Talk:Syunik Province

Second Millenium

Why there is no information about the region in the 2nd millenium?? I don't understand why after 1 millenium comes 20th century?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tebriz (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2006.

Because it has to be mentioned that the region was part of various Turkic states, such as Ildegizids and Karabakh khanate, and had Turkic population. Apparently, those who wrote this article prefer to think that the region had no history for an entire millenium. Grandmaster 11:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not write about that instead of complaining? Create a section called Syunik under Turko-Mongol yoke or something.--Eupator 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page. Please sort out your editing disputes before requesting unprotection. Please note that I will not change which version is protected, as neither version is blatantly wrong. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming dispute

I'm not sure how we could solve this. I prefer to keep things as they are now, but perhaps the best plan would be to include the name in Armenian, Azerbaijani, Russian, and Persian. Still, I'm reluctant to do this because the ultimate status Syunik, unlike Nakhichevan, was not determined by multiple foreign powers. -- Clevelander 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would only agree to this if the matter of Turkish names on Greek islands and regions of modern Greece is settled in Wikipedia.--Eupator 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Clevelander, do you know Armenian? The Armenian spelling you have up there translates to "Syuniki," not Syunik. Unless you're going to add the word "marz" after Syuniki, you should just use "Syunik" like I had there before. Hakob 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm still learning Armenian, but I see what you mean and I've fixed my mistake. -- Clevelander 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Persian, Russian and even Turkish transliterations of the name are very much relevant to the article and should be included, the same way as we did in Nakhichevan. I see no problem there. Grandmaster 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Greco-Turkish names have little relevance in this case. Turkish empire controlled Greece for centuries. There was no state of Azerbaijan that ever controlled Syunik. As for Turkish/Russian and other names--the region now is solidly in Armenia, has solid Armenian population, there is no reason to include transliterations by every single invador throughout history (or we would have to include Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions). This point is made clear in the Greco-Turkish naming discussion.--TigranTheGreat 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and had an Azeri governor Sultanov, reaffirmed by British. Then it was part of Az.SSR until transfered to Armenia. Grandmaster 04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While it was not part of the Azerbaijan SSR at any time in its history, Syunik (Zangezur) was indeed temporarily under the administration of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) during the British occupation of the region. This was part of a plan devised by Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in the South Caucasus. According to Wardrop, Armenian claims against Azerbaijan should not go beyond the administrative borders of the former Erivan governorate (which included Nakhichevan), while Azerbaijan was to be limited to the provinces of Baku and Ganca (Elisavetpol). However, this proposal was rejected by both Armenians (who did not wish to give up their claims to Kazakh-Shamshadin (which even during British occupation remained under Armenian administration), Zangezur and Karabakh) and Azeris (who found it unacceptable to give up their claims to Nakhichevan).

In protest to the assignment of Nakhichevan to Armenia, Jafar Kuli Khan Nakhichevanski declared the Araks Republic. Armenian troops then invaded the region and thus the Araks War between Armenia and Azerbaijan began (though it was initally fought with the Araks state and later the ADR with encourgement from Ottoman forces invaded the region). In any case, after the British left, Zangezur came under stable control of Armenia by late March 1920 during more Armenian-Azeri clashes. [1] It is also worth mentioning that the region was a scene of conflict between Bolshevik and guerilla Armenian forces. [2] -- Clevelander 10:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN 0231070683

This of course confirms Andrew Andersen's information that I just cited. -- Clevelander 12:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. The above information can be found in many sources, including Armenian ones. Grandmaster 12:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, I don't follow you. What aren't you sure about? -- Clevelander 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it supports the whole text of Anderson to which you seem to be refering above, maybe only the part about this region. Grandmaster 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Andersen is a perfectly credible source and to be more specfic Swietochowski supports Andersen's claim that the British assigned Syunik and Karabakh to Azerbaijan. -- Clevelander 13:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So it is clear that Zangezur was under provisional Azerbaijani administration until Bolshevik takeover, when the Red Army occupied most of this region. Grandmaster 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, before the Bolshevik invasion, control passed to the Armenians (in March 1918). Before that, however, both Zangezur and Nagorno-Karabakh were under provisional Azerbaijani administration as assigned by the British (just as they placed Nakhichevan under provisional Armenian administration). Of course, the Armenians in Zangezur and Karabakh did not want to be part of Azerbaijan and the Azeris in Nakhichevan did not want to be part of Armenia. This is where the conflict began. -- Clevelander 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can provide full details of that within the text of the article, but I think it is beyond any doubt the region was under the provisional administration of ADR for a certain period. So I suggest we request unprotection of this article and restore Azeri transliteration in the intro. Grandmaster 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because Tadeus says something, doesn't mean it's true. And even if British put it under Azeri administration (they didn't), doesn't mean it was under Azeri administration (much less under ADR's administration). It was disputed and remained so. And a few months of "Azeri administration" doesn't warrant inclusion of Azeri spelling. Urartuans had it much longer, doesn't mean we should include cuneiforms.--TigranTheGreat 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is Walker on how the British appointment of Sultanov was never materialized, and in fact was scratched by the British themselves:

However, the British were not so successful in installing their protégé south in the other highland region of Zangezur. They wanted to put him there to 'maintain order'. The Armenians retorted that there was order there, and by a policy of bluff, demonstrations and armed resistance, they were able to frighten Suttleworth into quitting Zangezur's capital Goris in a hurry, and successfully defying his fellow officers' decisions. Walker, Survival etc. p 272.--TigranTheGreat 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not change the fact that Zangezur was placed under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Hovannisian also confirms this. Armenia also had no effective control over Nakhichevan, still Armenian spelling is included there. Same with Kazakh. Grandmaster 08:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Armenia did have effective control over Qazakh (this is mentioned in works by A.B. Kadishev, Artur Tsutsiev, Andrew Andersen, and seen on the maps of Atlas Istorii SSR by Konstantin Bazilevich (where Armenia is clearly showing having a boundary on the Kura river). Both A.B. Kadishev and Andrew Andersen also mention Nakhichevan being put under Armenian provisional status under British occupation. Also, both regions (Nakhichevan and Qazakh) were part of the Kingdom of Armenia for lengthy periods of time. So yes, at one point (at least) in history, they were under Armenian administration. -- Clevelander 10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zangezur was also under the control of ADR, had an Azeri governor, was part of Karabakh khanate, etc. I don't understand why the Azeri spelling is being conststantly removed. Grandmaster 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's keep it on the article. I don't know why it was removed to begin with. -- Clevelander 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should adopt the same policy that exist in other similar cases, if a region has both Azeri and Armenian history, the name should be included in both languages. Grandmaster 11:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's making a point, prohibited by rules. We dont' make policies here, policies are made through other channels, as part of the entire community effort.

The fact is that Zangezur was never part of ADR. The fact is that a few months of "part of" doesn't warrant inclusion of the spelling of the "part of" state. And the fact is that Syunik is solidly a region of independent Armenia, not Russia, Persia, or Marsia. --TigranTheGreat 19:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, the last letter of Սիւնիքը is unnecessary--it's an identifying suffix used only in sentence. And I would be fine with including Zangezur if this was the article of the geographic region of Syunik. However, it is the administrative division of Syunik, and it has no other name than Syunik. We can mention in the lead that the *region* is also known as Zangezur (which by the way is thoroughly Armenian name).--TigranTheGreat 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleve, nice to see that you changed your prior comment regarding the "extensive Armenian history." Indeed, Nakhichevan was part of the Armenian kingdom from 600 BC till 428 AD. Then it was part of the Armenian Marzpanate from 428-636, viceroyalty of Arminiya from 636-885, Bagratid Armenian kingdom from 885-1045, and Zacharid Armenia 1100's-1230's. Even more important, the Nakhichevan SSR's status is guaranteed by a treaty between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, and Turkey. Azerbaijan can't do anything to it without the consent of any of the other countries. Armenia can do whatever it wants with Zangezur. Zangezur and Nakhichevan don't even come close.--TigranTheGreat 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Massacres

Actually, Parishan, your reference doesn't even mention that there were any massacres against Azeris. The closest example I could find was here:

With the dashnakskom dominion in Armenia it by dashnakskim government was used along the military line, i.e. headed military science in Zangezure, first on the suppression of local Azerbaijanians, it is faster, on the purification of territory from the Azerbaijanians, and then on the fight against the Red Army.

Hence, my rationale for removing your reference. -- Aivazovsky 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Electronic translators are not always the best solution. Here's a more precise translation (the quote talks about Njdeh):

During the Dashnak rule in Armenia, he was used by the Dashnak government for military cases; that is, leading military affairs in Zangezur, first in suppressing local Azeris, or more precisely, in cleasing the territory from Azeris, and later against the Red Army. Parishan 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I suggest the following compromise wording:

The dispute resulted in widespread mutual violence and ethnic cleansing between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Armenian military commander Garegin Njdeh moved to expel the Azeris living in the region. Njdeh's efforts were in vain, however, when the Bolsheviks, successful in the Russian Civil War, pushed deep into the Caucasus. Syunik eventually came under firm Soviet Armenian control, while assign two other disputed territories, Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh became part of Soviet Azerbaijan.

How's that? -- Aivazovsky 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't say anything about Azeris launching attacks on Armenians. Here's my suggestion: The dispute resulted in ethnic cleansing of local Azeris through direct military action led by Armenian commander Garegin Njdeh... followed by your wording. And the word "assign" in the last sentence seems off though. Parishan 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this?:

With the collapse of the Russian Empire, the region fell under the authority of the Special Transcaucasian Committee of the Russian Provisional Government and subsequently the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. When the TDFR was dissolved in May 1918, Syunik, Nakhchivan, and Nagorno-Karabakh became heavily contested between the newly formed and short-lived states of the Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR). These disputes led to widespread mutual violence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The dispute over Syunik resulted in the ethnic cleansing of region's local Azeri minority through direct military action led by Armenian commander Garegin Njdeh. Njdeh's efforts were in vain, however, when the Bolsheviks, successful in the Russian Civil War, pushed deep into the Caucasus. Syunik eventually came under firm Soviet Armenian control, while the two other disputed territories, Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh became part of Soviet Azerbaijan.

Will that work? -- Aivazovsky 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that the Azeris were the minority? I say, replace the word "minority" with the word "population" and we are good to go. Parishan 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have a reference on that. In the New York Times on May 17, 1920, pg. 14 there is an article entitled "Georgians Hold Up Tartar's Advance". The article mentions Zangezur and more specifically its demographic situation at the time. According to the piece there were 350,000 Armenians living in the region and 180,000 Muslims. Hence my justification for calling the Azeris a minority because at the time they simply were. -- Aivazovsky 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the piece as well as some other information. -- Aivazovsky 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Im removing newspaper account of population - what makes newspaper demo expert? And also dubious KGB interrogation. If you were being tortured you would squeal like a pig and give your mother up.

Hetoum I 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times source is the only source that I could find on Syunik's population from that era. I'm surprised that you removed it because it confirms that Armenians were a majority at the time. -- Aivazovsky 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The current phrasing "the dispute over Syunik resulted in the ethnic cleansing of region's local Azeri minority through direct military action" is way too POV. I may have accepted it earlier, but I don't think that such wording is appropriate anymore. It should be changed to "the dispute over Syunik resulted in the expulsion of region's local Azeri minority."

We also should probably not include the KGB (or rather Cheka) interrogation reference. I don't see how this is credible. It's no secret that the KGB/Cheka were ruthless and like Hetoum stated above "if you were being tortured you would squeal like a pig and give your mother up." How do you suppose Stalin got the confessions for his show trials? -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the credibility of the source are OR. The facts are screaming: the source could not be anymore specific on the issue than it is. Parishan (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, how are my thoughts OR? I think we at least need to run this source past a Wikipedia admin before including it in the article, to see if it's verifiable. In my opinion, KGB interrogations are not credible and again, I like to bring up the case of Stalin and his Moscow show trials where innocent people were forced to confess to crimes that they did not commit. The Soviet system was anything but just and we really can't use a Soviet interrogation, especially by the KGB/Cheka, as a verifiable source. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is OR in the sense that there are no facts proving Devedjian was tortured into stating what he stated. Parishan (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was still a Soviet interrogation... -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not directly indicate torture. Parishan (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is that the KGB is almost synonymous with torture and brutal tactics. And if torture wasn't used in this interrogation, fear was. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

...and UFOs are synonymous with alien invasion. But we cannot go into stereotypes and generalisations. Or make assumptions on the defendant's psychological state. Parishan (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We shall see. I invited Golbez to mediate this. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Golbez's last mediation of an Armenian-Azerbaijani issue was a failure. I suggest we apply for Medcab. Parishan (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny. VartanM (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't feel like arguing about this. I have better things to do. I still disagree with your position but as long as it has a disputed tag, then that's fine. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please restore the bit you have deleted until you or somebody else is ready to discuss it. We can't just go around taking out sourced information, replacing it with disputed tags and leaving them hang there for months, if we don't feel like discussing it. Parishan (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. Your info is there, all I did was add a disputed tag. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Name

Baku, Nakhichevan has millenniums long Armenian history and the word is Armenian. Azeri term does not fit here. VartanM (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Zangezur also has centuries of Azerbaijani history, and was a part of ADR in 1918, when the British placed it under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. So Azerbaijani name belongs here. Grandmaster 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't and it was never part of ADR under any jurisdiction.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source:

Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Now please roll yourself back. Grandmaster 13:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I will not react on your claim that Zangezur was part of ADR since I already reacted on the quote of Swietochowski in the talkpage of ADR. I will only remark that your claim that Syunik has centuries of Azerbaijani history is based on nothing. If you think that the Azerbaijani name of the region must be included in the article, you must come with reasonable arguments based on reliable sources and on WP rules. You even misspelled the Azeri name: indeed it is Zəngəzur (as it is used in the Azeri wikipedia) rather than Zangezur (which is the transliterated Armenian name). As ealier showed, the use of Zəngəzur in English sources is negligable and according to WP rules the common usage of a geographical name is English sources is required to use it in the English WP. --Vacio (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The source provided right above shows that Zangezur was under Azerbaijani jurisdiction in 1919. That justifies the inclusion of Azerbaijani name. Grandmaster 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tadeusz Swietochowski? You mean Adil's pawn Tadeusz Swietochowski? Soltanov could not even keept it up with Karabakh, Zankezur? Yeah right!!! If you can provide evidence that Zankezur was writen in Azeri in that period, then you may have something to start debating about. - Fedayee (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This pretty much slams the nail in the coffin.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Swietochowski is one of the top experts on the subject. And why do I need to prove that Zangezur was written in Azerbaijani? If it was under Azerbaijani jurisdiction, then we have every right to include its spelling in Azerbaijani language. You can read about that even on the website of the Armenian MFA: [3] Grandmaster 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My point of view as an outsider (although I've been in Goris, Tatev and Sisian last summer): the Azerbaijani name of the Syunik marz might be relevant, because Azerbaijan is a neighbouring country, and there is probably an Azeri minority in the marz. However, it should be verified that Zangezur or Zəngəzur is actually used for the current marz, and not only for the (historic) region. Note that Zangezur and (the tsarist Russian administrative division) Zangezurskiy uyezd are mentioned in the article. If applicable, the Azerbaijani name could be mentioned there. Markussep ^Talk 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a large Azerbaijani community in this region, which is by now all deported. This article is both for the historic region and the province. Grandmaster 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? there used to be a large Armenian community in Baku before they were deported, much larger than the Azeri minority in Syunik. Do you propose we add an Armenian name in the Baku article's lead? Besides, who said the name Zangezur has anything to do with Azeris?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article name is "Syunik Province", which can only refer to the present marz IMO. If the article is supposed to cover also the historic region, it might be better to rename it. I suppose the name Syunik wasn't a recent invention, do you know when it was first used for this region? What often helps in these disputes is to add a "names" section, in which the historical and minority names can be described in more detail. See for instance Bratislava. Markussep ^Talk 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Syunik/Sisakan seem to be more older names, and Zangezur was used in more recent times, but it was also used for many centures. As for the history, this article could be split into 2, one about the region, and one about the province, but I personally think that we can describe the history of the region in the article about the province. After all, every province has its own history, and it can be described in the article without splitting it. Grandmaster 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Grandmaster 12:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Highly disruptive behavior. I thought you'd know better.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the Armenian version for Zangezur is "Zankezur" (in Armenian alphabet: Զանգեզուր, found this in Russian wikipedia). How about adding the Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani names for Zangezur to the section about Imperial Russian rule? Markussep ^Talk 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the pronunciation is all the same in Armenian. The Russian alphabet's presence has no basis to it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What I propose is to add the Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani names for Zangezur (Зангезур, Զանգեզուր, Zəngəzur) to the section where the tsarist Russian Zangezurskiy uyezd is discussed. Markussep ^Talk 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures worth a thousand words. Zankezur never fell in the hands of the Caucasian Turkic forces. As for the we have every right, you can wish too. From the same token most places in Azerbaijan can have Armenian names, because they were once part of an Armenian Kingdom. The argument to add the Armenian term for Ganja or other places are much stronger than some on paper ownership which was never put to application. Ganja had an Armenian version, written in Armenian documents about a thousand years before the Azeri alphabet was invented. All those additions like in Igdir are simply POV pushing, which contrasts with the legitimate use of Armenian words in articles. There is in fact as much reason to add the Chinese word as the modern Azeri term. - Fedayee (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that picture of some men at what appears to be a conference. Anyway, the point of discussion is not so much whether Syunik/Zangezur was ever ruled by Turkic speaking peoples, but whether the Azerbaijani name for the region is relevant for this article. Given the fact that there was a significant Azeri/Tatar population at least around 1900 (and 33 mosques, see for instance this Russian article in the 1906 Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia), the Azerbaijani name seems relevant to me, at least for the historic region. Of course we can discuss about how much emphasis it should get, probably it's too much to put it in the first line of the article if there isn't a sizable Azeri minority at present. Markussep ^Talk 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Zangezur is merely a corrupted form of the word "Dzakedzor", the name of a fortress, and later the gorge where it was founded, in the Haband region of Syunik, which received its name after the owner of the estate, an Armenian nakharar named Dzagik. Once again, there's no case for the inclusion of the Azeri alphabet here. The presence of a Tatar population does not in anyway necessitate the need for an alphabet; with that logic, the cities of Baku and Tbilisi should be written in Armenian considering their presence there was far more significant (Armenian churches, seminaries, secular buildings, etc.) than the mere presence of some nomadic tribes in Syunik.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there were no "nomadic tribes" in Zangezur; according to the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopædia, part of 'Azerbaijani Tatars' were sedentary, while their other part and Kurds were engaged in semi-nomadic cattlebreeding. Even if they were - how exactly does being "nomadic" disqualify a group of people from being acknowledged in a certain region? Parishan (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Markussep is right that first of all we should verify whether the Azeri name is used for the present Syunik marz, from the Azerbaijani Azerbaijani WP it appears that it is rather used for Syunik and Vayots Dzor marzes together. Then, in the 18th and early 19th centuries the population of the Transcaucasus was much more mixed and if you search trough the same BE encyclopedia you'll find many other districts of present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan with a more varied ethnic character than now. For example present-day Shaki_Rayon of Azerbaijan had a significant Armenian population ([4]). Besides the Zangezur uyezd encompassed also the Hakari valley where apparently most of it's Tatar population dwelled and which lies out of the limits of present-day Syunik marz. --Vacio (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, why do you then insist on using the Armenian name in Nakhchivan? The population in the Caucasus was mixed, so why should anyone be able to use the Armenian name in the articles about locations in Azerbaijan and not the other way around? Zangezur was part of the Karabakh khanate, and had a significant Azerbaijani population until 1988. The inclusion of Azerbaijani name is justified. Grandmaster 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Azerbaijani name"? There isn't justification for including a name spelt using the current Azerbaijani alphabet into the article. The name "Zangezur" is already in the article as an historical/alternative name for the region. Meowy 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The deal still stands and I am waiting for a reply. VartanM (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the comparison with Nakhchivan is inappropriate, English sources know the latter by its Armenian name Nakhichevan as showed in the talkpage there([5]) and therefore the Armenian name is included there. Also, your reference to the Karabakh Khanate is not an argument. It had a Turcoman leader and in the late 18th c. most of the present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan comprised such khanates. You also did not react on the remark that similarly Baku had a significant Armenian population until 1988. Your reasoning would imply that the inclusion of Armenian name in the Baku article is justified as well. --Vacio (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said that we need to agree on criteria on inclusion the foreign language names. The argument about history is not relevant, I said more than once that Danzig may have no meaning in German, yet it is included in the article about Gdansk. And Armenia had 80% Muslim majority before the region was conquered by Russia, and most of those Muslims were Azerbaijanis, so the Azerbaijani names belong to most of the locations in Armenia that existed before 1918. I don't know why Panah khan of Karabakh became a Turcoman, while he was an Azerbaijani Turk. I think that foreign language names should be included in all articles about locations with significant Armenian and Azerbaijani population or history. I see no other solution. Grandmaster 05:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Before the Russian conquest Armenia had no "80% Muslim majority". It was after the Russo-Persian Wars that the Armenians were expulsed from their homeland. And yes, Panah khan was a Turcoman, that comes from academical sources. We do not rewrite articles based on someones personal believes. And again, I don't agree with your proposal which I think is artifical, not to speak about that before 1920 Azeris were not registered as distinct ethnict group, but rather "Muslim" and it is not certain when "Muslims" should be considered as Azeris, when not. --Vacio (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)