Talk:Murovdağ

Mountain Range vs. Peak

Note that the mountain range Murovdağ and the mountain peak Murov dağı have similar names in the Azerbaijan language. The center of the mountain range is at 40.2647/46.3187 and the single peak is near 40.29070/46.49240. Hb (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Border

Isn't it also the unofficial northern border between Azerbaijan and NKR? --George Spurlin (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no border between Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan, and Murovdag is located in Azerbaijan. You don't see the names of mountains and rivers in Armenian in Azerbaijani names, do you? Besides, are you really going to appear once in the blue moon to hit and run as yet another occasional editor? Are you accompanied by an off wiki coordination with Oxi42 again? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Again with the denial of facts. If there is no border, why is Azerbaijan building a wall alongside it? And putting the politics aside, the area around the mountain has been settled by Armenians for hundreds of years. Getashen being on the north slope and some other villages I cant remember the names of on the south. This is the second time you accuse me of not being a regular editor. Is there rule that says that I have to edit wikipedia everyday? I like this topic, but unlike you, I'm not obsessed with it. --George Spurlin (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is building a wall. The wall you're talking about was built near one village in Agdam after Armenian snipers shot an 8 year old Azeri boy. I'm not obsessed with anything. I am a regular editor who contributes to Wikipedia. You are a new account most likely operated by a blocked sockpuppeteer. Do you know how many times I heard this and then those same accounts claiming to be unrelated were in fact found related to the sockmasters? Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Presence of snipers and even a meter long wall indicates there is a border. Anyone with a internet connection can go to maps.google.com and see it for themselves. I can't believe someone who claims to have 2 masters degrees can be so out of touch from reality. As for sockpuppetry accusation, WP:AGF maybe? --George Spurlin (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What international law stipulates that "conclusion"? Since when presence of snipers defined a border? Anyone going to Google maps will see 3-4 Armenian users editing those maps. So, please don't be telling me about editable site. Rather concentrate on international law and community which does not recognized anything with those "borders" and recognizes territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Being a casual editor, you must realize that regular editors do their work on a more frequent basis. Users like you who appear with ggod Wiki-editing knowledge can only raise suspicion of being a sock or a meatpuppet for other banned users. With an enourmous volume of socks of Armenian users such as Hetoum, Meowy, Anranikpasha, Xebulon, etc, it's not that hard to come to the conclusion. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So according to you, wikipedia should delete all Nagorno-Karabakh related articles, and all the people living in NKR should commit suicide, because they don't exist. I don't see how we can continue this discussion when you refuse to accept simple truths about the real world. Just because NKR is not recognized internationally, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From now on I will revert to a neutral version. Let me know if you decide to come down from your holy mountain of "it doesn't exist". --George Spurlin (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said articles about Nagorno-Karabakh should be deleted, neither should the information about Armenian and Azerbaijani heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh be deleted. Where exactly do you see me saying Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh don't exist? They exist and live on the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan. If the de-facto regime which holds these lands under military control is not recognized by the international community, it can't be added as such in Wikipedia either. The version you're reverting to is not a neutral version. I don't see you adding similar names to the cities, monuments, mountains in Armenian which used to have a considerable Azerbaijani minority (before Armenian SSR was established, it was a majority) such as places in Zangezur and around the Lake Sevan, or even Yerevan. So where is your "neutral approach"? Please mind AA2. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer me this, do you deny the existence of NKR? --George Spurlin (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to repeat the same thing over and over. Please read my last response above and you'll find an answer. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense, you blindly deny the fact that NKR exist. Whether it's internationally unrecognized or recognized as part of Azerbaijan doesn't matter in wikipedia. We report facts and that means since 1994 Murdovag is part of the unrecognized border between NKR and Azerbaijan. --George Spurlin (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "border" you are talking about does not exist and is referred to as "contact line". If the border had been established, it would have been recognized. Any military can force itself into the territory of another sovereign state and occupy its territory and claim there is a "border" and that doesn't mean there is that "border". That's why the common sense that comes from the international community states that there is no border. Please read my comment about Azerbaijani locations i Armenia where Azerbaijanis constituted a majority at times but were forced out and provide a response. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You have shown that you are going to blindly push your point of view, I will fix that anytime I believe you're not being neutral. Goodbye. --George Spurlin (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

After checking out this history diff I can see there's been little but edit warring since September, started in November, got very heavy lately. I've protected the article. Please find a way to resolve the issues, also:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

--WGFinley (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wgfinley, dispute resolution would work only if the discussion is between long time established users. Most new accounts come to edit war and draw long time users into sanctions. It's a common practice now. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why full protection is the perfect solution if it's a case of socking. --WGFinley (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, it would be, but you protected it at a version that a proven sock was editing for and is now reverted to by George Spurlin. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how it's always The Wrong Version that gets protected. Admins reverting to an earlier version and then protecting is generally frowned upon (it looks like taking sides), I considered reverting it back to the diff I referenced given the relative little change despite 20 intervening edits but thought better of it. You can always do a {{edit protected}}. --WGFinley (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed your point on the sock editing, I agree, I've restored it to the consensus version from September before the sock got involved and the edit warring started. --WGFinley (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, thank you. I appreciate you taking time to review the edits and history of the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, just because a sockpuppet has been editing the article doesn't mean it was the wrong version. Removal of the armenian version of the name is a violation of NPOV. As for sockpuppet accusations that Tuscumbia has been throwing at me for months now, I asked him to have me checked, but he refused. I tried doing that myself, but it was also rejected. Also, I would like to bring to your attention that Tuscumbia has been topic banned from Nagorno-Karabakh subject not once, but three times for POV pushing. Exactly the same thing he's doing on this article. --George Spurlin (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't make content based decisions like you are arguing for. There was clear edit warring going on, another editor mentioned a sock was doing the warring, I agreed and restored the article back to its pre-sock edit war state. You are free to discuss the changes you think the article needs and submit an {{edit protected}} request. --WGFinley (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

George Spurlin, the thing with continuous sockpuppeting is that the same sockpuppet masters generate and use new sock accounts, eventually are found socks and subsequently blocked on a regular basis. It is evident that these sock masters are not planning on leaving any time soon and having been indefinitely blocked, they are forced to use these sock accounts for two purposes: 1) to evade the ban to continue to push their POV; 2) to drag the established users who had contributed substantial amounts of articles into sanctions. You are one of those several new accounts who have started the latest wave of edit warring around the same time. You may still try to fool uninvolved editors, but I have had a long term experience in these issues and my history of discovering socks of the same sockmasters is pretty long. I may also add that the very reason I had been topic-banned throughout my editing in Wikipedia was that I fell victim to the traps set by the very same sockpuppets I'm talking about, who start edit warring and dragging established users into sanctions (as a result, they get indefinitely blocked and established users get sanctioned, therefore clearing the path for more edit-warring by socks). Tuscumbia (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As per NPOV, the fact that the mountain is in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic needs to be re-added, along with the native armenian spelling. --George Spurlin (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral sources for the Armenian name.

Transcaucasian boundaries By John F. R. Wright, Richard N. Schofield page 93

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Cj9Xiu3OyUC&pg=PA93&dq=Mrav+Armenian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qp_1TouTNufUiAL5ovHTBw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Mrav%20Armenian&f=false

Armenians and Russia, 1626-1796: a documentary record by George A. Bournoutian page 447

http://books.google.com/books?ei=qp_1TouTNufUiAL5ovHTBw&id=ZNptAAAAMAAJ&dq=Mrav+Armenian&q=Mrav#search_anchor

Armenia, 3rd: The Bradt Travel Guide By Nicholas Holding page 278

http://books.google.com/books?id=Epec69LGa0IC&pg=PA278&dq=Mrav+Armenian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qp_1TouTNufUiAL5ovHTBw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=mrav&f=false

CIVIL WARS OF THE WORLD: MAJOR CONFLICTS SINCE WORD WAR II By KARL DEROUEN, U. K. HEO page 147, 150

http://books.google.com/books?id=nrN077AEgzMC&pg=PA147&dq=Mrav+Armenian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qp_1TouTNufUiAL5ovHTBw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mrav&f=false

War and peace in the Caucasus: ethnic conflict and the new geopolitics By Vicken Cheterian page 324

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZJUHC4FyZBMC&pg=PA324&dq=Mrav+Armenian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qp_1TouTNufUiAL5ovHTBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mrav%20Armenian&f=false

The chronicle of Petros di Sarkis Gilanentz: concerning the Afghan invasion of Persia in 1722, the siege of Isfahan, and the repercussions in northern Persia, Russia, and Turkey page 71

http://books.google.com/books?id=5c4mAQAAMAAJ&q=Mrav+Armenian&dq=Mrav+Armenian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6rj1Tt6eF_DUiAL22dWMDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwADgK

--George Spurlin (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Neutral sources"? Are you kidding? Bournoutian, Cheterian, Gilanentz? Come on... These are Armenian authors who are likely to indicate the Armenian names in their writings rather than the correct names. Here is what I call a neutral source (SOURCE: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA ) if you don't like believing in legitimate sources of Azerbaijan where the mountain range is located: "as supplied by the US military intelligence in electronic format, including the geographic coordinates and place name in various forms, latin, roman and native characters, and its location in its respective country's administrative division":

• Murovdağ: Azerbaijan
• Murovdağ: Azerbaijan
• Murovdağ Silsiləsi: Azerbaijan
• Murov-Dagskiy Khrebet: Azerbaijan
• Murov Dag Range: Azerbaijan

Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Reach a consensus before using {{edit protected}}. Protected edit requests are not a vehicle for continuing your edit war. Anomie⚔ 16:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you just completely ignore the Schofield, Holding and Derouen? and sited the same website 5 times? And if you read the fine print on the bottom of every page that you sited, you would have seen this No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Murovdağ information contained here. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not ignore them, as there is nothing to ignore. The book Brandt Travel Guide is based completely on an Armenian version (even the maps are from the series of Greater Armenia) as it was co-authored by RaffiKojian and I wouldn't even be surprised if he's related to the new accounts. :) Same concerns Holding. No wonder you couldn't produce a third party publication by a scholar or reputable author.

No, I did not mention it 5 times. It's a US intelligence publication which is based on legitimate names, as recognized by the US government and international community in whole. Those five entries indicate the same, and "Mrav" is not among them. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the Armenian name with the sources mentioned above and made minor tweaks. If you want to remove the sources I would kindly ask you to make your case for each individual source separately. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mursel, perhaps a word or two to help us reach consensus? --George Spurlin (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

George Spurlin, I am afraid you can't just jump in to revert to your (and some sock's POV version), the minute the protection template expired. I must remind you of the warning given by WGFinley. WGFinley, is there a way you could re-protect the page until consensus is reached? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose having someone else revert for you is allowed? Also I didn't revert, I added sources. Which you completely ignored. We still need to hear what you have against them. --George Spurlin (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

George Spurlin, where do you see I ignored anything? Perhaps, you should revisit the whole discussion on this talk page and see the response on the sources you provides and the neutral ones I outlined. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection: Take 2

George, coming back and putting in the exact same stuff from before protection without any consensus here is bad form. Please stop. I have protected the page for 2 weeks now until this can be ironed out.

Also, I don't believe travel guides qualify for reliable sources, it seems some questionable sources are being used. Also, this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, sources should be in English wherever possible --WGFinley (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put the same stuff, actually, yes I did, but I put the Azerbaijani spelling first, and added 6 sources for the Armenian version of the name. All of which were English. Even if we remove the travel guide, that leaves as with 5. Which of the sources do you think are questionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Spurlin (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mrav

I'm sorry for my absence the last few days. Hopefully everyone has calmed down and we can start over. Perhaps the admins can help us reach the consensus. Considering the historic Armenian presence in the region and the fact that its currently under Armenian control and has been for the last 15-16 years I propose that the local Armenian name of the mountain be included in the article. Here are the sources that mention the mountain by the Armenian name.

• Transcaucasian boundaries By John F. R. Wright, Richard N. Schofield page 93
• Armenia, 3rd: The Bradt Travel Guide By Nicholas Holding page 278
• CIVIL WARS OF THE WORLD: MAJOR CONFLICTS SINCE WORD WAR II By KARL DEROUEN, U. K. HEO page 147, 150
• The chronicle of Petros di Sarkis Gilanentz: concerning the Afghan invasion of Persia in 1722, the siege of Isfahan, and the repercussions in northern Persia, Russia, and Turkey page 71
• War and peace in the Caucasus: ethnic conflict and the new geopolitics By Vicken Cheterian page 324
• Armenians and Russia, 1626-1796: a documentary record by George A. Bournoutian page 447

I believe my proposal will make the article more neutral and include information that is currently being suppressed. --George Spurlin (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "15-16 years" argument matters at all. If Germany occupied Poland and started renaming all of its towns and villages, do you think the world would accept it? There is legal and there is illegal. What is illegal is not recognized, what is legal is recognized. Simple as that. I will take one more effort to address your sources, so that you understand if you chose to ignore the above explanations: Armenia, 3rd: The Bradt Travel Guide By Nicholas Holding page 278 - completely on an Armenian version (even the maps are from the series of Greater Armenia) as it was co-authored by RaffiKojian. No comment; Transcaucasian boundaries By John F. R. Wright, Richard N. Schofield page 93 - it's the section written by Christopher J. Walker, someone heavily invested in Armenian sources and possibly with publications funded by Armenian Benevolent Union [1] versus using third party sources. Please re-read the discussion on sources here; CIVIL WARS OF THE WORLD: MAJOR CONFLICTS SINCE WORD WAR II By KARL DEROUEN, U. K. HEO page 147, 150 - OK, so? He bases his writing on Armenian source calling it Mrav instead of Murov and Artsakh instead of Karabakh. I guess, I can publish a book tomorrow based on Azerbaijani sources and call Armenia an Azerbaijani province. i don't think anyone would refer to it. I'm sorry but usage of the last three authors can probably be better understood if you read this discussion.

The bottom line is that a place is an internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory which was taken under control of Armenian army by use of force and elimination of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees either by mass killings in Khojaly and forceful exodus. So, whether the Armenians want to rename those places or not, is their business, but that doesn't mean that the world has to accept it against all international laws and norms. There was a very big Azerbaijani minority in Armenia, which lived in towns and villages with their the historic Azerbaijani/Turkic names (I can provide the Russian Impreial maps where you will see the native Azerbaijani names) and they wanted to keep using but Armenian government did not allow that. Law is a law. If the names are established by a legitimate government, other names can't be added out of one's personal will. That way, we would have to add Azerbaijani names to about 60-70% of Armenian cities and villages.

These sources will show you the official name Murovdag [2], [3] (Encyclopedia Britannica), [4] (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Most of the these are scientific works based on neutral sources. Again, neutral source (SOURCE: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA ) based on internationally recognized borders "as supplied by the US military intelligence in electronic format, including the geographic coordinates and place name in various forms, latin, roman and native characters, and its location in its respective country's administrative division". None of the these state Muovdag is "Mrav":

• Murovdağ: Azerbaijan
• Murovdağ: Azerbaijan
• Murovdağ Silsiləsi: Azerbaijan
• Murov-Dagskiy Khrebet: Azerbaijan
• Murov Dag Range: Azerbaijan Tuscumbia (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of legal or illegal, it cares about facts and the fact is that the mountain has an alternative name by the local population. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article is proof that your illegal argument is invalid.

• You reject the Armenia, 3rd: The Bradt Travel Guide By Nicholas Holding because it's co-author is Armenian.
• You reject Transcaucasian boundaries By John F. R. Wright because its written by someone you claim is influenced by Armenians.
• You reject CIVIL WARS OF THE WORLD because you claim he's using Armenian sources.
• You reject the rest of the sources because they have Armenian last names.

Then you proceed to give us the official Baku line of refugees and khojaly which has no connection to the topic of Murovdag. The rest of the sources you present is useless, because I'm not denying the Azeri name or trying to rename the article. Also the fact that you present the same source multiple times is petty and laughable.

You can not discriminate against the authors nationality or their supposed influences. The alternate name exists and is being used by Armenians and non-Armenians in the printed publication. --George Spurlin (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not some "I wanna add stuff" blog. By the same token, anyone can publish something (web page, book, newspaper) and call an object a name they like. The sooner you come to understand that, the better. I have already told you about the sources. One more time, refer to this discussion. Refugee crisis in Azerbaijan and Khojaly Massacre are not a "Baku line", but facts supported by third parties. Read the third party sources in those article and understand the difference. You can laugh all you want but the reason I present the same source multiple times is to show you that in each instance of mentioning of Murovdag, there is no alternative spelling/name called "Mrav". Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, why is Civil wars of the world a bad source, besides your argument that it would be based on Armenian sources? --vacio 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the section calling Murovdag Mrav does seem to have been contributed by a potentially biased source. Please read the tone of the text and you'll understand. (eg. refers to Armenia's capturing of Azerbaijani territories as "liberate", etc) Names of geographic locations are to be based on geographical sources, not works such as the one above which could be based on a source from either side. If Azerbaijanis advise a European author that the name of Ijevan is Guba, and he mistakenly refers to it as such in his book, that doesn't mean we have a new name for Ijevan, does it? That's why authors have to check the names based on geographic sources, ones that I had presented above. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you denounce a source based on your personal disagreement with its context, plus your speculation about the ethnic origin of the sources you think the author used. My impression is that the source perfectly fits with WP:IRS as it is published by a recognized publisher, ABC-CLIO, and it provides reliable geographical information. As for your concern about its usage of geographical names, I don't think the comparison with Ijevan/Guba is relevant here (as those are two totally different locations). Civil wars of the world clearly states that the Murovdag mountains include the northern part of Nagorno-Karabakh, so it is anything but a "mistake" to use a version of the name -Mrav mountains- that is used by the population of this region for a long time. The same goes for Transcaucasian boundaries, which is also published by a highly reputable publisher, University College London, and is also providing reliable geopolitical information. Please remember that we have to evaluate sources according to the criteria of[WP:IRS, your suspicion about their "Armenian influence" is unproved and is based on a criterion that is not listed in WP:IRS. If this is your only argument, I have to disagree with your opinion that "there is no alternative spelling/name called "Mrav". --vacio 08:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Vacio, I don't denounce but base the argument on need of application of a certain source based on its reliability. Looks like you misunderstood the argument on Ijevan and Guba. I am perfectly aware those are two different locations. What I meant is that if an Azerbaijani source advises a certain European author that Ijevan is in fact also called Guba and he the author then proceeds to present Ijevan as Guba (which would be wrong), that wouldn't mean we could then use the source by that author and refer to Ijevan as Guba, would we? The point is that the names for geographical locations should be based on geographical sources, not one and the only source George Spurlin dug up there to support his claims (against hundreds of others which only refer to the location as Murovdag, and/or anything but Mrav). I'll give you another comparison. Look at this source, for instance which claims Armenians committed acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijani civilians residing in Armenia. While I may agree on the ethnic cleansing argument, I don't think some instances of killings signify a larger word "genocide". But the point is, should we then use this source and label those acts as genocide just because there is a third party book calling it a genocide and/or because Azerbaijanis believe it was a genocide?! That's why, if you look through all articles on villages, towns, locations, they rely on geographical sources, not secondary sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, I am not convinced that your comparison with Ijevan/Guba is relevant. While I agree that anything found in a third party source is not always accurate, I still don't see any grounds that the use of Mrav in certain English sources is a misunderstanding or anywise incorrect. Your argument is that these sources use Mrav because they are advised to do so by Armenian sources, which is not only an allegation, but it is also not an evidence as such that the use is incorrect.--vacio 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm very sorry I can't convince you but the fact that with all the abundance of third party sources stating the mountain is called Murovdag (as you yourself have admitted it was correct), your source relies on words of Armenian sources, already proves that the author disregarded the more important path through impartial sources and relied on partisan sources instead, which is a good indication for weighing in the sources, in general. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you try to convince us –that Murovdag is more common in English languages sources– that's correct. But you make furthermore claims that are not based on any evidence: (1) the sources using an alternate name rely on Armenian sources. (2) sources which use an alternate name which is relatively less common in ELS should be disregarded. With this reasoning one could ignore any sources which uses for instance Xenkedni in stead of Stepanakert or Shushi in stead of Shusha. And also, please be careful, we are not talking about one source, but the sources using Mrov. --vacio 12:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you that Murovdag is a "more common" name for the mountain range. I am telling you it is the official name as presented by third party geographic sources. Your sources are based NOT on official names of the places, but on names provided by the Armenian population. If you can find any geographic source which was the primary source for your authors when they referred to the mountain as "Mrav", I'd believe you, but it's not the case. Murovdag is the official and legitimate name which is corroborated by the primary geographic sources, and the third party sources that correctly refer to them. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw you writing earlier: I don't think "15-16 years" argument matters at all. If Germany occupied Poland and started renaming all of its towns and villages, do you think the world would accept it?. I just wanted to mention that this is as well a completely irrelevant argumentation. Since Mrav, as an endonym, did not appear as a result of the NK-war and I don't see any connection with the current political situation of the region. --vacio 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the endonym appeared. It might have been called "Mrav" for hundred years. What matters is what it was and is called officially, and Murovdag always appeared as Murovdag on all Soviet, Western maps before, during and after Soviet Union. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently we didn't check all maps published during and after SU. As quoted below, that maps of Hewsen use: Mrav ans I have only checked a few sources. --vacio 13:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hewsen's maps? Come on now :) Not a single Soviet or Russian map calls it "Mrav". So, while creating his maps, I would very much like to know where he got his primary sources. Look at this Imperial Russian map, which even predates the Soviet maps and see for yourself what the mountain was called. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting map, and interesting information. However I have seen that most old Russian maps use Shusha rather than Shushi, but that very fact doesn't disprove that an alternate version of the city name exist. --vacio 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. You can't just toss aside a historic name, because its not "official" --George Spurlin (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Historic name" according to whom? You? There are dozens of sources calling the range Murovdag, both for official, geographic and historical reasons. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Vacio, and would add that Tuscumbia continues displaying bizarre ethnonational battleground demeanor inconsistent with membership in Wikipedia. Winterbliss (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Winterbliss, get some rest from your trolling, will you? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How is this not the same as me calling you a chauvinist? Is troll an acceptable word to call somebody? --George Spurlin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I advise you one last time to refrain from calling me a "chauvinist". This is the second time now. Next time you will be reported. Trolling is described in the official Wikipedia policy. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusing others of being trolls and sockpuppets is ok, but making observation on ones editing pattern is not? Also I didn't "officially" call you a chauvinist, so it doesn't count. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations are well based on evidence which were endorsed by clerks and admins. If you or Winterbliss or similar accounts have not been found sockpuppets by geographical location, it doesn't mean you're not a reincarnation of those indefinitely blocked accounts editing pattern speak for themselves. As I said, sooner or later those accounts do get revealed. Not the first instance.

And that's right, you should back away from your rhetoric, whether that's "official" or not. There are policies not to be violated. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, another source using Mrav is "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" of Robert Hewsen (University of Chicago Press, 2001 ISBN 0-2263-3228-4) pp. 41, 59, 118, 164, 264. --vacio 18:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

Concerned there is going to be more fighting here when protection expires. Every participant here should consider themselves warned about the personal attacks and name calling. I'm not pointing the finger at any one person, there's plenty to go around.

The major problem I can see here is walls of text being erected, things should be chopped into smaller bits and look for agreement. You put up so much stuff that I haven't seen an objection to Wright & Schofield as a source. Or did I miss it? --WGFinley (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi WGFinley, yes, that source was also addressed here: it's the collection of sections, the one being addressed by Christopher Walker. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To make it easier, here is what Tuscumbia said; it's the section written by Christopher J. Walker, someone heavily invested in Armenian sources and possibly with publications funded by Armenian Benevolent Union [14] versus using third party sources.

Basically he discriminates against an English historian because the author was given an award by an Armenian organization and an unfounded claim that he was possibly funded by the organization. I suppose Tuscumbia also considers Dr. Tessa Hoffman, Prof. Alpago Novello, Baroness Caroline Cox, Dr. Yves Ternon, director Kim Bakshi, Prof. Hermann Goltz and Tsvetana Paskaleva as heavily invested in Armenian sources. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The key word in my statement above is versus using third party sources. Google Mr Walker away and you'll come to find out how heavily invested he is. If an author writes a book and ignores the third party source indicating the legitimate name of the location as presented by a third party, it can't be used against the third party source itself. Again, I could call Washington, D.C. a Baltimore in my book just because I could have talked to a few people in Washington D.C., but it won't make it a Baltimore because the third party georgaphical sources do use the proper Washington D.C.. So, Mr Walker does not base his writings neither on official and legitimate Azerbaijani sources, nor third party American or Soviet sources.

Enough with your attempts to drag me into author discussions. Concentrate on the discussion and present valid arguments and third party geographic sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I googled him, turns out he's a British historian who's very knowledgeable about the Armenian history. So far your only argument isArmenians. You have to be more specific. --George Spurlin (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am really tired of repeating the same points over and over. Re-read the information about the importance of geographical sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to summarize the discussion above: Tuscumbia right that the majority of sources uses Murovdag or Murov Mountain. There are also a sources using Mrav or Mrav Mountain, which is the name used by the local population of the southern foothills of the mountain (Mardakert region in Nagorno-Karabakh). The title of this article should obviously be Murovdag/mountain, but according WP:PLACE the alternate version can also find place in the lead. --vacio 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Vacio, I understand you want to include the version used by Armenian residents in the article, but the problem is that there is no general consensus on the issue. As already mentioned, the same approach can't be seen for locations in Armenia, where a sizable native Azerbaijani population have lived for centuries, yet I don't see the names in Azerbaijani. That's why, we have to stick to the official version, IMHO. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, the comparison with Armenian locations with significant Azerbaijani population in the past is irrelevant. We are talking about current local population, living on the southern part of the mountain today. We don't have to reach consensus on this, we always add local names in the lead of Wikipedia articles as it is stated in WP:PLACE. --vacio 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You would think it is, wouldn't you? Why not tell your peers discussing the Armenian and other names in Kars article that you are not supporting inclusion of the name in languages of people who lived there in the past and support the inclusion of names of minorities living there today? Since Kars is a predominantly Azerbaijani populated city, I'd like to see you say a few words there. :) The point is Armenians lay claims to territory of Karabakh as much as Azerbaijani claim the eastern Armenian territories of present day Armenia. If they were cleansed from those territories and the names of their villages were changed by Armenian government, that does not mean, the alternative names should be disregarded. After all, like I said, since there is no general consensus, the legitimate names given by third party geographical sources have to be used. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've done enough to disqualify Walker as a source, he's English, written an accepted text and despite some allegations you haven't proven about him ("possibly with publications funded by..."[15] you don't have any other reason to disqualify the source. I also see other editors pointing out despite it not being the official name WP:NAME doesn't exclude other names being used in the article. I think you need to work to compromise Tuscumbia or come up with better reasons to disqualify the source. It seems more likely to me because Walker has written on the genocide your world view disqualifies him, just because a source doesn't agree with your world view it doesn't disqualify them as a reliable source. --WGFinley (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I don't think you fully understood my argument. I am not disqualifying Walker because he had written about a genocide, but suggesting that the author did not use a third party primary source when stating the location names. If you read third party sources, you read his impartial authors use Stepanakert (Khankendi) or Khankendi (Stepanakert) for specific locations like Khankendi, but with all the abundance of data on Murovdag in Russian Imperial, Soviet and Western sources which call the location Murovdag, he chose to use Mrav only. But yet again, my whole argument is that there is no general consensus on the names within AA2 articles. If an Armenian name is added to this location, why can't Azeri names be added to locations in Armenia where Azerbaijanis constituted majority at one time, before they were deported? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tuscumbia demonstrates stubborn commitment to rejecting anything that does not fit into his views on history. He has failed to show willingness to cooperate. Using multiple names for geographic terms with different ethnic groups living in one area can be seen in many articles, such as Getashen, where both Armenian and Azerbaijani versions are used. He also failed to answer the question about the use of the term Mrav by one of the most renowned historical geographers of the region Robert Hewsen (as asked by Vacio above). I suggest to close this useless exchange, confirm Tuscumbia's defiance of WP regulations and ban him from this article and, better still, from AA2 articles altogether for another 6 months until he cools down, assumes good faith and begin cooperating with others. Winterbliss (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Winterbliss, please mind civility. I cooperate where there is cooperation. If the other side proposes a consensus and agrees for the Azerbaijani names in Armenian towns and villages with Azerbaijani population (in the past), I won't mind. And, please don't rush to add Armenian names to Azerbaijani villages and then come here and claim that's how it is in other articles. As for Hewsen, please read more about Robert Hewsen and then read about the third party sources here. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to take a look at the merits of the comments posted in the discussion, but I have a question for Tuscumbia: do you not accept the reliability of Robert Hewsen as a reliable source either?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, provide the link to a map/source that Hewsen used when creating his maps, and we'll go from there. I already provided a link to a Russian Imperial map which states the correct name Murovdag. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an unrealistic thing to ask from an editor; maybe you can ask him yourself. I don't know which sources he used in drawing up those maps but Robert Hewsen is a respected scholar and his book, after all, was published by Chicago University Press. His works have been cited dozens of times in these articles. His use of "Mrav" is, at the very least, evidence that an alternative local name exists for this mountain range. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the link in my last response to Winterbliss. It's important to note that third party sources including the Russian Imperial map that I provided refer to range as Murovdag, which then raises a question: if there are Imperial Russian and Soviet maps calling it Mrav, what exactly did Hewsen base his writings on? For all we know he created electronic maps. The same can be done by an Azerbaijani author who can create a map (while the third party map is unavailable) and then claim a certain location is called a certain unmentioned by other sources name. I don't need to ask anyone anything since I rely and present valid sources. You don't. So find those historical maps and present them on this talk page. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually It doesn't matter which maps he used to base his writings on. Per WP rules what matters is, that there is an alternate name and we have reliable sources to confirm that fact. Suspicions that those sources would use Armenian sources which in turn would have used non-existing or incorrect names are the only argument of Tuscumbia and having carefully read them above I think they are unfounded. The merely fact that Tuscumbia has such suspicions doesn't proof anything as such. --vacio 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vacio, it does matter what maps were used because we have a contradicting set of sources here. On one end, I am giving you dozens of reliable sources including primary geographic sources and the map(s), on the other, you're giving me a source which seemingly used maps but we are not sure which. In other words, I have a reliable visible map with the name Murovdag and it is interesting to know that in presence of this historical Imperial Russian map, which map did your source use? Moreover, am I right to assume that you would agree to applying WP rules on alternative names to all AA2 location articles, including places in Armenia? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, as I corrected you earlier, we speak about reliable sources not a sources. Second, I don't see any contradiction at all: as I commented above, your map also uses Shusha, a fact that doesn't contradict the existence of an alternate name of that city. As for WP rules, I support the notion to add alternate names if there are people living at that place who use them. If Murovdag mountain wouldn't comprise a part of Nagorno-Karabakh maybe I wouldn't take part to this discussion. But the fact that it is, I think makes more than obvious that the notion about Mrav is important. --vacio 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's the whole point Vacio. You guys do not want to come to general consensus but like to selectively handle each case separately. For instance, here I say I would agree to inclusion of "Mrav" although no reliable source (that is completely impartial source such as, for instance, this one) exists and there is abundance of sources that show only Murovdag and no Mrav; and all that as long as the consensus applies to AA2 location articles, including the places in Armenia where Azerbaijanis constituted a sizable minority and in the 18the century, a majority.

Yet, you come back saying that you would support such a consensus only "if there are people living at that place", perfectly aware that Azerbaijanis had been completely deported from Armenia. At the very same time though, you guys insist on retaining only an Armenian alternative name for Kars while refusing to have other alternative names such as Azerbaijani and Kurdish, although now there is no Armenian minority in Kars and there is a big Azerbaijani and Kurdish minority in the city. So, where is the just consensus, Vacio? Tuscumbia (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia - you are on the cusp of some action on my part. I don't see anything from you that legitimately refutes either Walker or Hewsen as reliable sources for this article. You want to accuse the sources of bias but have no evidence that proves them as such and seem instead to make up bias for them (such as Hewsen somehow making his own electronic maps). There have been established texts supplied that support that use of that name, why can't it be added as an alternate name? --WGFinley (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, established texts mention both names and both names should be here. I do not see any problem. A few words about civility. Tuscumbia made an accusations directed against me regarding civility [16]. But he recently accused a number of editors of being sockpuppets before SPIs were run and before SPIs proved no connection with sockpuppet activity. His latest victims are User:Zimmarod and User:Hablabar both of whom were cleared of suspicions of being socks by two different checkuser clearances. But for Tuscumbia this is not good enough. After failing to expose his victims as villains, he decided to "show similarity" of the way they communicate supposedly [17]. But it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here [18] and Tuscumbia here [19] and here [20]. Both make identically worded threats "["One more blind revert" || "You do that one more time" || "If you keep doing it"] and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Winterbliss (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer to Tuscumbias comment above: If a general consensus is your goal in this discussion, then you are trying to reach it on a non constructive way. First, refusing authors because you think they've used Armenian sources, isn't helping us anywhere. Secondly, we can't reach consensus if you will hold me accountable for the opinion of other editors, i.e. things I've never said so far (as you write you guys insist...). Third, I think you chose a non-constructive way, because you dispute something that is a common use in Wikipedia, i.e. adding local names in geographical locations and because you compare that with cases that are essentially different. As for your allegation that I like to selectively handle each case separately – I don't think you judge rightly since you mention the ethnic cleansing of the 1988-90s completely one-sided. Yes I am aware that Azerbaijanis had to leave tens of villages and cities in Armenia, but I am also aware that Armenians left (or were "deported" if that's the correct wording) tens of villages and cities in Azerbaijan. Why do you forget the second side of this indeed painful story? Just because it's very tricky to determine in which case we should mention a former local name, doesn't mean that we have to refuse to add a current local name. Also the difference between this case and your comparison with ethnically cleansed places, is that we are not talking about a village or a town, but a mountain range with a length of 70 km, with Azerbaijanis and Armenians living on each side of it. The mention of the Armenian local name is in all respects important or encyclopedic. --vacio 10:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been making progress here, don't derail that progress with more accusations about civility, etc. At a certain point you need to just drop it, let the previous things go and try to move on from it. I will handle anyone who's not being civil or clearly being tendentious. I don't need others to pile on and make a mess of things. We also don't need to go back and rehash the entire Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. Let's stick to this article and the name as we've been discussing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wgfinley, your're completely right. It's always tempting to answer accusations with accusations. Still, can we assume that the progress we have made, is that authors cant be repudiated based on the ethnicity of the sources they (allegedly) used? --vacio 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I'll have to clarify this one more time. First off, as already mentioned many times, the sources presented by the opponents are either Armenian-authored or based on Armenian sources only. If the neutral source was identiyfing a location as an impartial party to the conflict, don't you think the author would base his writing on the third party geographical source even if he wanted to use Mrav in the book?

Secondly, this is an all out movement to add Armenian names to articles to disqualify Azerbaijan's legitimacy over the region, so to speak. By the logic offered above, then Azerbaijani names have to be added to all Azeri populated areas of Armenia as well, even if the population had been deported en masse. It's not only the Armenian names of Azerbaijani towns and villages in Karabakh currently occupied by separatist forces that the opponents are trying to add or rename. It's also the areas where not a single Armenian resides today, and which is not even in Karabakh. See this edit by George Spurlin, for instance, who adds names to Azerbaijani villages which are not even in Nagorno-Karabakh and where there are no Armenians at the present.

Third, the fact that there are Armenian residents in Nagorno-Karabakh does not warrant adding Armenian names. See New York or even Texas where there is a sizable Mexican minority, but do you see any Spanish names such as Nuevo York or Tejas in those articles? No, because encyclopedia relies on valid legitimate names, recognized and accepted by the international community. Please do highlight where exactly I fail in my argument. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On topic Comparison to New York is not correct. Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh were/are not a minority, but a majority. A better, but not ideal comparison would've been Los Angeles because there were Native American settlements, before the spanish came along. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Off topic Getashen was the official name of the Armenian village during the soviet times, and it was changed only after Armenian residents were expelled. And the source is Thomas de Waal, the most used source in the NK articles. Perhaps he's also a hidden Armenian? P.S If you have something to say about any of my edits you can do so, in the said articles talk page. --George Spurlin (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't disqualify them as a source because they are Armenian. Even worse neither Walker nor Hewsen are Armenian, Walker is English and Hewsen is American. They may have Armenian heritage but that doesn't disqualify them either. Your second point is entirely WP:BATTLEGROUND adding an alternate name for a place cannot be tied to some "movement", it's to make a more accurate article. Your third point is cherry picking and has no application to this article. --WGFinley (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't qisqualify them with a purpose of extending the argument. This is just to show you the tool used by certain editors to give credibility to Armenian-American authors and disqualify the Azerbaijani authors. Armenians have a pretty big minority in the United States and they have established themselves as a community since 1920's. Azerbaijanis have not and started their immigration in 1990's. So, it's not hard to suppose that the former have produced and will produce more books as American than any Azeri. In other words, if works by Azeri and Armenian authors are often discredited such as these, for instance ([21], [22]), don't you think usage of the sources hidden under "American authors with Armenian heritage" disguise can also be biased? Do NOT get me wrong now. I will use any Armenian-American written source as long as it is based on reliable sources, and not ones acquired from Armenian State Archives; and again this is within the general context where the opposing party users always like to discredit Azeri authors because they have written in Baku or based their work on previously published Azeri works.

Excuse me, but where exactly do you witness battleground when I pinpoint to specific edits of double standards by the very users who advocated adding alternative Armenian names because Armenians lived there? And last, third point is not cherry-picking, it's an exhibition of lack of general consensus in naming articles. If there is no Hispanic Texas or New York, what makes the Azerbaijani cities so special to have an alternative Armenian name? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You've responded to the battleground assessment with more battlegrounding. Whenever you attack other users instead of the facts they present, you are battlegrounding. When you bring up someone's heritage instead of the facts they present, you are battlegrounding. Cease battlegrounding or you will be subject to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, you are wrong. If there are reputable academics of Azerbaijani heritage living let's say in Japan, we are obligated to include them as sources. And if this academic chooses to use Azerbaijani State Archives or Armenian State Archives, it does not matter, because her expertise is a valid enough ground for trusting the Armenian/Azerbaijani/Japanese archives. Armenian historical sources that mention Murovdag as Mrav are just historical sources, and if someone in good academic standing decides to use Mrav, we need to take it seriously. We cannot disqualify writings of Strabo or Plutarch on a disputed issue on Macedonia simply because they were Greeks. Zimmarod (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

About Texas. I think we can argue that the Spanish names of Texas can be included in the article because of Texas' Spanish history. Zimmarod (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I'm sorry, but all I can see from you is catching on the "heritage" argument while you dismiss the remaining 99% of it. You seem to choose to ignore the validity of the argument. Other than that, please stop threatening me with sanctions. I have presented evidence and have repeatedly stated that the sources (by Armenian authors) which rely on third party primary sources can and should be used. The opposing party should file an RfC if they want a third party opinion.

Zimmarod, no, we can't use authors of Azerbaijani heritage just because they live in Japan. The fact of the matter is that those very same Azerbaijani authors can write in positive light of Azerbaijan, if they choose to. Only if their work is based on third party impartial sources, they should gain credibility and be used as reliable sources.

George Spurlin, Getashen was the name given by Soviets to a village in Azerbaijan SSR. At foundation and during the Russian Empire, the village was called Chaykend (or its Russian equivalent Чайкенд). Please see the Russian Imperial map if you like.

However, my point was that you, as someone who lobbied for including Armenian name "because Armenians live in Karabakh", and including Armenian name in Azerbaijani village where not a single Armenian resides today, at the same time oppose placing alternative Azerbaijani names in Armenian cities, where Azerbaijanis lived, and oppose including Azerbaijani names where Azerbaijanis live today but Armenians don't.

So, to sum up:

Armenian users' suggestion is:

• Murovdag, (which is within a territory internationally recognized as Azerbaijan, and unrecognized by any country and international organization) where Armenians live today, and Azerbaijanis were expelled from - you suggest having an alternative Armenian name
• Chaykend, (which is also within a territory of Azerbaijan, but where Armenians lived during Soviet times) - you an alternative Armenian name, because you say, Armenians lived there, and the village had a name Getashen during Soviet times (although it was Chaykend during its foundation and during Russian Empire)
• For locations in Armenia, especially in Zangezur and Goycha (around Lake Sevan), which had native Azerbaijani populations (and were expelled), at times exceeding Armenian population - you say Armenian names can't be added because Azerbaijanis don't live there today and Armenians do.
• For locations in Turkey such as Kars (where Turks, Kurds, Azerbaijanis and Armenians lived before and where Turks, Azerbaijanis and Kurds constitute majority today) - you suggest only Armenian language should be added as an alternative, because Armenians lived there, disregarding your own argument as per previous points that one ethnicity does not live there, and/or other ethnicities constitute majority.

So, why the double standards? Why can't one stadard be applied? Why the POV? Be kind to explain. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not lobbying for any position I am giving you administrative guidance. You cannot dismiss sources used by others simply based on their race, ethnicity, etc that is an administrative position not a content position. Two scholarly sources have been presented, they meet the WP:RS criteria and your WP:IDHT behavior is getting to the point where you will be sanctioned for disrupting the editing of this article. --WGFinley (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I didn't you were lobbying for any position. The other accounts are. I'd like to see their response point by point. Thank you for guidance. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go review WP:NAME, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming and as a further example I would give you Istanbul which not only has a title as its commonly accepted name but mentions Constantinople and Byzantium as its prior names in addition to an entire article on alternate names. It's fully acceptable to include a name of a place with proper sourcing. Creating another extensive list you want answered is more WP:IDHT. --WGFinley (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, where in the world, do you see me object that? My point is that if those listed policies are to be applied, they should be applied to both sides. Otherwise, it's a manipulation of Wikipedia guidelines in favor of one side in the dispute. And on contrary, dismissing the extensive list for dispute resolution is a good example of disregard to WP:IDHT, or simply put, "my way or the highway". Tuscumbia (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring that this is an essentially different case that can't be equated to locations with former Armenian/Azeri population, Tuscumbia? --vacio 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring that it's not? And why don't you tell that to George Spurlin? Why don't you just address the above 4 points I outlined above, point by point, for the purpose of dispute resolution? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained my point, there is no reason to equalize a mountain – with presently two people living on its hills – to villages and towns where formerly Armenians, resp. Azeris lived. Maybe it seems important to connect them when one makes a battleground of Wikipedia, but when you turn back to see this page as a encyclopedic article, it doesn't make any sense to exclude a local name just because people were expelled from their homes in other geographical locations. As for you 4 points above, first an international recognized status does not preclude local names at all. Then, your comparison of Chaykend-Getashen with former Azeri villages in Armenia is a good point, but they are both irrelevant for the discussion here. Murovdag-Mrav is not a village were Armenians or Azeris have lived formerly. In fact, the ethnic picture of Mardakert region of NK, which includes most of the southern part of the mountain, changed little since Soviet times. --vacio 19:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, if it weren't important to connect the two issues, we wouldn't have had the AA2 ruling which generalizes the issues within the Armenian-Azerbaijani issues. Secondly, as you rightfully pointed out, this is an encyclopedia which should not be one-sided, based on preference of one group. What you're doing now is arguing the technicality issue of where Armenians and Azeris lived and live. Yet, at the same time, you disregard the impartiality issue. You favor inclusion of an Armenian name where Armenians live now on internationally recognized Azerbaijani soil, you favor an Armenian name where Armenians lived but do NOT live now (also internationally recognized Azerbaijani soil), and you don't want the same for the locations where Azerbaijanis lived (Armenian soil). How is that fair? You can go around on and on, but you're not addressing the points I have presented above. Point by point and how they are unfair in regards to the other. It doesn't matter if it's a village, town or a mountain. The rule should apply to any of them, or we should retain only the legitimate names, as per third party geographical sources. Ethnic picture of Agdere (Mardakert) might have not changed since 1988 when the number of Azeris were 24% and Armenians - 76% in Karabakh, but it had changed from 1828 when the number of Azerbaijanis was 91% and Armenians - 9%. Shifts in demographics happen; so please do not base your point on the ethnicity statistics. Moreover, even in Soviet times, the mountain range was called Murovdag (see Хр. Муров-Даг, i.e. Murov-Dag range in this Soviet atlas, for instance). Tuscumbia (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuscumbia - look at the top of this page, this is the talk page for Murovdag, that's all that I am talking about and that's all this conversation should be about. You keep going into other articles, conspiracies, etc. We're talking about Murovdag and I don't think anyone is disputing the name of this article, we're talking about adding alternate names. --WGFinley (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I am well aware what the page is about. I am going into other articles because that's the way issues are resolved in Wikipedia. I am sure you're aware of that. Please don't try to suppress the information. Talk:Kars is a good example, where editors explore other articles for similarities in their dispute resolution. Murovdag article is no exception. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To Tuscumbia, I'm not Armenian, secondly can you show me where I opposed the inclusion of Azeri names in Armenia. You're trying to derail and stonewall the discussion by bringing up edits from other articles. Again, if you have anything to say, you can say it in the respective articles talkpage. --George Spurlin (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't oppose, please go ahead and add Azeri names to locations in Armenian where sizable Azerbaijani communities existed before the conflict, and we'll see good faith edits from you. I'm not derailing anything. This is a part of dispute resolution. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An article TP is only for discussion on the topic of the article per WP:TPG. A general DR on geographical names must be discussed elsewhere (maybe on WP:ARBAA2 or WP:PLACE. WGFinley made clear that an author can't be dismissed just because s/he allegedly used Armenian sources. Is there any other argument to leave out the local/alternate name Mrav? --vacio 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tuscumbia I think a talk page full of raging disputes, mentions of going to arbitration, involvement of indefinitely blocked editors and what not is a bad example and not one to be emulated. This talk page is for discussion of this article, and that is it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Vacio, but as much as you try to dismiss the above points for dispute resolution, it is not acceptable. I can paste dozens of diffs of your edits to talk pages where you refer to and compare to other articles, which is perfectly normal. I understand it's inconvenient for you to respond to above points because it is likely to ruin your argument, but that's a part of dispute resolution.

WGFinley, with all due respect, "that is it" should not work because you're preventing a discussion from progress. Reference to other articles and precedents is an important part of dispute resolution and should not be excluded. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty patient here so let me state this one final time. Per WP:TALK:

Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Further filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again will be subject to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, patience is on both sides. Having an administrative function does not give you an authority over everything. I have highlighted the points which are directly relevant to the discussion within the AA2 articles. What you are doing now is taking sides and suppressing dispute resolution. The quote from the policy is being misunderstood by you. Everything pointed above is pretty much relevant. I will repeat it as many times as one needs to hear, until it is understood that the path to dispute resolution is being impeded. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We have sources provided by George Spurlin and Vacio, and we have official name given by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, don't we? If yes, then who at all needs Tuscumbia's permission to add that name in the article lead?? Any revert from his side would be nothing less than vandalism with all the relevant consequences. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashot, the NKR office in Washingon DC calls it Mrav "The Mrav Mountain Range extends along the northern part and embraces the highest peaks - Gomshasar (12,214 ft.) and Mrav (10,965 ft.), situated in the northwestern part of Jraberd province" source --George Spurlin (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As it concerns Christopher Walker's reliability on Armenian issues editors here may find this to be of interest: [23].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

I've tried to improve the article's English, but I'm not expert on the subject so I don't know if I got some things right (like, does it extend north from Hinaldag? On a map it looks like it's east-west). Someone who knows better, please check my work. --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mravsar?

Where did Mravsar came from? --George Spurlin (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)