Talk:South Caucasus

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The Google Ngrams show a definite trend towards South Caucasus as the dominant term, but the data only goes up to 2008 and shows a clear majority for Transcaucasia before that date. Google web searches have a similar problem — they are almost tied right now, but heavily weighted towards the Transcaucasia name which was dominant for decades. While the dominant name used in the past 10 years is most likely South Caucasus, the data presented has been insufficient to convince the majority of editors, and therefore there is no consensus at this point for a change. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and
  WP:COMMONNAME. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStoofer (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose per
  WP:UCN without further evidence to the contrary. (See this Google ngram for graphic comparison.) While "South Caucasus" has become more popular over the last decade, it does not appear to be the most common name in sources. I do get 481,000 Google web hits for "South Caucasus" versus 425,000 hits for "Transcaucasia". For printed sources however, I get 48,000 Google book hits for "South Caucasus" versus 203,000 hits for "Transcaucasia". —  AjaxSmack  20:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Southern Caucasus yields >21,000 more results. And I think scholarly sources, government reports, etc published in the last two decades should be given precedence over vintage travelogues. "South Caucasus" is used in the

OSCE documents. Representatives of the EU and OSCE are referred to as "EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus" and "OSCE Special Representative for South Caucasus", respectively.--Kober^Talk 09:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support - nowadays Transcaucasia is considered an outdated term and would sound rather clinical to anyone who knows the South Caucasus region. I don't think Google Books is a good indication of how mainstream something is today. Because of legal and commercial restrictions, books available in Google tend to be older, including a bunch from the 1800s and early 1900s. A lot can change in a century. South Caucasus is the most recognizable and mainstream term at present, and has been for a while. It makes more sense given the existence of the corresponding term North Caucasus.--2600:1003:B013:CB38:394E:2E0F:CD59:527F (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - A quick search through modern sources in Google Books suffice to establish South Caucasus as a far more frequently used designation of the geopolitical region previously known as Transcaucasia under the influence of Soviet/Russian sources. The title "South Caucasus" had been in place for years before someone made an apparently undiscussed move.--Kober^Talk 09:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Firm oppose - certain circles in Georgia currently do not like the term "Transcaucasia" because of Georgian anti-Russia outlooks: They perceive the term as having a Russian origin and displaying a Russian imperial perception of the region (the other side of the "other side" of the Caucasus is Russia). However, it is not an "outdated" term just because a country's state ideology currently dislikes it and a number of scholars for acceptance or fashion currently go along with that. (There are also other reasons for the current usage - in relation to Turkey, "Southern Caucasus" used together with "Eastern Anatolia" can be used to entirely avoid mentioning Armenia). The majority of EL sources do use Transcaucasia (thus the majority are NOT Soviet or Russian sources). We also have other articles on Wikipedia with titles that use "Transcaucasia" in their titles. Southern Caucasus redirecting to Transcaucasia is sufficient for now. Maybe revisit this in 10 years. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do "certain circles in Georgia" have to do with all of these? Rationale behind your recent votes here and elsewhere seems to be highly prejudicial towards Georgia and Georgians.--Kober^Talk 16:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that, say, this UN document, having an Armenian as its chief editor, is also influenced by almighty "certain circles in Georgia" and their "anti-Russia outlooks" and also has another reason for using "South Caucasus" — "to avoid mentioning Armenia"? More than this, the current Armenian president, a close Russian ally, also appears to have submitted to the "certain circles in Georgia" and dared to mention the term "South Caucasus" in his address to the United Nations, obviously, to express his anti-Russian feelings and to avoid any mention of his country in the Caucasus context. Also,

OSCE decided to follow the suit of the "certain circles in Georgia" and named its official representative to Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan as "OSCE Special Representative for South Caucasus". The guy, in this capacity, dared to visit Armenia and meet the country's leadership more than once. Same holds true for the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia.--Kober^Talk 16:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You are being deliberately simplistic. You yourself have already claimed that the name arises from Russian influences. In Georgia in particular there have been concerted attempts at "Georgianising" everything, part of which entails eliminating any traces of (or even admittance of) Russian influences. In this article this "Georgianising" has been expressed recently in the attempts at eliminating admittance of Iranian influences (see the "cleanup" thread, and especially my quote from Rapp). The individual contemporary countries of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, refer to themselves as countries in the South Caucasus - but this article is not about individual countries, it is about the entire region - and the history of that region, not just its current political setup, individual national divisions, and current ideologies. This is why the google results are deceptive. A source writing "in the South Caucasus" does not mean the same as "in Transcaucasia" if all that is being referred to is an individual country. I also think that the casual dismissal of several centuries of history as unimportant (in the dismissal of older sources) reveals a desire for whitewashing. The concept of there being a land beyond the Caucasus, and its perceived exoticism, was at the core of much 19th and early 20th century Russian literature from Lermontov to Pushkin to Tolstoy and many others. Encyclopedias should not follow terminology decided by fashion over the last decade but by what established sources use. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what does your enlightening excursus in the region's history, especially its undeniable ties with Iran (for which I don't definitely need to be referred to your quotes), have to do with South Caucasus vs Trascaucasia naming issue? --Kober^Talk 17:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those undeniable ties are being denied by "some patriotic scholars in the Republic of Georgia" - the same "political playbook" lies behind objections to the term Transcaucasia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such patriotic scholars are found in greater numbers in Georgia's neighbors, including just across the country's southern border, but this has nothing to with South Caucasus vs Trascaucasia naming issue. Your arguments are flawed and you are trying to deliberately divert the discussion from its principal topic. You will have to prove that "some patriotic scholars in the Republic of Georgia" and "certain circles in Georgia" have influenced the vocabulary of the important international organizations, such as UN, EU, and OSCE and their decision to refer to the region as South Caucasus and use the term in the titles of their ambassadors.--Kober^Talk 18:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official position of the Georgian Government [2], which has been lobbying for the use of the term "South Caucasus" and the removal of the term "Transcaucasia" - this explains the use by international organizations, such as UN, EU, and OSCE (i.e. politicized sources, generally not RS suitable for deciding on terminology). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources supporting your claim that is the Georgian govt lobby that is responsible for such a widespread adoption of the term by the organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, and OSCE as well as academic sources? Furthermore, your claim that the cited source represents "the official position of the Georgian Government" is false. No such information is provided in that article.--Kober^Talk 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that most International Institutions that study this region use South Caucasus in their name or study subject ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Transcaucasia is a term like West and East India, the term Transcaucasia was popular when this region was a part of the bigger political entities (RE and USSR which were calling it like this) nowadays those entities do not exist and English speaking world has better term to comprise geo-political region located in the southern part of the Caucasus (it is a part of the Caucasus not trans).--g. balaxaZe★ 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  WP:COMMONNAME. Transcaucasia is an older term, not used as widely as "South Caucasus" in contemporary academic and journalistic literature. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose move. region known as transcaucasia, as shown by user ajax. propopsed alternate term is political creation by georgian government. see NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.235.243 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you say isn't an argument how can you prove that this term is a creation of the Georgian government?--g. balaxaZe★ 20:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  WP:COMMONNAME --Mikheil ^Talk 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose – Ngrams shows that 'Transcaucasia' is and has been the more common term in English. As Ngrams targets books, we can say that reliable sources have favoured 'Transcaucasia', as opposed to blogs and other
  WP:SPS sources found in a regular Google search. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are contra-arguments above about what you say.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there are not. It has already been said that usage of "South Caucasus" or its variants has become fashionable within recently-produced journalistic, governmental, or ngo outputs for a variety of reasons, such as following the jargon-speak requirements of Georgia or reflecting contemporary Russiaphobe sentiments, but the bedrock of neutral academic works that deal with the overall region still favour Transcaucasia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat the same but sources? How can you prove that? All in all wikipedia uses what is more common if South Caucasus became more common (and it became) the article have to be renamed. Regarding "Georgia's requirements" Kober already answered. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support per
  WP:COMMONNAME--David 19:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the nominator. I'll also include a link showing Ngram results up to 2008 (the latest possible): Ngram for "Transcaucasia,Transcaucasus,South Caucasus". Kaiser matias (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note
    wp:rm#Commenting on a requested move Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. This is just to male the closer's job easier. There's a footnote about adding detail in a bullet point but it doesn't seem necessary here, the ngram link could be in the proposal without making the transclusion any longer at all. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks for the note. I don't actually think I've ever started a requested move before, so wasn't too familiar with the process. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Ngram does not seem to show what is claimed. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The Ngram shows clearly that 'Transcaucasia' is the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Srnec's argument. Dimadick (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Poor argumentation on both sides, I must say. First, NGrams stop at 2008, so they aren't a great indicator of the recent trends. Second, it is important in which context the name is used. I can only present limited GBook search (Books only, 2000-today):
  • Transcaucasia (21 result)
  • South Caucasus (15 results)

  ...however, in the former, there are lots of historical references, while five or six modern books about geopolitics and history of the region have "South Caucasus" in the title. Tracey German in Regional Cooperation in the South Caucasus directly addresses the naming issue, stating that The term "Transcaucasus" was considered to have negative connotations because of its association with Russian imperial expansionism. ... [the change to] South Caucasus was important as it was a way of differentiating the region from the Soviet Era. While Wikipedia certainly should not be the vehicle of political correctness, it is quite possible that we are witnessing a gradual shift in general use (as the Ngrams hint, but certainly not prove). Let us find how the news agencies call the region:

  • Transcaucasia 1,380 news hits.
  • South Caucasus: 49,400 hits

  The disparity is just too high to ignore, and I think that a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that "Transcaucasia" is today largely treated as an outdated term. Therefore, Support. Courtesy pinging

  No such user (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't think the disparity exists. Click through to the end and you get 264 results for Transcaucasia and 281 results for South Caucasus. The numbers you got are just Google's (bad) estimates. Srnec (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, my bad (I knew the gotcha but fell for it nonetheless). Alright, my !vote still stands per the UCRN principle that When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. I think the searches demonstrate that the two are in similar circulation nowadays, but your mileage may vary.

  No such user (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

There is no demonstrated "problem" with "Transcaucasia", the common name. Even if we were to accept that the two names are in "similar circulation" (which I don't), there is no demonstrated good reason for switching from one common name to another, per

WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

As quoted above, the demonstrated "problem" with it is that it is considered to have negative connotations because of its association with Russian imperial expansionism. and thus seems to be avoided lately both in local contexts and in academic material with deals with the region. While I'm wary of pandering to political correctness and recentism, in this case we have a broadly accepted alternative term.

No such user (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't accept that argument. We follow reliable sources, and reliable sources continue to use Transcaucassia, without any such "consideration", which is baseless. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few scholars note in articles that "South Caucasus" is the preferred term and that using "Transcaucasia" or "Transcaucasus" is outdated and has negative connotations, so to call it "baseless" is not quite accurate. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue keeping your eyes closed, and call "considerations" of eminent scholars baseless, but even a casual inspection of my Google books results from above reveals that among the top ten results:

• Books about "South Caucasus" are all about modern geopolitics with no exception, and a few of them explicitly address the terminology, e.g. [10] the old Russian term Transcaucasus, while
• Books about "Transcaucasia" refer to: History of Soybeans and Soyfoods in Japan; Permo-Triassic Events in the Eastern Tethys; Archaeological finds in
  Azokh Cave
  ; a story about Tsereteli — A Democrat in the Russian Revolution (1917); an Italian book; "around the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, bearers of Transcaucasian cultural traditions", and so on. So much about "reliable sources".

Now, I will grant that there is the third title in circulation, which is "Transcaucasus", and whose inclusion [11] could skew the numbers onto the "Trans*" side, although most of those references are also historical.

No such user (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose – Not yet according to NGRAM. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last NGram results date to 2008. Eleven years have passed since then. --Kober^Talk 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the key evidence, see ngram, which is now available for 2019 English corpus. It demonstrates that "South Caucasus" surpassed "Transcaucasia"+"Transcaucasus" around 2009, and now leads the field in almost 2:1 ratio. Further evidence provided below.

• Further evidence, some points repeated from the above RM:
  • Plain GBook search for 21st century mentions of "Transcaucasia" [12] shows that the term is used in passing in books devoted to something else (Soybeans in Japan, prehistory, etc.). On the contrary, [13] "South Caucasus" is used for books specifically about the region.
  • Google News Search, last year: "Transcaucasia" [14] 5 pages; "South Caucasus" [15]: 30 pages
    So the usage has apparently shifted, and, in the spirit of
    No such user (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Support as per
  WP:COMMONNAME- this is a needed, long overdue update. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SUpport per op and
  wp:neutral—blindlynx (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Transcaucasia implies we're north of the Caucasas mountains, which is clearly POV. Havelock Jones (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]