Talk:Drmbon

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heyvali (village) → Drmbon — As per arguments at Summary of arguments.  Ashot  ^(talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The rest of the world considers this village to be a part of Azerbaijan illegally occupied by Armenian forces. Were it in Nagorno-Karabakh proper, I might be sympathetic to the proposal. However, it isn't. It is in a part of Kalbajar Rayon annexed by the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the annexation of which is not recognised by anyone except the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic itself (not even by Armenia!). As such we should remain with the Azerbaijani name until agreement on the the future of the settlement is reached. I would, however, support a move to Heyvalı, which is the correct Azerbaijani spelling (there isn't a recognised English name for such a small settlement), and which omits the unnecessary (village) disambiguator. Incidentally, I hesitate to mention it, but nobody has produced any evidence whatever that the settlement is referred to in reliable English sources as Drmbon. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your statements do not reflect the opinion of the "world" as far as the "world" is bigger than Azerbaijan and a number of other states. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is on the way to de-jure recognition of its de-facto independence. Overall, its status is being negotiated with mediation of Russia, France and the USA and nobody can predict the outcome now.

As per the settlement name, Heyvali is a resemblance of some dreamy views of the world. It has nothing to do with actual reality (as per summary of my arguments) and hence misleads Wikipedia readers.

You also mention: "Were it in Nagorno-Karabakh proper, I might be sympathetic to the proposal". Please be aware that it is there (right by the Sarsang reservoir, always being part of NKAO). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I suppose, though I don't understand why there's been so much discussion about the title of this very insignificant article. If this is the de facto local name, it's presumably the name under which English speakers are more likely (if at all) to encounter the place.--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The request is to move the page to an Armenian name based on POV. One might argue that the current name Heyvali is also POV because it's Azerbaijani, but I'm sorry, that's what the world recognizes the villages/towns by, their legal names. Once and if the current separatist authorities in Karabakh are recognized by the international community, their version of the names can be introduced as titles as well. As of now, the alternative Armenian name Drmbon should remain as an alternative shown in parenthesis and as redirect to Heyvali (village) article. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can a name be POV? Have you evidence that the world recognizes this place under any name, let alone the one you claim is "legal"? If not, I would assume (and I've already forgotten which is Azeri and which is Armenian, I don't care) that the name actually used locally is the one under which someone from outside might become aware of this place, in the unlikely event that they ever did. There must surely be more like this - I can't believe all this argument is worth it over one little stub article. --Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By POV I mean the name used by a side which is unrecognized by the rest of the world and has no legal status. Let me give you an example. I believe you're from Poland. So, please tell me, if Germans all of a sudden captured Lubusz and changed its name to Brandenburg Ost or something of that nature, and the world would not recognize its because it wasn't separated from Poland legally, hence wouldn't recognize the name Brandenburg Ost, would you agree that the region should be renamed to the German version? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The region (you mean Lubusz Voivodeship probably) would no doubt be referred to in English-language reports, so we could examine those to find the common name. But if Germany renamed little villages in that region, expelled all their Polish-speaking inhabitants, changed the road signs, published new maps, and looked like being there permanently, then yes, I guess we would expect English-speaking readers to encounter those places under their German names, so we could title our articles accordingly.--Kotniski (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you would, it's an opinion and I respect that, but what about those Polish people who would have been hypothetically ethnically cleansed from the region? It is inadmissible because the de-facto German authorities would have seized the territory by force and without international recognition. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you raise the issue when and if those hypothetically ethnically cleansed people come back to their homes. They haven't come back during last 20 years and there is no actual evidence that they ever will (at least during years to come). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can they when they have guns pointed at them? This discussion is irrelevant. There is international law and according to the international law the secession (as claimed by Armenians) did not proceed in any legal way, but by force. Hence, no recognition from the international community. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I say WHEN and IF.

The following quote exactly presents my point of view: "Azerbaijan unleashed the war, and was defeated in that war; Azerbaijan asked for truce (including from the Commander of Karabakh’s forces) and later started to sob about the dire repercussions of that war. As if wars ever bring pleasant repercussions. And on top of that, Azerbaijan adopted conceited stance and started to make demands as if anywhere in the world defeated aggressors are ever allowed to make demands" ([1]).

Recognition is not a factor for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you couldn't find a better source to refer to, right? :) A President of Armenia, who has not even been the citizen of Armenia and who's been accused of war crimes in Khojaly. Wikipedia relies on neutral sources and the neutral sources say the village is called Heyvali. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The region, where the indicated village is located, is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan by all English-speaking countries. Since none of these English-speaking countries has an alternate name of its own for the geographic entity in question, it is more appropriate to use the official name, which is Azerbaijani. Atabəy (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody of locals would call the village as Heyvali and its official current name is Drmbon. Heyvali is outdated. I suggest that this redirect be removed. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, nobody from locals does but the rest of the world calls it Heyvali since it's the official internationally recognized name of the village. The information is sourced by relevant sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your logic Stepanakert should be redirected to Xankəndi, but that is not the case. Hence I assume you have some misunderstanding of the issue. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. It's not my logic. It's a commonly accepted logic. With your logic, the local Azerbaijani minority of Armenian SSR should have called Yerevan Irəvan when the minory was a part of Armenian SSR before they were expelled. That's why there are international community and organizations keeping the world order so that minorities don't go renaming administrative units at their will. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of such a "commonly accepted logic". But that's not the matter at all. This is wikipedia and it has its own rules. I keep insisting that this redirect should be removed.-- Ashot  ^(talk) 11:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people keep insisting on what they want :) This is Wikipedia and Wikipedia relies on proper sources; at a time of a conflicting interests, text is to be based on neutral sources. Please take it to a relevant board if you keep insisting. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er. "The rest of the world" calls it Heyvali? There's an official internationally recognized name of a town of 645 people that has never been internationally significant nor ever appeared in news outside Azerbaijan or Armenia, or even likely its own rayon? There's a certain conceit going on here if you think the world a) knows or b) cares about this hamlet's name. --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, and one of the only two references is to a United States military site, effectively nullifying some of my argument. But my point remains - no one cares about this town. It being a single entry in a gigantic database doesn't mean they actually care about it. I say use the local name (and have always said that for the cities in long-time de facto independent regions), as we should do with all the towns in an area that has been effectively independent for two decades. If Azerbaijan wants to control what towns in that region are named, they can sack up and make it happen. Otherwise, twenty years says the Armenians win this one. The redirect should obviously stay, though, since it's an alternate name to the town, and anyone who suggests it be removed doesn't understand that we don't delete history here, and redirects are cheap. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, how do you define "effectively independent"? Effectively independent would be an independent state which is recognized and had a place in the international community. Since this entity was never recognized by any state and its whole Azerbaijani population was ethnically cleansed it can't possibly be. US military site does recognize the internationally recognized name of the village as much as the international organizations and states recgonize only the legitimate names given by the de-jure government. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Where do you live, Golbez? Apartment, house, condo? Do you live in a town which decides what to call the street and mark the street number? Oh yes, you most likely do and you're in no position to change the name of the street you reside on or assign any other different number of your preference. Yes, you can fortify your house and put machine guns at every window to fight off anyone that comes by to make you understand the property is located in the administrative entity de-jure controlled by the government, but that doesn't change the fact that you live in a place which is recognized by the rest of the community by a certain name. And please stop the argument on "twenty years" and understand that states go to war when all other options are exhausted. When and if Azerbaijan chooses the military option to restore its territorial integrity, you'll be the first one I will contact with news. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Effectively independent", "De facto independent", whatever. Fact is, Azerbaijan has no say over the matter, either by choice or fear. I live in an apartment. The town decides what to name the street. And were I to hold territory with my neighbors and declare independence from the country and name it Golbezia and kill anyone who came near, was able to engage in international commerce, coin money, print stamps, and maintain missions in foreign capitals, for twenty years, yeah, I think I'd qualify as a de facto independent state and it would be insulting to use the previous name of the area. That's the difference between, say, the Republic of Lakota and others - they may have declared independence but they have not exercised it. And I understand that states go to war, but not when "all other options are exhausted", but when it is most politically expedient. Call me cynical. I would love to Azerbaijan (or Armenia, for that matter) to sack up and end this pointless conflict, one way or another, either by invading and winning, invading and losing, or giving in to the facts on the ground. But they'd rather dick around, keeping hundreds of thousands of people in limbo. Until then, all we have are pointless Internet arguments. --Golbez (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that current redirect change its direction. Since city's current name is Drmbon (this is the name of the place where you will be welcome as a visitor and this the name the locals will tell you), hence Heyvali should be redirected to Drmbon. Also recall Stepanakert/Xankendi precedent. As for the de-jure/de-facto staff, it is a matter of current negotiations.-- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. With that logic, soon you'll be redirecting Glendale, California to an Armenian name. Presence of Armenian forces in Karabakh and Armenian population in Heyvali village and the fact that its Azerbaijani population was expelled does not mean the name of the village should be changed just because you think so. Names of places are determined by the de-jure governments. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the more nonsensical arguments I've heard on the NK-related articles. Let that one sink in for a while. --Golbez (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. And yes, if once Gladnale has an alternative Armenian name, this may be a subject of another very different discussion :) Currently I touch upon a Nagorno Karabakh Republic town and that's it. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go, I expected nothing less :) Let us know when Glendale is renamed. :) I'm sorry but administrative units can't have their names changed unless the it is recognized by the international community and the only way the international community will ever recognize any of the new names is when its de-jure government agrees to the change. It's just that simple. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the line, anyway? Is Taiwan allowed to rename its cities? Kosovo? South Ossetia? Transnistria? --Golbez (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the official Wikipedia rule for this game state that "the side that has the most pov warriors who are good at playing the system wins"? With a rematch staged every six months. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia, they can. The fact is that they are renamed, and Azerbaijan can do nothing more than threatening and talking about things which have no practical value. People who live there call the village Drmbon, tourists who visit the village, visit Drmbon, companies that operate there, operate in Drmbon. So what is the practical value of calling the village as Heyvali, if any one of the wikipedia readers who decide to visit the place, will visit Drmbon? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can't. If things were accepted the way you describe, we wouldn't have managed to live through the 20th century. Mankind was smart enough to create organizations and cooperate to establish order in the world. Can you imagine if every ethnic community on this planet starts to rename the places they live in or have lived in the past? And there are thousands of related and unrelated ethnicities. That's why the places are names by legitimate bodies of government and those belong to Azerbaijan Republic, not de-facto separatist authorities.

If I follow your logic, I should rename Yerevan to Iravan because I visited it as a tourist several years ago. By the same token, should Bosniaks rename Saint Louis, Cleveland or Dortmund to, say, Sarajevo, or Arabs rename Paris to Marrakech just because they live there in large minority communities? Of course not, the legitimate government names and renames the administrative units. Appeals to rename administrative units is normally done through legislative bodies. In fact, many of Azerbaijani villages in Karabakh had been renamed to Armenian names after appeals from ethnic Armenian deputies in the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan SSR after establishment of USSR and then renamed back to their original names in 1991-1992. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since these 'examples' you're offering have no bearing in reality or resemblance to the Karabakh situation, could you please stop bringing them up? They're just filling space. Bosniaks aren't going to rename St. Louis because, oh yeah, they haven't declared independence, driven out hostile forces, and lived there without interference from the outside for years and years. You either don't seem to comprehend your own examples, or are attempting to become adept at building straw men. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to comprehend that nearly 1 million Azerbaijani refugees were ethnically cleansed from the places of their residence by the Armenian hostile forces and are denied the right to return to their homes, you should stop bringing up your argument of South Ossetia, Kosovo, etc, especially since most of world leaders and governments from Russia to United States have declared that Karabakh situation is different from those above and here you are, drawing your own parallel. Those "hostile forces" you mention were defending the territorial integrity of their country. The examples with St. Louis are brought up as examples to have certain people understand that it's not so easy to rename something when the rest of the world calls it by its legitimate names. With your interpretation, then if Bosniaks rebelled in St. Louis and occupied a part of it, they would be free to rename that part? :) Come on now Tuscumbia (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh War and involvement of parties is controversial. Each of the sides has its arguments. Probably this talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss what the "hostile forces" were doing in Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Imagine that each of us starts bringing own arguments regarding the war here. I suggest that we concentrate on the main issue - redirect. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that you have ever visited Iravan; Yerevan - probably. People who live here and who run the city do not call it Iravan and neither they did several years ago (even if you do). If Arabs once become a majority in Paris, or Azeries in Kars, probably they will gain the right to claim renaming the cities. This is a very different story. You run too far and around but avoid the main issue.

My logic is clear. I make 3 statements: (1) People who live there, call it Drmbon. (2) If one decides to visit the village, he/she will eventually appear in Drmbon (by no means Heyvali). (3) Businesses that would decide to operate in the village or cooperate with companies operating there (such as Base Metals CJSC) will deal with Drmbon. These 3 statements bring me to a conclusion that name "Heyvali" misleads Wikipedia readers (even yourself). Finally, if something is misleading, it should be corrected. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I have, in 2008. Don't you worry about that. And yes, I did not call it Iravan because I'm not into fantasies. Yerevan is the name retained by the government and no one can change it without the government's authorization. I understand how you present the logic. Everything is clear. But it should also be clear to you that names cannot be changed by illegitimate regimes. The separatist authorities are not recognized by the international community, that is by any government. Therefore, the names set by the legitimate government of the administrative units have been recognized and continue to be recognized to this day. You should even ackknowledge the fact that Drmbon was the name of the village since the creation of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast until 1991 when Azerbaijani authorities abolished its status and renamed the villages to their original or new names, and yet the international community recognizes the names established by Azerbaijan, be it the names given before or after 1992. That's why the name Drmbon already redirects to this article. So, I'm not sure what the issue is. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yerevan is the name retained by the government and no one can change it without the government's authorization." That's just it. Presumably, the government of the NKR has approved it. They are the government exercising control over the region, and have done so for many years. That the rest of the world cares more about imaginary lines doesn't change this fundamental fact. And sure names can be changed by "illegitimate" regimes; both Chinas have done so. So did the government in Burmyanmar. Hell, Rhode Island renamed Kings County to Washington County after the British were defeated but before any treaty had been signed, but I don't recall anyone ever even insinuating that the change was illegitimate. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you're forgetting that this is encyclopedia which relies on sources not on the will of residents of the village. And the neutral sources prefer the name Heyvali as set by the legitimate and recognized Azerbaijani government. Should the residents want to change the name, they should appeal to the Azerbaijani government. If it gets approved, neutral sources will state just that. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is probably no use in encyclopedia that misleads people. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. That's why you should avoid misleading people with names used only by the separatist authorities. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is given by the people who live there and have democratically elected their government - a more democratic one than in Azerbaijan (according to Freedom House - see [2] vs. [3]). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight, an installment of Azerbaijani citizen Serzh Sargsyan, a "democratically" elected president who massacred his own people in 2008. Let's not even go there. Why don't you post those? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's really not go to Armenia. We talk about Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you can visit Heyvali only in your fantasies, but you and other Wikipedia readers are invited to visit Drmbon in real life at any moment they wish. The same applies to not only "visiting", but also "living" and "doing business". All your statements about "international recognition" have no practical value as long as the negotiations are in process. In the meanwhile name Heyvali misleads real-life people. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can advertize your Base Metals company or the name Drmbon, or post welcoming messages for that matter for tourism elsewhere. Here the name of article is kept according to neutral sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about dreams. It is about real life. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As obtuse as the path was to reach it, Tuscumbia has a point. There are two sources presented in the article; the local one, which uses the Armenian name, and the American one, which uses the Azeri name. Wikipedia has in the past (at least in the one example I'm cherrypicking, not out of malice but out of ignorance towards any competing examples) erred on the side of the United States in other matters such as Burmyanmar. So sadly the issue isn't nearly as cut and dry as we would all prefer it to be. Now, personally, I still think it should be located at the Armenian name, because if you go there and ask the name of the town, that is the name you will universally receive back. That is the name to which mail could be delivered, could mail be delivered there. And the fact that the source is local does not make it biased; it's not like we don't use U.S. government census data for information on American cities. And to veer off into my own opinion: If Azerbaijan wants to control what the city is named, they are welcome to send representatives or soldiers there and force the issue. Lacking such willpower, I see no reason to entertain their fantasies. --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, could you please, as a neutral party, propose what should be done in the current situation. What should be (if should) my next steps? Now we have a summary of arguments. What are the criteria for judgment and decision-making? For me the opponent's counter-argument is naked and dreamy. Naked, because international recognition etc. is now a subject of negotiations on conflict resolution, dreamy, because it has nothing to do with real life in the town being discussed, namely Drmbon. Please propose a way out. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Ashot, are you even looking at what you're writing? What is "naked and dreamy"? This is the territory of Azerbaijan. If it were some other territory, the world would have recognized it long time ago. And yes! As long as negotiations on the status of Nagorno Karabakh continue, the official name will stay on whether you like it or not. Moreover, Golbez is not a "neutral party". You might want to request a really neutral administrator(s) to comment. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a neutral party, as unlike everyone else involved in these articles I have no dog in this fight. That I have an opinion that sways toward self-determination does not mean I am not neutral; no one is. It just means I admit my biases, so that they will not interfere in my decision making. (And I'm one of the few admins stupid enough to get mired in this fight) Were I to hide my biases, I would be rightly accused of being non-neutral. But they are not hidden, they are entirely out in the open. I care not if the Armenians or Azeris win, I just don't have that healthy a respect for pointless geopolitical blathering. That I have been insulted for being both an Armenian and an Azeri sympathizer lends credence to my statement.

But on to the request of me: The next step, Ashot, to move the article, since such a move is controversial, is to follow the procedures on Requested Moves. Should that fail - or perhaps, to skip a step - check the procedures on Requests for Comment.

I would like to take a moment to thank you both - there have been so many pointless edit wars over the most inane aspects of Caucasian rivalry, it was ... amazingly (and depressingly) refreshing to see an argument conducted entirely on a talk page. --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice and time commitment. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sympathies towards one side does mean leaning towards bias. In any case, thank you Golbez, and thanks to Ashot too, regardless of his position. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy towards reality is no bias at all. I don't care who the people are, unlike everyone else involved here. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's just your sympathy toward one group over the other, the other being 1 million refugees forces out from their homes.Tuscumbia (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forced out twenty years ago. I have more sympathy for them than their own government; I want the matter settled now, rather than parlaying my oil riches and martyr complex into maintaining the status quo. If their own government cared so much, and wanted to continue to claim land they haven't controlled since the late 80s, perhaps they should not have signed the Bishkek Protocol. Perhaps they shouldn't have given up on their own people. To think that the Aliyev administration has any interest in Nagorno-Karabakh beyond expanding his own political power is to be naive. Or maybe just less cynical than I. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it enough to cry about million refugees regardless of place and circumstances? Nagorno-Karabakh War, its reasons, parties, motives, etc. are not the place to discuss here. It is a large and controversial topic, where each of sides can bring thousands of counter-arguments.

When and if those refugees come back and come to a new consensus regarding the town name, we can discuss it then here. Now there is no Azeri government there, no Azeri population. Even the Azeri dreams don't fly in the air. Though unrecognized de-jure, those people democratically elect their government and gradually build their civil society institutions (with better success than Azerbaijan, as I mentioned earlier). What you try to do is tying your dreams, sighs and regrets on Wikipedia readers who have the right to know real-life conditions and not being misled. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Keep your emotional nonsense to yourself. Those refugees were deprived of basic human rights, many were deprived of their lives. You're so biased that every single thing besides your propoganda seems blurry to you. If you ask others to stop "crying", you should definitely stop crying about the so called "Armenian genocide", "Western Armenia", etc and come to terms with international agreements, treaties and community. So, your statements deriving from some blurry vision on this talk page is nothing but your emotions. You were requesting a redirect, you did not get consensus. So, follow other steps if you'd like to get the issue resolved. Otherwise, keep your messages on "dreams, sighs, cries" to yourself. Period. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I am not emotional. I also haven't touched upon Armenian Genocide, Western Armenia or refugees expelled by Azeries from Utik (though my ancestors are partly from Banants) here because this is not the appropriate place to do that. Again International Status of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is subject to negotiations. No-one can predict the outcome of the negotiiations, meanwhile people using Wikipedia have the right to deal with real names and real people. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Employing the internationally recognized name seems most appropriate, which is rather difficult to ascertain given its a tiny hamlet. I discounted Armenian, Azerbaijani and Nagorno-Karabakh sources because of questionable neutrality in such a matter. Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh related sources, principally news releases, overwhelmingly employed Drmbon. This being said,tThe American National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is currently using Heyvali as does Google maps (which I believe is mirroring the American Geospatial). The topic area appears to be employing names that match the Geospatial data and I believe there is value in remaining consistent. There is also the factor that the suggested name is in a disputed region and put in place by a government that is not recognized internationally. Lastly, the village qualifier in the current name is unnecessary, which also leads me to believe sticking with the current name is more appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: American National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency cannot be a dead end for argumentation. Ignoring Armenian sources as non-neutral seems to be not the best solution here. Since, unfortunately, there is no substantial "neutral" media coverage on the place, Armenian sources seem to be almost the only ones that tell about the real life in that village.

Besides, 4 non-Armenian publications at Google scholar use Drmbon ([4]). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why should Armenian sources prevail and Azerbaijani ones should be ignored? Besides, the link to google scholar search shows Drmbon in parenthesis after Heyvali, the author of the other article is Armenian, hence biased. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written so because I cannot think of an Azeri source able to reflect real life there. An Azeri citizen would need an NKR visa to visit Drmbon and see it with own eyes. Except for special cases, he/she would most probably be denied a visa. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, then why don't you start with international organizations and appeals to governments. Once they confirm and recognize the name, you can change it here too. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know that international organizations are not decisive for Wikipedia? Editorial consensus is.-- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do and luckily enough editor follow common sense relying on international organizations, not statements of separatist authorities. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Haven't you heard? Azeris can go to the so-called "NKR" any time they want. In fact, other people need permission from Azerbaijan to go there, lest you break Azerbaijani law! And we all know that Baku has been the only law in "Nagorno-Karabakh" for the last 20 years. They get to determine, through their enlightened wisdom, just what is and is not "illegal" in the former autonomous oblast. (Why yes, I do think 90% of the Azeri position is bullshit, what was your first clue? If only they focused more on that 10% and less on parroting propaganda...) --Golbez (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pitily Wikipedia readers are compelled to read all that nonsense. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make 5 statements: (1) People who live there, call it Drmbon. (2) If one decides to contact someone in the village, he/she should mail to Drmbon (not Heyvali) (3) If one decides to visit the village, he/she will eventually appear in Drmbon (by no means Heyvali). (4) Businesses that would decide to operate in the village or cooperate with companies operating there (such as Base Metals CJSC) will deal with Drmbon. (5) Statements about internationally recognized name have no practical value as long as the negotiations on conflict resolution are in progress. These 5 statements bring me to a conclusion that name "Heyvali" misleads Wikipedia readers. Finally, if something is misleading, it should be corrected.
I suggest that Tuscumbia make a similar summary and neutral editors judge the situation to find a solution. Otherwise there is no end to this discussion.
-- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification of your statements again, Ashot. I'm not going to write a long list of statements throughout this talk page. I can only tell you one thing. Wikipedia articles rely on neutral legitimate sources. Whatever the de-facto separatist authorities in Karabakh say is irrelevant in the international community because they are simply unrecognized. When and if world governments and international organizations recognize this entity, then you can go ahead and request a name change. Regardless of who lives there now and for how long, the name is what it is called and accepted by the international community. The ethnic Azerbaijani residents who lived in Heyvali village also have a right to call the village whatever they want but I don't see you defending their rights or considering their position. Take the issue to a relevant board of discussion and have administrators look at the issue. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately there is no good solution to this. It is true that the local inhabitants will call this village Drmbon and only people that have no actual control over the town call it Heyvali. Normally that would mean that the article should be under Drmbon. However since the issue of unrecognized states and occupied areas is so highly contentious, the English Wikipedia usually defers to what is most commonly used in the geographic community. And since the most common sources of geographical gazetteers are state-run geographical offices, these most often use names in line with their governments' official diplomatic position. In practice this means that in most cases the "foreign" name is still used rather than the local one, simply due to the fact that so few countries recognize these territories. Cf e.g. Lapithos (not Lapta) or Uroševac (not Ferizaj). A couple of Wikipedias have different policies (e.g. nl:Ferizaj or de:Lapta), so if you like you can put forward a proposition to change this naming convention. This would however be highly controversial.
At first Stepanakert seems to be an exception to above rule - however this name falls under a separate convention which gives preference to names commonly used in English. Therefore e.g. Kyrenia, not Keryneia or Girne and Pristina, not Priština or Prishtina. If available, these exonyms are often the best solution as deemed politically neutral. However most town names will not have an English form in common usage or be sufficiently known, simply because they are too small. And thus we revert back to the other convention prioritizing the most commonly used form in gazetteers and similar publications. Travelbird (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Travelbird. A response that makes sense. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving Heyvali to Drmbon. I've just seen Russian version of Heyvali, and page's name is Дрмбон(Drmbon). Why should in Russian version be Дрмбон(Drmbon), and in English version Heyvali. The inhabitants are Armenian, they speak Armenian, the lands are Armenian, so I'm moving the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aram-van (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aram-van, I think you should not say "I'm moving". I think "I suggest that be moved because" is more proper way to express your position. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's way off base to move it to your chosen destination when a request move discussion is still going on, and you're even aware of it. I'm moving it back purely for procedural reasons; it was not your place to move it. --Golbez (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 more argument for moving to Drmbon: At Google scholar Drmbon gets 5 hits, Heyvali gets none. At Google books, Drmbon gets 17, Heyvali gets 6. At Google news, Drmbon gets 22, Heyvali gets none.-- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is an invalid argument. The appearance of more names in Google only means that the site is being used for its mines/natural resources. Heyvali is not mentioned as much as Drmbon as much as any other village out of thousands of villages in Azerbaijan, however they are mentioned in Intelligence Agency and geographical gazetteers as Labattblueboy and Travelbird rightfully mentioned above. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Drmbon is mentioned in both Armenian and non-Armenian sources and Intelligence Agency is not the only neutral source one can rely on. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that government sources such as intelligence agencies are not neutral, and therefore can not be considered reliable sources. Nightw 03:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a general question than specific to this discussion, but ... Everyone keeps saying that one name is de jure and another is de facto. But don't the subjects of the NKR government accept its law over them, making its rule over these particulars de jure? --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sure they do. NKR Constitution ensures this. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article suffered from a move war in the past and the current name seems reasonable: if one types "Drmbon village", (s)he would stumble upon Armenian sources in general, while the name Heyvalı is used in Google map, Kalbajar Distance Chart and throughout some weather-forecasting sites ([5], [6]). The article's lead also seems to be in line with WP:TITLE's treatment of alternative names. Armenian toponyms in Nagorno-Karabakh actually have no universal power because the NKR is not recognised by any UN member. Twilightchill t 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my view, Google map is probably the only practical counter-argument in all discussion here. But we still need to weigh cons and pros. There are a number of others in #Summary of arguments. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: USGS has a mention of Drmbon at The Mineral Industries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.-- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it does not say anything about the village. It could be a reference to what the mine is called. Moreover, it is taken from Russian Interfax agency not US agency itself. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, used by the US agency. This is just an example of the fact that real name Drmbon is is going to be used more and more in the future as opposed to the dreamy Heyvali. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? How do you know some other kind of agreement will not conclude a peace treaty or if the war will resume and Karabakh will be retaken by Azerbaijan? So, please assume good faith and don't call things "dreamy" just because you believe them to be. It's the very same U.S. that does not recognize the current illegimate regime in Karabakh. Neither does any other state. I understand you own a tourism business and have actually been blocked under your previous account Psalm Tours, but your presentation of Heyvali to tourists as Drmbon should be limited only to your business. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it's annoying to have the Azeri bloc constantly pratter on about how non-existent and illegal the NKR is, it's getting similarly annoying to constantly see you say how dreamy and fantastic the Azeri claims on the area are. Can we just cut the rhetoric on both sides? It's leading to a lot of bad faith statements (ones from myself included). --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Golbez.

As for any travel company in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, all of them will present the real name Drmbon to the tourists - Wikipedia readers from all over the world. Meanwhile Azeri agencies will draw Karabakh within Azeri borders being totally incapable of taking the tourists to that beautiful places. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't see any reason for renaming this article, unless there is a new name for this village officially recognized in the UK or US, or any other country not involved in the conflict. And User:Golbez is not a neutral party on WP:ARBAA2-related articles, at least that wasn't the case in prior experience with this kind of edit, or this sort of treatment of editors in mediation. Atabəy (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit where I undid your unreasoned alteration of a contentious aspect? The horror. And I stand by my statement, the comment above the one you linked to was worthy of total derision - "why is the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic notable?" If you still think that's a remotely valid point of view, please let me know so I can continue to ignore you. Being called non-neutral by you, with that evidence, is a tremendous compliment. You deserved that treatment because you were acting like a nationalist idiot, pray tell me you've changed. Also, good lord, you've kept these around for three years, waiting for your chance to spring them on me? --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, you always admit yourself that you're biased towards Armenians. See this diff, for example [7]. I understand you do want to be neutral, but neutral means impartial without any "slight biases". Therefore, you can't possibly be neutral. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that you equate Karabakhis with Armenians shows that you don't understand my stance on the situation whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakhis? Who are Karabakhis? There are Karabakh Armenians and Karabakh Azerbaijanis, there is no nation of Karabakh. There an Armenian military stationed in Karabakh, there is Armenian money operating in Karabakh, and so forth so on. No matter what and who you have your "slight biases" for, the notion that you are biased as admitted by yourself speaks of lack of neutrality. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

q.e.d. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Golbez, while I understand your sensitivity on the Armenian-related topics, your usage of the word "idiot" to refer to another contributor is inappropriate, and I would recommend you to refrain from doing so in future. You have been kindly warned. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're better than you were three years ago, then by all means, I await the editor from three years ago to come forward and proclaim his insult. If you're better, then you should not take it as an insult, but rather nod, acknowledging your previous error. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And by the way, Golbez, did you mean your removal of the fact that Shusha, located in Nagorno-Karabakh, is officially part of Azerbaijan, as your saving from "horror"? Without going much into the topic details, the edit as well as your comment about it now clearly indicate the lack of neutrality on your behalf. That's all I wanted to remind. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think (My memory is shady, having been in this crap far too long) that there may still have been an argument, somewhere, over "officially". It's one thing to say 'de jure', it's another to say "officially", as if there's a global referee. It was also the matter of calling a coat of arms "de jure", I think I remember bringing up the argument that a coat of arms imposed upon a city by authorities not in that city, no matter how legitimate they might seem, was an odd situation to give credence to. I have no problem with saying "coat of arms of the government-in-exile" (assuming there was a government in exile; I'm not sure if that was ever properly confirmed), but to simply say, without further analysis, "de jure" coat of arms, was too much. Now, please, you're distracting us from the matter at hand with your attempts to lower your own credibility. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Interestingly, even an Azeri source uses the real name Drmbon. Found a letter of Azeri ambassador to the UN, where he, among many statements about so called "illegal" activities in the NKR, refers to Drmbon. Though he quotes Armenian sources, he does not even mention the name Heyvali there ([8]). I think this is because of the natural inclination towards what is real.
  This is true also for businesses that would need to mention the village (because of the copper mines there, e.g. Lydian International Ltd).
  Though we will hardly be able to gather a representative sample here, I think some minor number of media coverage available reflects the tendency. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Azeri source does not use "Drmbon", he's quoting the Armenian source and what is exactly written in it. No need to misinterpret. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite silly for the article not to be named Drmbon. It has been stated above quite clearly that the villagers call it Drmbon. So does the sign when you get to the village. So does the mayor, the post office, the regional government. The fact that independence is not recognized, does not mean that the name of this village is not Drmbon. Drmbon is naturally used much more often than the name Baku would like it called, precisely because it is the real, actual name of the village. Let's end this exercise in fantasy and give Wikipedia a bit more credibility. Rename it Drmbon. Calling it Heyvali is not going to make it suddenly Azerbaijani ruled once again, it is not going to convince the residents they are Azeri, and it is not going to convince the US to grant NKR formal recognition. It will only call the village by its actual name. --RaffiKojian (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RaffiKojian, I think you've had quite an experience in trying to change names of villages in Google Maps but many were not approved. For a good reason - the territory is part of Azerbaijan. The villagers live in a village which is legally part of Azerbaijan. The mayor is installed by separatist authorities, etc. Again, if the name Drmbon was recognized by the rest of the world, there would be neutral sources (which are required in this case) confirming the name.

It's not "calling it Heyvali", it is Heyvali as far as the legitimate name recognized by international community is concerned. And no, the name does not mean it will be ruled by Azerbaijan again, but it doesn't mean it won't be either. If someone kidnapped a child and renamed it against the will of his or her parents, accepted procedures, etc I would say, it makes it illegal. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who kidnapped these citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh and forced them to rename their town? --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, I'm not sure I understand you question and what exactly you're implying. Could you please rephrase? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it was a shitty response to a poor metaphor and I'd rather just let it die there. :P (This coming after several drafts of stuff like, is Baku is the father of all Azerbaijan? And, yeah, I'd rather just get a burger.) --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia, the debate on Google is exactly the same as it is here. Some Azeris try to impose their names on everything, and delete any reference to Armenians ever having existed anywhere. Even if I add the ruins of an Armenian church in Azerbaijan, I have to fight to keep it from being deleted. Even if I add a bit of Armenian history on a town in Anatolia, I have to constantly check to make sure it hasn't been deleted. What a complete waste of time. It's the truth. It's what's happened. Just like Drmbon. It's NOT a historically Azeri village. It's been inhabited by Armenians for time immemorial. The fact that you're insisting on imposing a name from afar on people who've never used it or care is incomprehensible to me. It's not the name that anyone who is actually interested in writing about or visiting the town would use. It's not the name the villagers use. It's not what the regional government uses. Why on earth should it be the name used on Wikipedia? Logic overwhelmingly says Drmbon. --RaffiKojian (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi, I don't think any Azeris would try to "impose" their names on anything and if they do for articles, say, in Armenia, they would be wrong. There are hundreds of villages in Armenia which had Azeri names but were renamed throughout the Soviet rule. What Armenians are wrong in doing is imposing their names to villages and towns legally called by legitimate governments, and therefore recognized by the international community as such. With the same type of activity, why don't you add Azerbaijani/Turkic names to villages in present day Armenia? Like I said, this is like kidnapping a child, giving it a new name and treating as own while the law will dictate the opposite. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were the legitimate government then can they not go in to the town and make sure it is named what they decide? --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to sum up our long discussion above what we have for the moment.

^¤ Both Drmbon and Heyvali are redirected to the same village, but only one of the names appears when looking over the map.

I think it is now time to approach a final decision -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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