Talk:Ghalghai

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Renaming the article

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Muqale. I propose renaming the article to Ghalghai (and the articles which have Ghalghai in their name) based on the fact that the names Ghalghaï and Galgaï aren't really present in English sources (see WP:COMMONNAME) as can be seen from a single Google Books search (they're only present in French sources). Also, "Galgai" seems to be the most commonly mentioned name but it's mostly mentioned in 19th century sources and not so present among the modern sources. So, based on WP:AGEMATTERS, this leaves us with two options: Ghalghai and Ghalghay (both have almost the same mentions in Google Book search), from which I personally think we should choose Ghalghai because that will also be the correct pronouncation as the -i in the word will be corresponding to that of the letter й in ГӀалгӀай/Галгай. What do you think? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wa'aleikum Assalam. "Galgai/Галгай" was used in Russian sources because they do not have the "gh" (гӀ) sound in the Russian language. I do not mind having the last letter be 'i' instead of 'ï', just to simplify it (for mentions in other articles as well). 'Ghalghai' is good enough for me. Muqale (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will then rename the articles contain "Ghalghaï" or "Galgaï". Glad we came to a consensus very quickly! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using old sources

Hello @HistoryofIran, how you doing? You had an argument some time ago with Muqale about the usage of 19th century sources, so I thought I should discuss with you first as you're a more experienced user than me. I want to expand the Gelae section in the etymology section of this article by adding history about the origin of the theory - so can I use the old sources in that way? As an example, the Gelae section in this article will read something like: "The first one to express this point of view was German scientist Julius Klaproth"? By the way, I'm not using them as sources to support this theory or anything - there's already two great scholars cited for that (Javakhishvili and Chikobava). Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That really depends on the context. Per WP:GEVAL: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]