Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/December

Article name vs. the body

Does the place name convention refer to the body of an article as well, if not, why not?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because in the history section it might be discussed with the Greek name during the Hellenistic period, with the Roman name when under Rome, with the Turkish name when under the Ottomans, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I had thought this article applied to the article title having seen others say so. However now I'm not sure. SunCreator (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a convention for use of country when refering to US cities

Please advise if this is not the proper place to post this. An editor is making changes and using this article as justification. First, is there a convention to follow on the inclusion/exclusion of country for U.S. cities in articles that are NOT georgraphical? Currently user Jojhutton is removing “United States” from ALL articles, although I think he's limiting himself to infoboxes. He is doing this on a large scale and using this article as justification. But my understanding is the conventions in this article only refer to articles about geographical places not ALL articles.

While I believe his justification is flawed, however I don’t know if what he is doing is wrong. I’ve tried to find previous articles and read these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_93#Establishing_geographical_context

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_107#American_.28and_Canadian.29_geographic_name_MoS

But I could not see that either offers a final consensus. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this first, and I have also asked the editor. I don't see anything in this guideline to support it, but perhaps I've missed it, or interpreted it differently. This page is a naming convention for articles not specifically for use in the infoboxes. I'm sure that not every English speaking person using Wikipedia is American, and not every place name is well enough known to assume that someone in another country will know it's an American city, so I think it is useful. A lot of them are being removed from the Template:Infobox actor and the field description for both place of birth and place of death reads, "town/city, state (if relevant), country". I don't accept that the United States is so well known as to render it irrelevant. In any case, the main question is whether this article is justification, and I don't think it is. Rossrs (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that User:Jojhutton is flawed in his reasoning. As I just stated in a reply on their talk page: WP:PLACE is a naming convention for articles about places and contains some manual of style guidance for such articles. It is not a manual of style for the use of place names within other articles... – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the country name always be listed, since some may not know where a state or region is located? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the city and state/province/what-have-you are linked, and someone is unfamiliar with it, they can always click the link. The city and state/etc. articles should have the country in the infobox at the very least. I find country names disruptive when reading, at least for countries within the primarily English speaking world. Aside from New South Wales, which always makes me think Britain for about two seconds before I remember it's in Australia. :-) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that my argument is fairly similar to that posited repeatedly in the links provided by BashBrannigan. They also note that: Some level of Anglo-centrism is expected on the English wikipedia, and that not including the country name is in deference to U.S. style. The latter argument I find uncompelling (though I acknowledge it's how we deal with national/regional spelling differences), but the former argument is at least somewhat valid: Our target audience is native English speakers, most of whom will have at least a general idea of locations within the various English speaking countries. If they don't, that is what the internal wikilinks are for. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, its not the fact that they are in the info boxes, but MOS clearly states that geographical areas in the United States should be listed as (City,State), not (City, State, Country), as they all have been. I would not be against listing the country somewhere in th einfo box, just not in that sequence, per every MOS in the modern world for the past 200+ years. Never, in the history of the world has an MOS ever said its OK to list U.S. geographic areas as (City, State, Country), not can anyone link a wikipedia policy that does as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reposting from ANI: The MOS entry addresses the appropriate form of the article title. There appears to be no guidelines at all on references within an article, aside from the quasi-consensus reached in BashBrannigan's links. I think the guideline needs to find a middle ground that remains informative without disrupting flow. Keeping the country in the infobox while removing it from the text does that. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is. And its at WP:PLACE. If you blink, you miss it. I missed it too for several days. Its in the General Guidlines section, and talks about the content of an article 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.. It says what it says.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First line of the page: "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places." And the later section, in the context of articles on places, notes that a consistent name should be used for the location. That is, if there are multiple spellings of a place's name (usually due to historical anomalies in transliteration), like the case of Jakarta vs. Djakarta, only one of them should be used in the article on Jakarta (though the other can be pointed out once as an alternate). The parenthetical note in your quote indicates that, barring historical reasons for using a different name, it's a good idea to use the same name that the article itself chooses to use. If we read it to address the use of appended bits and pieces (like the state/country) we'd end up in the silly situation where we are expected to repeat state and country every time we self-reference within the article, which is absurd on its face. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to nitpicking what the manual of style says, I think the only reasonable way to write would be using your own discretion. Lets say that it says "X was born in city, state, country...". That would be okay. If it then goes on to say "X then moved to Y place", including the country (unless X emigrated to another country) would obviously be superfluous in the context, and hinder the flow of the text. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It does lead to people getting overzealous with changing to their preferred format though (as we see in the wide ranging war this was brought up to address). It's bad enough with date format. Between American, European (and others) and ISO date formats, if it wasn't for the warning on unnecessarily changing date formats we'd never see the end of the wars. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is making vast changes, without consulting his peers? His changes should all be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First, Thanks for commenting. I did attempt to bring this discussion here before I made any changes, although there is no policy that says that I have to, in order to edit a page. The policy on Geographical locations is clear. It involves every article.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree on that. I think it's far from settled, , and the discussion here proves it. For a bio article, there is usually context. I would not add France for someone born in Paris (There are of course other Paris's, & there I would be specify). Just as everyone can be expected to know the major cities of the world, same for the US states. Not using the U.S. here is part of idiomatic US English style, and that;s the language we use when writing about places in the US. . Those with borderline English knowledge are important to us, and we to them--but this is the sort of thing they will rapidly learn. After all, there's the link to see where some place is if one does not know. I use it whenever I do not recognize where something is if the article did not specify adequately, and it works very well. We are an electronic, not a print encyclopedia, and we can take advantage of the available features such as linking. This sort of thing occurs in multiple contexts. If I refer to Harvard University, people who do not know can find out almost instantly--if I see the place added to that in an article by someone who does not realize, I remove it. Infoboxes in particular need to be concise to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I think this article is intended to cover the article title rather then a general topic of whether to include the country. On the question of the country I consider it appropriate to include the country at least once somewhere when discussing a place. After all it could be read on a paper copy thousands of miles away from the place, and in such a case I find it reasonable to make clear which country it's in. SunCreator (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this policy was originally written to include the body of articles.

This was what was at the head of the policy page for several years:

It was removed without consensus with this edit back in February, which left us with no policy at all. Does anyone have an answer to that? Its obvious that this policy was originally meant to include everything. Even the name of the policy was changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think DGG has identified the crux of the issue here - there is no bright line, no simple universal rule. IF the country is obvious from the city - Rome, for example, or Berlin - then there's no need to identify the country, and it would be clumsy to add it. BUT if the country is not obvious, and there is no context to help, then adding or including the country, in an infobox, seems perfectly reasonable. Listing it in prose, however, is clumsy. If we find that the policy and guidelines are unclear on this, then we can change them to be clear.

It's not helpful to think only about the United States. English is spoken in other countries too, and we shouldn't assume an intimate understanding of US geography any more than of New Zealand's geography. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the first difficulty is that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others, and that to choose which cities are well enough known to stand alone, and which are not, assumes readers have an approximately equal knowledge of world geography. If this was the case, the second difficulty would be in determining where the line should be drawn, and instead of discussing a main style, we'd have people arguing about individual cities. I think it would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's general aim of neutrality to decide on a style, whatever it may be, and allow it to be applied evenly. That may mean stating the obvious in some cases, except there will always be people who would not find the obvious to be obvious. Rossrs (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just found this as well, from WP:Proper names:

In general, refer to places by the names which are used for the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Again, policy is clear.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a guideline, not a policy. As it says at the top, it's best applied with common sense. Please consider the possibility that one global mechanical rule is not adequate for this situation, and that there is in fact no need to be so rigid about it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we should ignore the guideline? Is it because it confirms what I have been saying the whole time?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're trying to apply the guideline (i) beyond the scope that was intended and (ii) with a rigidity that is not helping the project. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I went back and read some of the archives. This is exactly how it was intended. This:

Is very convincing.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the main article on [[WP:MOS] says that Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with other guides to style and usage, which may cover details that are not included in this Manual of Style. It has been my contention that ALL MOS styles are very clear about NOT having the "United States" in the geographic term.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell says nothing about infoboxes, and you are again making a sweeping simplification without showing that it is necessary or desirable to do so. As for the other manuals of style, which of them were written for use in a multi-dialect, multi-national work? More generally, it is you who has set about changing a common practice and so it is you who bears some burden of proof to demonstrate the justification for such a change. There's no need to take offence when reasonable questions are raised. Better, I think, to try to persuade rather than to denigrate the questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What is there to denigrate? I have linked every single policy and guideline on this project as well as referenced the massive number of style guides that are circulating world wide, some for hundreds of years, and not one of them even remotly hints that United States geographical areas should be listed as (City, State, Country). I know that many here do not like it, but its the guideline. If you think it should be changed then write the publishing houses of of the MOS style guides and voice your concern. Then, if they are changed, wikipedia would have a reliable source to use as a stepping stone to write a new policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are multiple issues here. First is that infoboxes are not prose. I agree that the use of cumbersome forms should be avoided in prose. However, I don't see where information in an infobox should be considered part of the prose of an article. The second issue is the idea that policy and/or guideline is a club to weild to beat your opponents into submission. The existance of a guideline in a current state does not mean that it cannot be changed by civil discussions exactly like this one. The very fact that there appears to be differing opinions on how to interpret the application of the guideline in question here, on the use of the country name in U.S. place names, appears to mean that the guideline does need some work. So lets work on it. Instead of demanding that some standard be followed blindly, lets try to find reasonable solutions to the problem. Perhaps the solution would be to define where the country name is and is not appropriate to use more clearly, rather than to use novel synthesis to fill in the gaps by cherrypicking quotes from various guidelines, policies, and the MOS and trying to invent documentary support for a positions which, from my view, lacks any support for either side in this debate. Lets work out a better solution than the uncompromising ones being put forth here. --Jayron32 05:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, once again your level headed comments are always welcome.

I will restate my stance that I am not opposed to adding the county name in the infobox. It should not be written, however, as (City, State, Country), as it has been in some infoboxes and even in the body of articles. I will also say for the record, that I was not going out of my way to adjust the info boxes. It just turned out that way. I was actually a bit confused when the debate turned to how the info boxes should be formatted. If there is confusion on that, then perhaps the conversation should be moved to the appropriate talk page on infoboxes. Consensus cannot be discussed about infoboxes on this talk page. Remember that each and every policy and guidline has its own talk page for consensus purposes. There is no precident, that I am aware of, to develop sweeping changes to wikipedia as a whole, on a single talk page. If there is anyone who thinks that this guideline needs changing, then please let them say so here. If not, then there is no guideline that requires (country) in the info box as it is written now. That being said, then each article should have its own consensus individually.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that at some level it becomes wildly impractical to decide some issues on an article-by-article basis. There is some case to be made that articles which are of a certain class of topics should share a common style. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline which establishes a common style for articles about cities. If someone is making an individual change to an individual article, then yes the discussion should happen on that article's talk page. However, if someone is looking to make a sweeping change across a wide spectrum of articles, then there needs to be some centralized discussion somewhere which may cover those changed. I am not necessarily saying that this is that discussion, but rather this is the discussion about having the discussion (ok, that is WAY too "meta", but you get the idea). Here's my position: Guidelines are often created on an as needed basis, often to deal with an emergent conflict which appears intractable because there are no community guidelines which deal with the source of the conflict. In this case there is no good guidance on when and in what situations the use of the country name is appropriate in articles, either in prose or in infoboxes or what have you. So the lack of that guidance is leading to conflict. The proper way to address the conflict is to stop editing for a while and take the time to develop that guidance. Its the sort of issue which has widespread implication for thousands or millions of articles, so it is impractical to carry it out on the talk page of every article individually, as you suggest. Instead, we should be having a centralized discussion over how to deal with the problem, so as to stop the current conflict, and to head-off potential future conflicts. If here is not the appropriate place, then provide the better place, but lets have the discussion and arrive at a consensus first, before decending into more edit wars. People have already gotten themselves blocked over this issue, lets not see that happen again. Lets do it the right way. --Jayron32 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does become impractical to do so as well. That is why there are wiki projects to establish rules of writing. This, though, does not share a class, as most articles have info boxes. I would not, however, call correcting the text, as a sweeping change, but you may have different viewpoint than I do.

So we are discussing to have a discussion. When did we become the United States Congress . Thats cool. I am up for a discussion. Prehaps a new MOS guideline that covers this topic, using reliable sources would do the trick. Although, WP:PLACE originally covered the entire article as well, and I believe still does, based on what is written, and how it is formatted. I mean, really? Why say (this applies to all articles using the name in question). Notice that the word articles is plural (Meaning more than one article), and the name in question is singular (meaning whatever geographic name that you are inserting). I hate to beat a dead horse, but the spirit of the guideline was to have this apply to all articles on wikipedia. Of course there is the other issue as well. There still is no linked policy or guideline that even hints, that (City, State, Country) should ever be used in that sequence. Given that every non-wikipedia reliable source says (City, State), there is no reason to change that here.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

324,000 webpages can't be wrong. I agree the predominant sources use (City, State); to say that it never is written as (City, State, Country) is disingenuous. I already know you are going to say "No reliable source" would use that organization (see No True Scotsman). Still, Google News finds a nonzero number of reliable news organizations using (city, state, country). Here's one: [1]. Google scholar turns up many peer reviewed journals that use this formation. The claim that no reliable source uses that formation is demonstratably false, and furthermore the position that it is not open to discussion does not seem to be solving the problem. We could arrive at the conclusion that we should only use (City, State); however I see no support yet that such a conclusion has been reached, yet. You may be right that there is an absense of on-wikipedia support for City, State, Country formation, but there is also an utter lack of on-wikipedia opposition to it in the guidelines. One could just as easily say that "there still is no linked policy or guideline that even hints" that existing usages of City, State, Country usage should be unilaterally changed. Indeed, per WP:ENGVAR, the act of changing wholesale, such kinds of formations without strong guideline support one way or the other, is a bad idea. So lets have the discussion. Lets make some competing proposals, lets find out which way the wind blows. There's no danger in doing so. --Jayron32 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice search engine results, but I don't think that Beeradvocate.com and Academichomes.com, would really pass the realiable source test. Britanicaonline.com was curious though, so I clicked on it and it not once uses the (City, State,Country) format. It was a nice try though, I give you points for that. Now lest try the 133 Million] sources that disagree with Beeradvocate.com.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was the favored usage. I also concede that consensus may reside with your position. I never even said that I personally disagreed with your position. I only stated that your claim that no reliable source would use the city, state, country usage was inaccurate. Nice to see you cherry picking the sources that are not reliable, and conveniently ignoring the ones that are. It really makes it look like you are working from good faith and trying to build a consensus! Again, if you think you are right, start the discussion. Just don't act unilaterally in the face of objection from others... (let the record show that I am not objecting, per se, to your usage, only to your actions) --Jayron32 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But which of those sources were reliable? I didn't see any that caught my eye.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of these. --Jayron32 05:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Jayron, I did look at those. And you are correct, they do use the country name. What I found interesting is that they were all used in the citations though. So I decided to pull out my Style Guides and found that they say to add the Place of Publication. So I figured that maybe it does say United States under a publishers name in a book. So I took out several of my books and couldn't find one instance where that occured. So I figured that perhaps its okay to add it in a citation, so I again picked up several of my books and journals and found that not one of them seemsed to demontrate this at all. They all read (City, State) in the citations, or sometimes even just (City). This includes of course Pulitzer Prize winning books John Adams by David McCullough and Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. But for purposes of citations I will concede that it has been formatted in that way in some cases. So if someone wants to format a citation on wikipedia using a the country name, there seems to be precident for it.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Could we perhaps accept that outside of Wikipedia both styles are used? Without going through every website thrown up by either search, I think it would be fair to say that each of them determines format based on their own specific needs, and the needs of their target audience, and that we should make a similar decision. Perhaps we could start looking at our own articles and usage, and see what type of articles are involved, how it's used in the lede, the first mention, subsequent mentions, how it's used in text vs. infobox, whether other projects have discussed it, and anything else that anyone else thinks of. I think that rather than trying to find a global standard and following it to the letter, we'd be better off looking to see what is most effective for us. It may be one or the other, or it may be a combination. Rossrs (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting idea, but what reliable English language Manual of Style prefers the (City, State, Country) format, over any others? Thats actually what I was trying to stab at earlier.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are only asking for someone to give something more credible to support the city/state/country style than "but I like it". The honest answer is that I don't know what reliable English language Manual of Style prefers that format, and even if I did, I don't think it would prove anything. We're approaching the question with different priorities, although I think we're both aiming for the same thing, which is to establish a workable guideline. Your priority seems to be to find the most legitimate, scholarly format, and implement it here, and that's reasonable. My priority is to look for something that is useful, effective and workable, regardless of whether a precedent exists for it, and that's also reasonable. If we distinguish between reliable MoS and unreliable MoS and determine which format tips the scale, it doesn't automatically follow that we've determined the most suitable style for us. We should be looking right here where we already have thousands of articles, that run the quality gamut from excellent to appalling, that we can use as a resource to see what works and what doesn't for us. Until we start looking at what we already have, I don't think we can honestly say we have a clear understanding of the problem, much less how to attempt to resolve it, and that's the main point I was trying to make. This project is constantly evolving, in a way that most of these other websites are not, and if we can view that as a positive that allows a degree of flexibility, we'll have the best chance of arriving at a decision that is tailored for our needs. "The standard" may turn out to be the most suitable, but if we only identify it and duplicate it, without assessing it against other possibilities, we're limiting ourselves. Rossrs (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So what reasoable format would you prefer, and is there a guideline that you would like written to emulate it?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's rather a broad question, and considering that I've been stressing the need for discussion rather than simply presenting a "version", I don't think it's a question that can be answered in one sentence. I'm asking for discussion, with each side being open and flexible enough to participate freely. Based on whatever is decided, I would expect to see existing guidelines amended to make points clear to all editors, and provide examples that people can refer to. I think we should look at use in infoboxes/templates/lists as a separate issue to use in prose. I think we should look at articles that are purely geographical in subject against articles that are not geographical in nature but that refer to place names. I think we should take it beyond American places names and consider all place names, so that the broadest part of the guideline can give general information, to be followed by specific requirements for individual countries. I think we should look at how the first mention in an article is given, against how subsequent mentions use the name. I think we should look at a range of WP:FA given that they are articles that should have been scrutinised more carefully and more widely than most articles, and therefore represent a Wikipedia standard. Some points that may be uncovered may be better addressed by other guidelines and where they overlap we can ensure that guidelines reflect consistency. I support Jayron32's comment below. Rossrs (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). I think Rossrs speaks wisdom here. No one is contesting the existance of the standard that Jojhutton notes. The issue is that we need to develop an inhouse standard at Wikipedia, and none appears to exist. It is entirely possible that we could develop a standard identical to what Jojhutton is proposing, but as yet there has been no open community discussion on the matter, no RFC, no way by which to formally enact any standard, so far it is just a battle of individual wills, which is a poor way to decide guideline and policy here. Instead, lets just start the RFC. I see no reason not to have it here. I have some things to do in a short while, but when I have some time, I think we do need to start a formal RFC, advertise it at WP:CENT and other appropriate venues, and see where community consensus lies. I plan to start developing said RFC discussion later today. Its clear we are all just going around in circles here, and its time to change the focus here in order to get something done. --Jayron32 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it has been my contention the entire time, that the intent of WP:PLACE was to refer to ALL articles. It says so in the section labeled Contents and is evident in the early edit history of the guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the guideline is interpreted so differently by different editors, it needs to be updated to make it clear. We should be able to refer to it without inciting a long debate over the meaning of one sentence. Your contention has been that it refers to ALL articles, and you've been clear in that but the comments of other editors (most of which are on your talk page, but not here) have been that it is not intended to refer to ALL articles. It contains a sentence saying that it refers to all articles, but within the context of the entire guideline, that sentence is jarring. The context of everything else in the guideline boils down to naming. It could be that the sentence you're referring to is the part of the guideline that is wrong, and the person who added that sentence has not stepped forward to explain what was his or her intent. So whatever the intent may have been is open to interpretation. I don't expect you to accept that just because I suggest it, but it would be nice if you could at least entertain the notion that it may be so. I think the other thing to consider is that no matter what the guideline says now or in the future, it is not set in stone and if it needs to be changed, now or in the future, we should change it. We shouldn't slavishly follow it just because it's there, especially if we identify something that is inconsistently interpreted. Rossrs (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that as well. Yet if you look back, and I mean way back, in the edit history of the guideline, you will notice that that sentence wasn't just added randomly, but has been there early on, even when the guideline was still just not even formalized. Which means that the framers of the guideline intended it to be there. If you couple that with this removal without consensus, it is clear to me that the intention of the framers was for this to be intended for all of wikipedia. This early version is the most telling. Scroll down to Proposel E, Version 1, and it says and I quote (this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it). The intent of the framers is very clear here, as is the intent of the guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the framers aren't here having this problem. The opinion of the framers in the issue means squat in dealing with a problem now, policies and guidelines reflect community norms, they do not create it. If the guideline needs to be changed, we can do that. There's no need to stand on tradition if the tradition isn't working. --Jayron32 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the intent of the policy. Didn't you point out that I was told by many other editors that I was misinterpreting the policy? I just proved that I was not. If you would like a change in the guideline, then please suggest a change. If not, then the spirit and the intent of the guideline was to apply across the board. That is what I have been saying all this time.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We began by discussing the intent of the policy, but the discussion has evolved to the point where we are looking at the application of the guideline. As you point out, there have been changes to the guideline since the early draft and if the intent hasn't changed completely, the context has, and the emphasis has. As this discussion has progressed it's been clear that we're discussing its current relevance and the possibility of changing. A couple of times you said something like "please suggest a change". Jayron32 and I have both said that there is a need to discuss what options are available. I'm not going to leap straight into suggesting a change. The "most telling version" is still open to interpretation. It says "this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it" and then it goes on to say consistency is needed, giving examples of modern names vs historical names. It does not say "use city and state but never country". In fact, it does not mention it at all. Again, I'll say this - if there is so much room for different interpretations of the guideline, when we are all reading exactly the same piece of text, we need to fix the guideline. It shouldn't allow such wildly different interpretations. Honestly, I don't mind whether you are right are wrong, as I don't see that as the most crucial issue. Rather than trying to prove the intent, can we move forward please? Rossrs (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you remember, I have been told over and over and over and over again, by several others, that I was "misinterpreting" the guideline. Well I still don't think that I was. Until we get some sort of agreement as to what it means, and what it the intent sprit, then it will be impoosible to move on. Now Rossrs, you say that the guideline doesn't say (City, State). Well again I beg to differ. This section is in the very same guideline. How can that be interpreted any differently? So first it sayd that this guideline applies to all articles, then goes on to say that the guideline for U.S. Cities is (City, State). Its not nitpicking out different policies and guidelines to prove a point. Both are written in th every same page. Now if someone wants to change the excisting policy, then lets hear the proposal.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course I remember. I know you've been told that you've misinterpreted it, and I think you've misinterpreted it too, but if you think that's the insurmountable issue, I have to say that I don't think it is. You were the one who noted an early version of the guideline and you highlighted "this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it" as if it had proved your case. All I said was that in that section it discussed an entirely different aspect of the naming convention, so I don't interpret that part of the guideline the same way you do. WP:PLACE#United States? Again? I know you like the last half of the sentence, but the first half of the sentence says "A United States city's article should never be titled..." We're not talking about the naming of the article. In reply to "Until we get some sort of agreement as to what it means, and what it the intent sprit, then it will be impoosible to move on." Why? We can move on, we can assess the guideline, we can amend it if necessary. What's impeding us? Jayron32 also said "The opinion of the framers in the issue means squat in dealing with a problem now, policies and guidelines reflect community norms, they do not create it. If the guideline needs to be changed, we can do that." I think that's very well said. Guidelines are constantly being updated right across the project. We don't have to sit around debating something that may never be resolved. If the guideline is so difficult to interpret, it must be fixed. It's that simple. I agree with everything you say in relation to the naming of articles, and in regards to prose. I disagree in regards to infoboxes. What makes it impossible to move on, is you not accepting the disagreement of other editors. And please stop asking for a proposal. I'll say it for the third time - discussion needs to come before the proposal and right below this, User:Pmanderson has started discussing specifics. Do you want to participate in discussion or do you want to keep reminding me of your interpretation of the guideline? Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this comes down to these assertions:

• Articles on places in the United States should be written and titled in American English, per WP:ENGVAR - one of the few actually useful and consensus parts of that nest of essays called MOS.
• In American English, Springfield, Illinois is idiom; it is is possible to call the city simply Springfield, but only in contexts where none of the other twenty Springfields could possibly be meant. Our article titles have no context.
• On the other hand Springfield, Illinois, United States is not sound American, and should be fixed. It is in fact a traditional schoolchild error to extrapolate the form used in addresses to "666 Normal Street, Springfield, Illinois, United States, North America, Earth, Solar System...", but among literate adults this is a joke. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What about in contexts which are not unambiguously American. One could envision where Springfield, Illinois could be mentioned in an article which had nothing to do with the U.S., and a reader who may be unfamiliar with the State of Illinois as a U.S. state. I know that I could probably not name every county and administrative subdivision of the British Isles, and if I saw a English-language city named without context, in an article that had nothing to do with the the country it was located in, it may be helpful to know that, for example, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia was different from Newcastle, Monmouthshire, Wales and Newcastle, Shropshire, England, and New Castle, New York, United States. Yes, in articles where context is clear, there may be no need to indicate the country. But for articles not unambiguously American, in contexts where America is not to be assumed, it may be desireable to indicate the country. Certainly not in all cases, and likely not in many cases, but to have it occur sometimes may be a good idea. Speaking in absolutes, like "Such-and-such" should never happen is unwise in this case. It may not be usual, but there can be situations when it should. Insofar as there is a difference on this issue, we should clearly establish when such usage is preferred, and when it is not. --Jayron32 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There are probably numerous examples, and there's no way of knowing what may confuse a particular person. Usually a place name would not be used in isolation, so if Springfield, Illinois is mentioned in a particular article, there would probably be something in that sentence/paragraph/section to determine that it is in the U.S., and when this doesn't occur, the most effective solution might be to reword the sentence so that we can avoid using "Springfield, Illinois, U.S". Context could be easily given, but in the unlikely event of that not being possible, common sense should allow us to depart from guidelines if necessary. In a list such as 1888 in architecture - apparently all the great buildings of that year happened to be in the U.S., except for that one very nice building in The Netherlands - if the rest of the world was represented, it would probably be broken down by country, so again, it would not need "U.S" on the end of it. The only exception to this, that really jumps out at me is infoboxes. In every other context that I can think of, I can think of a way to avoid using "U.S." Rossrs (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This is long, and I apologise. For that reason, I've used a subheader to keep it distinct from the main discussion. This discussion started partly because "U.S." was being removed from a number of infoboxes. This is what is recorded against several widely used infoboxes, and editors would likely refer to these when adding infoboxes.

Template:Infobox actor, "town/city, state (if relevant), country"
Template:Infobox athlete, "The sportsperson's place of birth. In accordance with "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags", do not use a flag template here."
Template:Infobox comedian, "town, city, country"
Template:Infobox musical artist, "[[City]], [[State/Province]], [[Country]]"
Template:Infobox officeholder - broad template that encompasses all political bios. "lower" templates such as "Infobox Politician" all redirect. Does not indicate how to, or how not to record the data for birth or death place
Template:Infobox person, "city, administrative region, sovereign state."
Template:Infobox scientist, "(e.g. town/city, region, country)."
Template:Infobox writer, "town, city, state, country"

What follows is intentional cherry picking from the list of WP:FAs. I'm working from that list, because they are held up as the best of Wikipedia. All of these articles use the country in the infobox for place of birth, death or both. (I did notice quite a few, mainly American, Australian and Canadian subjects, that did not use the country.)

• Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, English founder of Scouts, Kate Bush, English singer. Georg Cantor, German mathematician. John Douglas, English architect. Ernest Emerson, American martial-artist. Anne Frank, German-born diarist. Adam Gilchrist, Australian athlete. Jake Gyllenhaal, American actor. Phil Hartman, Canadian actor. Natalee Holloway, American missing person. Henry James, American writer. Magic Johnson, American athlete. Michael Jordan, American athlete. Paul Kane, Canadian painter. Barbara McClintock, American scientist. John Mayer, American musician. James Newland, Australian Army officer. Gerard K. O'Neill, American physicist. Miranda Otto, Australian actress. Rosa Parks, American civil rights activist. Edgar Allan Poe, American writer. Hilary Putnam, American philosopher. Nancy Reagan, American former First Lady. John Martin Scripps, British serial killer. Albert Speer, German architect. Edward Teller, Hungarian-American physicist. Jack Warner, American film studio executive. Ryan White, American HIV patient. Michael Woodruff, English scientist. Edward Wright, English mathematician. Frank Zappa, American musician.

My point in listing these is to show the diversity of subjects and projects. It's highly unlikely that the same group of editors would have been involved in writing, reviewing, promoting to FA or even reading all of these articles, so they would seem to represent an unknown, but likely high, number of editors who have been involved with them, or who have at least read them, bearing in mind that a lot of them have been featured on the main page. It's also seems logical that if editors are referring to these articles when working on other articles, the usage of city/state/country will be, in good faith, duplicated. Regardless of what the guideline says, this shows something about how the infobox is commonly used and the guideline should not preclude this usage. I'm not suggesting that this is a preferred usage, only that it is acceptable and that the guideline should be amended to note this. Rossrs (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit Conflict)Nice work on the list. I cannot contest these finely written articles, but I hope that I haven't led you to believe that I was trying to "correct" articles that link UK, Canadian, and Australian as well. I am only fairly familiar with the MOS on those topics, but to save us time, my initial concern was for articles linking to U.S. cities only. The other articles will of course be linked together if there is any change in the guideline. That being said, I am well aware that the info boxes have been formatted incorrectly in some cases. I also understand why the instructions are worded in that way, it does not mean, however, that every article should follow the instructions.

Lets take for example Shakira, mostly because I think shes hot and I don't mind checking out her page from time to time . She is from Columbia, so the instructions placed inside the infobox, for adding the country name would apply here. But wait, should we add her state and/or province as well? It says so, but it hasn't been added. Perhaps it was a concious choice by whoever edited that info box, not to add it, because its not really MOS. I don't know, I'm not familiar with that structure....yet. Now then, we can look at an American recording artist. Lets look at Carrie Underwood, again, hot. . Her info box does include the country name, according to the instructions for the infobox for musical artists. Now why was it slavishly followed here, and not at the Shakira article? Its because, Anyone Can Edit. I would surmise that about 80-90% of people who edit wikipedia have probably never picked up a hard copy of a style guide in their lives, or atleast not read through one. Nor do most people who edit here actually read every policy and guideline. Most, my self included , only really read the overview of most policies and guidelines on wikipedia. It can be safe to assume, that when any random editor clickes on the edit button to make a change, they only read the instuctions on what to add to the infobox of any given article. If I saw the instuctions written that way for Musical Artist, and I was unfamiliar with the proper MOS for United States Cities, I would most likely add the country name as well, although its not proper MOS. If we make the assumption that the template for Musical Artists applies to every artist all over the world, then the info boc instuction are technically correct. Yet if we assume that infobox instructions are not policy, and therfore cannot override policy, we must use common sense when adding information to them. If it says country, then its fine to add it for artists whose geographical MOS allows that addition, but not fine for artists whose geographical locations do not format that way. This of course goes for every infobox that you referenced.

Now I also have an appreciation for the wp:FA process, and the grueling consensus debates that happen at those articles. I have no immediate answer as to why those were promoted to featured articles when they had some obvious MOS flaws, except to say that if many editors who edit wikipedia are unfamiliar with the the MOS writing style for U.S. Cities, then I can see how that problem may have slipped through, in some cases.

Now I have to get mushy for a moment. I am very impressed with how this conversation has progressed, especially when we remember how it began. I am familiar with User:Jayon32's work on wikipedia and have the deepest respect for his work on wikipedia. I am less familiar with User:Rossrs's edit history, but have become equally impressed with his cordial and friendly guidance on this issue. Others, especially in the begining, were not so friendly and cordial to what I was saying. Being told again and agian how I was misinterpreting the guideline was a bit frustruating, but I stayed my course and even looked at the guideline from every possible angle. I could see reason to interpret any differently. Given my knowledge of various style guides, I may have been biased toward my own point of view, but it has always been my intention to follow wikipedia policy to the letter, even if it differed with my own personal feelings. If there is a consensus to change the gudeline, and I still believe that it applies to all articles , then I guess I have no choice, but until the guideline is changed, then there is no obvious reason to have the City, State, Country) in any part of any article.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you were discussing countries other than the U.S. but it's relevant to consider that other countries are similar. Australia uses states in exactly the same manner as the U.S., the UK uses counties, India uses states, China uses provinces, Canada uses provinces. Perhaps very few editors have looked at an MoS, whether it be a Wikipedia MoS or a non-Wikipedia MoS, and for that reason I think it's important to consider the need to keep things simple, where possible, and to also view that common usage is a consideration. Let's also agree that the main aim of any encyclopedia is to inform and educate. Consider that many people do not have a good knowledge of geography - a contestant on The Amazing Race recently commented that Prague is "a country, dude." Well, no. To me that was bleedingly obvious, but clearly I am wrong to assume everyone knows Prague is a city. Some people don't know the difference between Austria and Australia. Think about who uses Wikipedia in the English-language world. Not all readers are American. A child in Australia or the UK may not know that California is a state. If they see an article with an infobox that says someone was born "Paris, France" and that they died in "Los Angeles, California", will they assume that California is a country? It's better to give them too much information than not enough, and if we have to state the (to us) obvious, is that really a minus for something that should be accessible for all? As I said before, I'm only suggesting that the widespread use and the need for consistency are important considerations, and in my view, more important than being 100% precise in following any MoS. Some infoboxes state that the format city/state/country is acceptable, and even if that's not supported by a range of MoS that you may have access to, it is given as "acceptable" here. For that reason, I think it's fair for an editor to add the country to the infobox, citing the infobox instruction as justification. Not compulsory, but acceptable. I think it is not appropriate to remove the country where it exists, because it goes against the notion of common usage and the infobox instruction. So, to put it simply, even if editors here are clueless as to what is acceptable outside of Wikipedia and what the usual standard style is for U.S. cities, here they are not restricted to that. You said in a previous comment somewhere that you are not opposed to the country being included in the infobox, but not in that format. That wouldn't be a bad thing, but one of the main features of the infobox is to present information with the emphasis on brevity. To have the country of birth and death on a seperate line, would add two lines of text, and in the eyes of many editors would not say anything different - (bearing in mind that most of them haven't looked at the MoS). Rossrs (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I like perhaps those other editors don't require an amendment to this guideline to include the country because this guidance is about the articles name. It says at the beginning 'Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen'. One does not need to read further. While that text remains this guideline has no bearing on the choice of country or not within the articles contents. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I know. The problem is that this guideline was being used to support the removal of countries from infoboxes, and I know the guideline doesn't support that. The editor in question maintains that it does, so to discuss it here is appropriate. The disagreement seems to revolve mainly around the interpretation of General guidelines 3. "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question)". Less than one sentence, in fact it boils down to what is meant by the word "using". If we can agree what that word means, and then amend it so that everyone who sees it, sees the same thing, the issue will be resolved. Rossrs (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there may be occasional reasons to link to Springfield, Illinois from text which calls it something else. This is no reason to move the article; that is why our demiurges installed piping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why click a link is flawed

There seems many times the explaination comes up that you can click the place link to find out more, like the country. This idea is flawed, the reason being Selection team Wikipedia is not just the encyclopedia that you can browse and edit online. We are publishing sets of articles in print, CD, DVD, or some combination thereof. The versions so far, are not that comprehensive that it has ever place. So they are unlikely to have place names clickable. So please consider the big picture of all our readers when considering whether adding a country is suitable. SunCreator (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One online example of a previous article selection is a schools wikipedia found here. If you browse about you will notice few links as for various reasons only a small part of the full encyclopedia is used. I think only about the main 3000 articles initially. SunCreator (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who distributes Wikipedia articles to schoolchildren without editing them first is defaulting on a fundamental responsibility of not giving out unreliable sources. (For the kibitzers: yes, there are exceptions, involving creative arts or teaching the children to do better than our editors - generally a readily attainable goal.)

We are not a reliable source; the non-working links fall far behind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign names in the articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan

This guideline holds that:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.

However there is a dispute with regard to inclusion of names in other languages in the articles about places in Armenia and Azerbaijan. This also concerns locations in Turkey, and maybe in Iran. This issue has been going on for years, and there are numerous edit wars in the articles about the geographic locations in the region, where one group is trying to include a name, and the other removes it. The recent example of such a dispute was in the article about Yerevan, where there was a dispute about appropriateness of the Turkish name in the lead of the article about that city. While a group of editors removed the Turkish name from the lead of that article, despite the city being a part of Ottoman and Seljuk empires at certain points in the history, the same group of people insisted on inclusion of the Armenian name into the article about Iğdır in Turkey. There was a similar dispute in the articles about Nakhchivan and Syunik. A group of editors (mostly from Armenia) insisted that the Armenian name was appropriate for the region in Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijani name was not appropriate for the region in Armenia, despite Azerbaijanis historically forming a majority there. The editors involved in the dispute asked for the third opinion, and it was that foreign names are relevant for both locations. [2] My personal opinion is that the rule cannot be applied only one way. If editors from Armenia want the Armenian names included in the articles about locations in the neighboring countries, there's nothing wrong with it, but they must accept that the foreign names can also be included in the articles about locations in Armenia, as the rules allow for that. I would like the community to look into this issue, and make a final decision that would be binding for everyone, since the community decision is the only way to put an end to debates about this issue. Grandmaster 08:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you are just starting the discussion, but I think you are starting out by oversimplifying the problem and being overly specific. We need general rules that can apply to all articles. For example, you over simplify by omitting the "alphabet question" - the arguments about rendering place names using alphabets that were not actually invented when the place was known by that name, or about having a list with the same place-name spelt using 4 or more different alphabets (i.e Armenian, modern Turkish, modern Azeri, "Kurdish", Persian, Ottoman Turkish, etc.). I think what is needed as a starting point for this discussion is to make a long list of every problematic issue that these alternative names arguments have been about, and make the list as generic as possible, avoiding specific articles as much as possible. I'd bet that similar naming-convention arguments are found on non-Armenian/Turkish/Iranian articles; if so, the issue is broader than just a small area of related articles. Meowy 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the 10% rule, such as it was, is to include names which are likely to encountered in reading accounts of these places in English. That will generally include, for example, the modern orthography of Turkish, anachronism or not; it will also include names traditionally used in Western Europe, such as Trebizond or Smyrna; it will include Armenian names when the city has been discussed in English as an Armenian place of settlement; and so on.

For an example from outside the area now in discussion, consider why Bratislava includes both Pressburg and Pozsony (it might also include Presburg or Preßburg) and apply those principles elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you know if there are examples in other areas where foreign alphabets are used?
I can see usefulness in having a place-name in Armenia also rendered in the Armenian alphabet because it might help identify that place on a map. That same usefulness could be extended to places now outside the borders of present-day Armenia. But let's be honest, the main reason that editors want names spelt using the Armenian alphabet for places that are outside the borders of present-day Armenia is because they reason "Turks completely exterminated that place's Armenian population, they demolished its historical Armenian monuments, they renamed it, they rewrote its history to deny its Armenian past - but I can reverse that in a small way by writing its name in Armenian". I understand the feelings, but I don't think those feelings make for a valid, sustainable case for rendering those names using the Armenian alphabet. Other reasoning has to be found. I also fail to see any valid reasoning for rendering place names in Armenia using the modern Azeri alphabet - and unlike the positive reasons/feelings that lie behind the use of the Armenian alphabet for places not in Armenia, nothing positive lies behind the use of the Azeri alphabet to spell places now in Armenia. Meowy 20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Does fraktur count as a "foreign alphabet" ;->? If not, this would seem to require the local use of two different non-Roman alphabets, which will not be all that common. But yes, away from the Azeri: Serres#Names, Jerusalem, İzmir#names and etymology. As with two of these, it may be reasonable to pull the discussion out of the first line so that the first sentence is not interminably interrupted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is wrong with using the modern Azeri alphabet? It is just a mean to convey a spelling in a certain language. Considering that historically Azeris formed majority in most of present day Armenia, including its capital Yerevan, the name in Azerbaijani language is justified for many locations in Armenia. The guideline does not set any limitations for the use of modern alphabets. Plus, modern alphabets are used in articles about historical entities too, such as modern Russian in Elisabethpol Governorate, Tiflis Governorate, Moscow Governorate, or modern Tatar in Kazan Governorate. That is because the spelling in modern alphabets in used in scholarly and popular literature in those languages. Grandmaster 11:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Because at best it is nothing more than irredentism. A lot of it is propaganda, aimed at denying the very existance of the native Armenian population. Unless the article is on the Azeri-language Wikipedia, I can see no justification in spelling a place-name using the modern Azeri alphabet (an alphabet which was invented in the 1990s) for places that are not inside Azerbaijan. Such place names should be rendered using the English alphabet, using whatever method of translitteration is the most appropriate. Meowy 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using the new Azeri alphabet for these place names is that that is not what is likely to occur in English language publications. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

But will you encounter Armenian alphabet in English language publications? Or Russian? Or Turkish? We should not confuse alternative names used in English, such as Constantinople for Istanbul, with names in other languages. There are alternative English names, and there are names used by local populations in their languages. The rules allow for both. The guideline says: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. The Azeri (or Armenian) name may not be used by English sources, but it could be "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". In that case Azeri spelling would be quite appropriate, as for instance Azeris used to constitute 49% of population of Yerevan. Grandmaster 05:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to hear an argument from armenian editors: do you agree with WP:NC? I never got appropriate answer to this question,which I presume, because of biased views towards it. The issue is very simple. Either we set some rules for AA, Turkey related articles or we just go with current WP:NC. I made myself clear several times and state it again: Provided that WP:NC is accepted by all, I'm comfortable with it. But I do understand that foreign spellings are not welcomed by rival parties, although in this case by one party - armenian editors. Two solutions I suggest: 1) to remove all foreign spellings from the lead and add them in the history section as it becomes relevant. 2) Current WP:NC : In this case we'll add persian, ottoman, azeri spellings all relevant armenian cities and vice versa. Simple as that. Unible 08:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "WP:NC"? Meowy 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia Naming Conventions: WP:NCGNUnible 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

I see nothing there about inventing modern versions of old names. That is often what is being done by the insertion of so-called "Azeri" (i.e. Azerbaijani) place-names, written with the modern alphabet used by Azerbaijan, into articles about places located in Armenia. Good intentions rarely lie behind these edits. As proof, why are those who make such edits not also inserting "Azerbaijani" place-names into articles about places located in Turkey. Many places in Armenia have had, at some point in their history, names that areTurkic or partially Turkic in origin, often because at some point in their history they had a Turkic population or had Turkic rulers or owners. However "Azerbaijani" is a modern concept - none of that former population would have called themselves "Azerbaijani", they would have called themselves Muslims and recognised themselves as having Turkish or Tatar ethnicity. Modern Azerbaijan makes political-based irredentist claims that all Turks/Tatars who live in or once lived in what is now Armenia and Georgia should be called "Azeris" (while carefully not applying the same claim to Turks/Tatars who live in or once lived in what is now eastern Turkey because Turkey is an ally). Modern political dogma is not a basis for rewriting history and turning Turkish or Turkic place-names into Azeribaijani place-names. The neutral solution is to render the Turkish or Turkic place-name using the English-langage alphabet, but identify it as Turkic or Turkish. Meowy 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, like it or not, most of Turkic Muslims lived in in the area were what now called Azerbaijanis. Just like Romans of Italy (peninsula) now called Italians. I understand why you are uncomfortable with this idea, as this is purely nationalistic.

But all of the things you said applies to Armenian spelling in Turkish/Azeri cities as well. The problem arose when some group of Armenian editors would insert Armenian spellings (sometimes even by deleting the other spellings) to the lead of Turkish cities. I objected to this and suggested that Armenian spelling of a Turkish city, in eng. wikipedia has no value to readers. The answer I got was, again nationalistic: "it is historically and perspectively important". And then they claimed that they just following WP:NC. But then, when I edited Yerevan to add Turkic, Persian spellings they all accused me of vandalism, even when I stated that it complies with wp:nc. Now I hope you see the big picture and who caused the problems. My suggestions are given above. Fell free to state your suggestions. Unible 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

Vandalism? All I saw was that you didn't understand WP:NCGN correctly, and that you were making a WP:POINT. Sardur (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the header of this section (taken from WP:NC) then decide who really didn't understand WP:NC. Your argument (50 vs 5 years) on my talk page has nothing to do with WP:NC and is your subjective view.Unible 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

The Russian censuses referred to the Turkic population of Armenia as Azerbaijani Tatars (see Brokhaus cyclopedia, for instance). According to scholarly sources, this is what Azerbaijani people were called in the Russian empire. You cannot remove Azerbaijani people from the history of Armenia because of a technicality. Like it or, but Azerbaijanis used to constitute the majority in Armenia, and it is a fact confirmed by reliable third party sources. And the rules do not prohibit the use of modern alphabets. I showed many examples of such usage. The solution to this is simple: we should either use the names in all appropriate foreign languages, or not use any at all. Let's decide on one of these options. Grandmaster 05:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"According to scholarly sources" means according to the ideology of the republic of Azerbaijan. I'll ask the question again, if the insertion of modern "Azeri" spelling of Turkic place-names in Armenia is being done for entirely good-faith reasons, why are those who make such edits not also inserting modern "Azeri" spelling of place-names into articles about places located in eastern Turkey? Meowy 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says? When Azeri spelling was inserted to Kars, it was removed by the same group of Armenian users. Same happened to the spelling in Georgian, it was removed by the same people who add Armenian spelling. They even removed the Russian spelling, despite the city being the centre of the Russian province in the 19th century. Check the history of the article: [3] [4] [5] [6] The only name that remains there now after the long edit wars is Armenian. And according to scholarly sources means according to the modern international scholarship. Grandmaster 05:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why an earth do you keep dodging from the topic? We are here to solve a problem: Shall we insert foreign spellings to AA and Turkey related articles or not? If in the end, if we decide that yes, we should, then we'll add all foreign names to relevant cities in AA and Turkey. If we decide that we should not, then we gonna remove all them. And remember, currently only Armenian editors violate the guidelines of WP:NC by not allowing foreign spellings in armenian cities. Unible 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

Wrong conclusion neglecting the meaning of the "relevancy" criterium at the basis of WP:NCGN.

In order to be more constructive (something not so common here): why limiting this to AA? I see no serious reason for doing so. Sardur (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read wp:nc? "... used by group of people used to inhabit the area". Or are you pretending that you can't understand it? We are discussing AA here, because the problem arose in AA area and you know why. To be more constructive you have to state your position: whether you agree on current WP:NC or not. Besides, you should not talk about constructiveness at all, as such you never stated your position clearly: when it came to turkish cities you strongly agreed on WP:NC, when it came to armenian cities you began to be subjective: "5 vs 50 years". Unible 00:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unible (talk • contribs)

Sigh... I agree with WP:NCGN, not with your understanding of it. Sardur (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go gentlemen. And you seek for constructiveness. My understanding? WP:NC is not there to interpret it to fit your needs. Everything is clearly written there. Unible 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and as I'm not the only one to say so, you don't see it. My last word about this. Sardur (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You sir, are vague on your expressions. You are the only one here who tried to skew the relevancy criteria. (See my talk page). Unible 16:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Another situation. Elisabethpol Governorate was a province of the Russian empire, located on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan. One can see that the name in Azerbaijani was removed first by the sock of the banned user, [7], and then by 2 Armenian users who participate in this discussion: [8] [9]. As one can see, neither of reverts were accompanied by a reasonable explanation. If we take a look at similar articles about Erivan Governorate and Kazan Governorate, we can see that they both have the names written in the languages of the local population. One can only wonder why the same people who remove the name in Azerbaijani from Elisabethpol Governorate do not object to having the Armenian name in Erivan Governorate. I could understand if someone was arguing that the only name appropriate for the old Russian provinces would be Russian, since it was the only official language at the time. But here we see only the attempts to remove the Azerbaijani names from the articles under various pretexts. I think there should be one and the same standard used in all the articles about the governorates. POV editing has to stop. Grandmaster 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not an "Armenian user". Sardur (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenian/Azerbaijani are not a reference to ethnicity. Those terms rather reflect the POVs, since not all "Azerbaijani" and "Armenian" users are ethnically Azerbaijani or Armenian. --Grandmaster 11:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster may be here as an "Azerbaijani" by his own terminology (regardless of whatever ethnicity he happens to actually be), but I hope the rest of us try to edit using better standards, those better standards being a desire to keep articles accurate, properly weighted, and to never knowingly insert false information. Meowy 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats why this topic has started in the first place. Those are "Armenian" users who violated and keep violating those standards. It's not really hard to see: they add Armenian spellings to turkish cities leads, also some Azerbaijani articles. Mostly unjustifiedly. They stand biased about WP:NC. They won't let relevant spellings to be inserted in Armenian cities. Grandmaster gave you couple of examples where actually relevant Azeri spellings have been deleted by Arm. users. This happened in some Turkish cities as well where all other spellings had been removed to keep only Armenian one. (exp. Bitlis). And I don't see you to contribute positively to the discussion. This issue has to solved and options are crystal clear.Unible (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Besides, I think bilingual names in AA matter should be reserved only for disputed areas and locations, particularly in Nagorno-Karabakh. Those locations, which remain within Azeri borders and do not have chiefly Armenian population, should have only Azeri name in the lead, while Armenian one may go somewhere below. Current lead versions of such locations as Julfa are unacceptable. Brand[t] 11:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

While I have yet to give my definitive opinion on this matter, I will state the basic criteria I use when deciding whether or not to add the Armenian name. I partially agree with Meowy, that the Armenian names being added on the cities in Turkey stem from that republic's attempts to falsify history and to deny that an Armenian population or culture ever existed. However, I concentrate it to only those articles which were part of historic Armenia, and not simply those with large Armenian populations. Armenians held an overwhelming plurality in Tbilisi, the historic Georgian capital, from the beginning 19th century until right about 1920. They were deeply involved in the city's commerce, its political life, built many Armenian churches and left a great historical heritage behind. For that matter, Armenians had been living in Tbilisi for centuries but even with all this, I never have even considered adding the Armenian name for the city. The same rule applies to Constantinople, Smyrna, Baku and even Glendale, California, where Armenians have been living in significant numbers in their own distinct communities for centuries (with the exception of Glendale, which is far too recent) but, once more, I would never even dream of adding the Armenian names to those cities, not even in the body.

Thus, the main articles where the Armenian text is added is typically on cities and regions which were part of the Armenian Plateau (Erzurum, Van, Kars, Bitlis, Igdir, Nakhichevan, Kharberd, Marash, etc.), the lands that formed the main homeland for Armenians for over three millennia, until the Genocide of 1915-1922. The same applies to Unible's WP:POINT-like edits on the Yerevan article: the city was never a part of historical Iran and certainly never a stable part of the Ottoman Empire. I can see perhaps adding the Iranian text on the section on the Iranian rule, and explain how the region came under Iranian influence or something but that's about it. The problem with adding the Azerbaijani text is twofold: first, like Meowy has pointed out, Azerbaijan did not exist as a nation until the early 20th century; Muslims living in Yerevan and other parts of Armenia never would have identified themselves as "Azeris" prior to the that time period but rather as Shiites or Turks or Tatars. Second, the mere fact that Muslims formed a temporary majority in the regions of current-day Armenia and elsewhere cannot be used as the sole reason to add the modern Azerbaijani text. Equally frivolous was Parishan's attempts to add the Azeri text on the Kars article with the wholly inaccurate belief that Azeris had been living there since the 16th century (without even adducing any real evidence to prove it so). My two cents.-Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All of what you said above is nothing but POV and has nothing to do with WP:NC. Read WP:NC first. Unible (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenians did not exist as a nation too before 1920. And Azerbaijanis did exist as an ethnicity before 1918. Someone has to be the people who created Azerbaijan republic in 1918. If Azerbaijanis did not exist before that, then who created the country of Azerbaijan? I see no real reason why the Armenian names should be included in the articles about locations in Azerbaijan and Turkey, and Turkish and Azerbaijani names should not be included in the articles about locations in Armenia. The alphabet argument holds no water. The alphabet is just a vehicle to covey the spelling in a certain langaueg, it can change, but the language remains. The fact remains that Azerbaijani people formed the pluralty of population in the modern capital of Armenia until 1918. This justifies the inclusion of Azerbaijani spelling, according to the rules. Grandmaster 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing the word nation with the word state. Prior to 1918, the last time Armenians had their own state was in 1375, when the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia fell to the Mamluks. The Armenians, otherwise, had maintained a distinctive ethno-religious identity for at the very least two millennia, and this was something all foreign sources – Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, Turkish, Russian, etc. – attest to. Before 1918, the Muslims of the South Caucasus identified themselves by their religious creed and perhaps by their ethnic group; the Azerbaijan north of the River Arax was a creation of the 20th century, and we have several modern studies on Azerbaijani identity clearly saying this. Of course, when the Russian Empire broke up a number of Muslim intellectuals in this time period decided to superficially superimpose an ethnic identity on the entire Shi'ite Muslim population living in the Caucasus, calling themselves "Azerbaijani". Placing the alphabet of the modern Azerbaijani state in these articles is a simple anachronism. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"number of Muslim intellectuals in this time period decided to superficially superimpose an ethnic identity on the entire Shi'ite Muslim population living in the Caucasus" :))) That's funny. The fact remains that Russian censuses fixed that the plurality of Yerevan's population were people whom they called Azerbaijani Tatars (Russians used to call all the Turkic people Tatars). Those Azerbaijani Tatars were one people, not many different ones, who spoke the same language as modern Azerbaijani people, i.e. they were the same people. Speculations about ethnonim is a well known trick of Armenian propaganda, used to deny the existence of Azerbaijani people in the region. It is described by Thomas de Waal:

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.

Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. ISBN 0814719457, p. 80.

And you confuse the word "nation" with the word "ethnicity". Grandmaster 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Yerevan's population were Azerbaijani Tatars. Those Azerbaijani Tatars were one people, not many different ones, who spoke the same language as modern Azerbaijani people, i.e. they were the same people. Speculations about ethnonim is a well known trick of Armenian propaganda" - there we have it, verbatim reproduction by Grandmaster of the usual Azerbaijani ideological propaganda. Meowy 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean to say that the British author Thomas de Waal is Azerbaijani propagandist? How come? Grandmaster 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need double standards. Either we remove Armenian names from Azeri locations from the leads, the same way they are being removed from Armenian ones (the way I prefer), or we accept Azeri and Armenian spellings as the second ones. But the Tatar issue is old, obsolete ethnonyms are discouraged, even if 'Tatar' is an original caption because that messes everything up. Related reverts, if repeated, are to be reported. Brand[t] 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What Azeri propaganda did you see in Grandmasters post? It's sourced material. Don't get hypocritical. This is not Armeniapedia and as Brandmeister said, we are down to two options: either remove rival spellings from the lead of all cities or we add them.--Unible (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I thought I had hinted that it was sourced material - ideological material sourced from Azerbaijan. Wikipedia articles should not have "rival spellings", they should have valid alternative place-names if those alternative place-names are genuine. Valid spellings should not include the irredentist appropriation of Turkic place-names (and by implication the places themselves) outside of modern Azerbaijan by spelling them using the modern alphabet of Azerbaijan and calling them "Azerbaijani". Meowy 23:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the modern Azeri alphabet? Azerbaijani spelling needs to be conveyed somehow. Can you show me a rule that does not allow using modern alphabets? And why then modern Russian or Tatar alphabets are used in other articles about historical locations? Please do not invent the rules. The guideline allows the use of modern alphabets, since it never prohibits their use. --Grandmaster 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it would be inserting irredentist propaganda into articles. Why does "Azerbaijani spelling need to be conveyed"? Nobody is arguing for excluding genuine historical place-names, but it would be best to render them using the English alphabet. It is your POV and OR that is calling them "Azerbaijani" and spelling them using an alien alphabet. There were no "Azerbaijanis" (and no Azerbaijan) when those names were coined, it is your OR that is now calling them "Azerbaijani", none of those place-names were ever spelt using the modern Azerbaijani alphabet (which only dates from the 1990s), and none of the places are within the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. These place-names words are not "Azerbaijani" (a citizen of modern Azerbaijan), nor are they "Azeri" (an ethnic group) - they are "Oghuz Turkic", a language (which for clarity I suggest we just call Turkish). Meowy 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no language such as Oghuz Turkic. Just check for the meaning of those words in Azerbaijani dictionaries. They are Azerbaijani words. I can explain you the meaning of every one of them. As for propaganda, check de Waal, he explained how the Armenian propaganda tries to deny the Azerbaijani history in Armenia by using the linguistic sleight of hand. Since the ethnonim Azerbaijani was not in use before the 20th century, the Armenian propaganda claims that Azerbaijani people did not exist as well. However we do not write articles on the basis of Armenian nationalistic propaganda. We write the articles in accordance with NPOV. And I'm not going to respond to any claims with regard to the modern alphabet. I already demonstrated that many articles in wikipedia use the modern alphabets, and the rules allow to use them. Grandmaster 15:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oghuz Turkic is a dialect of the Common Turkic language. New Turkic Period (16th-20th centuries). During the New Turkic period the language divided into four main languages: Chuvashic, Common Turkic, Khalaj, and Yakut. ... Common Turkic, which is the central language, developed into three different written languages: Western (Oghuz) Turkic, Eastern (Uzbek-Uigur) Turkic, and Northern (Quipchaq) Turkic. ... The areas where Oghuz dialects based on the Ottoman language are spoken can be categorised as follows: WESTERN OGHUZ: Anatolian Turkic as spoken in Turkey and neighbouring regions such as the Balkans, CENTRAL OGHUZ: Azeri Turkic as spoken in Azerbaijan, EASTERN OGHUZ: Khurasan Turkic as spoken in north-eastern Iran, SOUTHERN OGHUZ: Qashqai Turkic as spoken in Iran and Turkmen Turkic as spoken in Iraq, NORTHERN OGHUZ: Turkmen Turkic as spoken in Turkmenistan. Quoted from "The Turkic Languages", Osman Fikri Sertkaya, in "Turks, A Journey Of 1000 Years", p472-474. Meowy 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The source does not say that the population of Erivan and Transcaucasia spoke Oghuz Turkic, and that it was not Azerbaijani. It just say that Azerbaijani language is one of Oghuz Turkic languages, which no one disputes. On the contrary, your source confirms that in after the 16th century the common language split, and one of the resulting languages was Azerbaijani/Azeri. It mentions Azeri Turkic, and not some nameless language. Grandmaster 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quoted source does not mention "Azerbaijani" at all. What you call "Azerbaijani" (and what the source, later in the same chapter, calls "Azerbaijan Turkic") is the language of modern Azerbaijan and it developed after the "New Turkic period". The source doesn't actually use the words "Azeri Turkic" as a definition for a language, it uses "Central Oghuz", and is saying that "Azeri Turkic" is an example of "Central Oghuz". The same source says that "Azerbaijan Turkic" took shape during the 20th and 21st centuries, and that it is one of the 8 separate languages of Turkic today. The place names you are calling "Azerbaijani" are not "Azerbaijani" because that language did not exist before the 20th century. Nor is it correct to call them Azeri because 1/ "Azeri" is just one part of a wider-spread dialect called "Central Oghuz Turkic", and 2/ in almost every case it would be OR to claim that placename X is "Central Oghuz" rather than "Western Oghuz" - all that could be safely said is that it is "Oghuz Turkic". Meowy 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice original research. But if we look at the scholarly sources, such as encyclopedia Iranica, it says:

The early Azeri texts are a part of the Old Osmanli literature (the difference between Azeri and Turkish was then extremely small). The oldest poet of the Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not of East Anatolian of Khorasani, origin) is ʿEmād-al-dīn Nasīmī (about 1369-1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri authors were Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī “Ḵatāʾī” (1487-1524), and Fożūlī (about 1494-1556, q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During the 17th-20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish but classical Persian exercised a great influence on the language and its literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1,200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since the 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles, and conduct of war. [10]

If no Azeri language existed before the 20th century, how come that the earliest Azeri poetry dates back to the 14th century? --Grandmaster 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But your own source agrees with the source I quoted from: "the difference between Azeri and Turkish was then extremely small". Saying a medieval name is "Azerbaijani" is nothing more than your claim (a claim that isn't even robust enough to be called OR, since you have no "R" to back it up). "Azerbaijani" is not a term that can be applied for this early period, and in most cases there is no way to know if a placename is "Central Oghuz Turkic" rather than "Western Oghuz Turkic". All that can be said with certainty is that it is "Oghuz Turkic" - which, for the purpose of these articles, might as well just be called "Turkish". And for neutrality and clarity I think such names should be spelt phonetically rather than using a recently-coined nation-specific alphabet like modern Turkish. Meowy 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says "the difference between Azeri and Turkish was then extremely small" with regard to the 12th century. Ever after that it was Azerbaijani language, not Oghuz Turkic, which is not a language. It is a group of languages. Iranica makes it clear, it says: Azeri belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family. The poetry in Azerbaijani language exists since the 14th century. If Azerbaijani language did not exist in the 14th century, there could be no poetry in that language. Common logic dictates that. Grandmaster 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does the source mention 12th century? It just says "Old Osmanli" - which I assume means 15th century, the time when the Ottoman empire started to control this region. And, again, the source agrees with my point, quote: "it is very difficult to draw a clear line between the East Anatolian dialects of Turkish and Azeri". I also see that the source also says that modern Azerbaijani (the Azerbaijani of the Azerbaijan republic) grew out of the eastern Azeri group of dialects, which was not what was spoken in regions that are now inside Armenian territory. Meowy 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read carefully: The oldest poet of the Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not of East Anatolian of Khorasani, origin) is ʿEmād-al-dīn Nasīmī (about 1369-1404, q.v.). Literature before that was hard to distinguish from Anatolian. And Azerbaijani was spoken in Armenia until 1988. Grandmaster 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1369-1404 is late 14th century / early 15th century. There is no "12th century" mentioned in that source. I'm pleased you are now saying that prior to that period it is not possible to distinguish "Anatolia" western Oghuz Turkic from central Oghuz Turkic. Yes Azerbaijani was spoken in Armenia during the Soviet period - the Soviet period was when modern Azerbaijani became the distinct language it is now, and when it became the official, state-taught language of ethnic Turkic groups throughout the Transcaucasus. Meowy 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, check Wikipedia:Lead#Abbreviations_and_synonyms, and also Separate section usage a few lines below. Maybe it would be better to not use any foreign names in the lead, and list them in a separate section. Grandmaster 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "foreign names" that are the problem, it's "foreign alphabets". Name are names, they are sounds, not living beings, they don't have an ethnicity. Meowy 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alphabets are not a problem. I demonstrated that modern alphabets are used, and it is a common practice. We cannot invent the rules. You still haven't shown me a rule that does not allow using modern alphabets. Grandmaster 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents. If there is a well established historical origin of particular geographical name in a particular language, then the spelling in that language's ISO-certified alphabet must be acceptable for Wikipedia. For example, the geographical name of Yerevan has very little if anything to do with Armenian language, whilst neither Persian nor Azeri or Ottoman Turkish spelling are displayed. Same with Kars, which has Georgian origins, despite Georgian spelling being constantly pushed down to uphold Armenian spelling by one of the contributors in this thread. In most cases, the intention behind using or reasserting a particular spelling has nothing to do with historical research but simply with bad faith, irredentism and intolerance of the other.

So, I believe the safest way to resolve the problem is to allow all ISO-approved spellings (based on 10% rule) be listed without restriction because the non-Armenian-non-Azeri reader has nothing to lose from them. Alternatively, if that's not an acceptable solution, then ban all foreign name spellings, and only allow English spelling based on most widely accepted version. Anything in between, will be the beginning of another round of fruitless edit wars, which in case of AA conflict have no solution. Atabəy (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)