of Karabakh and former Zangezur? Because believe me I can show you hundreds of villages which had Azerbaijani majority before 1989 but now have zero Azerbaijani. Let’s start with Shurnukh for example. Do you agree to do the same in that article? 212.58.103.30 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I restored the original stable version of the lead per WP:BRD, please do not change it until we achieve a consensus here. I do not see how including the demographics in the lead of the article amounts to "political propaganda". I see including it as important due to the village's main significance/relevance is due to it being involved in the NK conflict, a conflict based heavily on ethnicity. Each article is handled individually; if you feel that such content is appropriate in those articles, then nothing is stopping you from going and making those edits there, and if you find opposition to the change then you can discuss it. Indeed many of those former-Azerbaijani populated villages do have an equivalent sentence in their article leads. Such a sentence may be appropriate in Shurnukh as well if deemed important, but context about the village being Armenian-populated even longer ago would be appropriate to include as well. Achemish (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not about "including" but putting in the beginning of the article. Although each article is handled individually, if they are the part of the same frame, then should be handled in the same context. If you highlight the info of one ethnicity in the lead of the article, but prefer to "hide" the information regarding other ethnicity in similar articles, that it is definetly a political propaganda. --212.58.103.31 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)