Misplaced Pages

Arbitration

I have opened an arbitration case regarding the current editing dispute you've been involved in. Please make a statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan concerning the conflict with the other parties listed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy

He seems too controversial to use as a source. It would be like using Srđa Trifković, wouldn't it? I have no problem with using the Russian source you cited, as long as it is attributed properly. What does it say specifically? I cannot read or write Russian. Khoikhoi 08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in which you have been named as a party. The injunction provides: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. The case remains open for the submission of evidence or proposals. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Images at Wikiopedia

hi, Parishan, thanks for uploading photo to Topchubashev. but can I ask a favour? can you also help to upload a picture to rasulzade article? of course i have many photos of him, of different ages and of different times, but I cannot upload any of them because i do not know how and the issues of copyright, which I just can't understand? if you want i can email some pictures to you or... how to do? please leave a note on my talk page. Elsanaturk 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I restored the link to the Blue Mosque article. I will however not restore the link to the Erivan khanate article as it has more to do with Persian rule over Armenia than the status of Azeris under Armenian rule. -- Aivazovsky 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Azeris in Turkey

Hey Parishan. If you look at Khojaly Massacre for example, even statements that use neutral, third-party sources use the "according to XYZ" method. I think this actually goes in according to WP:NPOV more. However, I will ask other people's opinion on this matter, and hopefully we can come to a compromise. Regards, Khoikhoi 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenian articles and Aivazovsky

Yesterday while on recent changes patrol I noticed some changes that Aivazovsky had made and reverted them. I left him a message stating why I had reverted his edits. He replied to me with a message asking me to stop interfering. He then archived his talk page and "lost" my messages to him in the process. For that reason I have included my messages to him on my talk page.

I see that again today he is reverting your edits and labeling them as vandalism.

It has reached the point where I am considering reporting him for disruptive editing, but considering that he has agreed to arbitration (so he states) I am not sure that I should proceed. In your opinion, should I hold back on reporting his disruptive edit patterns and allow the arbitration to run its course? Regards LittleOldMe 10:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan PM and President Templates

Hi. I don't want a revert war; I've explained my position in the edit summaries. I can explain at greater length, but let's debate before mindlessly promoting our own versions. Biruitorul 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'm not an expert on the subject. However, wasn't the Russian republic also called the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic? Wasn't the TSFSR analogous? Are you saying that the Azerbaijani, Georgian and Armenian SSRs remained SSRs? Wouldn't they have been ASSRs? Or else what was the point of the TSFSR? Surely it matters that they were part of it, and it wouldn't hurt to indicate that. Biruitorul 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Batum

Hi, was the Batum region of the Russian Empire a Governate or an Oblast? Thanks! -- Aivazovsky 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

You're right this is no more than a little misunderstanding. Artaxiad nominated this entry, but forgot to credit you with its creation and at DYK we generally assume that unless something else is explicitly mentioned the nominator is also the creator of th article.--Carabinieri 08:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

The arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has closed. The decision is as follows:

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

You may review the full decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your tag...out of pure curiosity... what do you have against marijuana? DeviantOne 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

That Swietochowski quote is different and is from a new source. It is also talking about the political entity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, not the history of the name of Azerbaijan in a historical context like the previous quote in the assessments section. That is why the quote was precisely put in the Azerbaijan as the name of an independent republic section. You can see the talk page for more information. Since I assume you did not know this, and probably thought that the quotes were the same, so now that you know could you undo your edit in good faith?Azerbaijani 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not the same thing. One is talking about the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the other one is talking about Iranian Azerbaijan. See the talk page of the article.Azerbaijani 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first quote is talking about the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan, saying that the area to its north was called Caucasus Albania and then Arran. The second quote is talking about the Republic of Azerbaijan specifically.Azerbaijani 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tat situation

Hey sorry for the late replay. It's tough to say overall. The Tats descend from Persians, but have changed so it's one of those it could go either way situations. I'm not familiar with their language and have only read of them in passing when researching the Azeris, but if their language is not mutually intelligible they should be considered distinct. In addition, they are related to other Caucasian peoples as they have lived in the Caucasus for so long that their links to the Persians have declined. They are definitely related and are an Iranian people, whereas their inclusion as a Persian subgroup would require linquistic similarity. Either way, it's hard to say. Sorry I can't be of more help. Cheers.Tombseye 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright

hi, parishan, can you please help to fix this problem? i do not know how. thanks in advance. Ateshi - Baghavan 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Leyla Mammadbeyova

Hello

Parishan, I apologize to you for accusing you of being the anonymous editor. I realize that I was wrong. Houshyar 06:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

The Armenia Azerbaijan arbcom is once against being opened and you are an involved party: .Hajji Piruz 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Azari in Darya Dadvar

Dear Parishan, use of "Azeri" implies pronounciation of "Azarbaijan" as "Azerbaijan", which does not make sense to me. Further, in contrast to "Azer", "Azar" has a meaning (Atash, Fire); we have also the month "Azar" (Aban, Azar, Day, Bahman, Esfand); the word "Azer" has, rightly or wrongly, in my mind a very strong association with the Persian word "zer" (recall zer-zer --- a child does zer-zer). As you may have noticed, I love Azarbaijan and Azarbaijanis (I recently wrote the articles on the Behnam House and the Amir Nezam House in Tabriz --- I am not Anzarbaijani myself, however, I have very fond momories of all my Azarbaijani teachers; amongst other things, I owe my love of the Persian literature to my past Azarbaijani teachers who invariably were the finest people I can recall from my past) and do not wish their native language to be called "Azeri". Please therefore kindly revert your today's change of "Azari" into "Azeri", which you did also yesterday. In the meantime, I unreservedly apologise for having inadvertently and incorrectly referred to Azari as a Persian dialect. Before closing, coluld you please also have a look into the discussions section of the American Memorial School in Tabriz? There seems to be an error in one or some of the dates; no one has thus fur responded to my comment which I placed there sometimes ago. Kind regards, --BF 07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parishan, with due respect I entirely disagree with your reasoning for writing "Azeri" for "Azari". The fact is that the English-speaking people cannot dictate how a Persian word must be written or pronounced, as much as they might like to do so. The same applies for the Farsi-speaking people, who cannot dictate how the name of a British town or city must be written or pronounced, again as much as they might like to do so. Please note, I am not writing these from a nationalistic point of view, but purely from the academic point of view: if an Englishman is called John, a German has not the right to call him Johan on the grounds that in Germany they happen to use Johan for what in the UK is called John. We are talking about a Proper Name, which cannot be arbitrary. You mention "we call it in English", well you are calling things incorrectly and should correct your mistakes. "Azerbaijan" and "Azeri" do not exist, "Azarbaijan" and "Azari" on the other hand refer to respectively a known place and a known language (I do not know, and have never known, a single individual who calls "Azari" as "Azeri", leaving you aside as an exception). I emphasise, I have absolutely no problem if people wish to pronounce "Azari" as "Azeri" in their private homes; what I do object to is if they wish to impose their incorrect pronounciation on others and make it out as correct and standard. May I therefore request you kindly not to change "Azari" into "Azeri" in the texts written by me? I should greatly appreciate it. Thank you. --BF 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parishan, you have totally misread and misunderstood me. I did not say that the word Azeri does not exist; I did say that the language Azeri (in contrast to Azari) does not exist; please read my text (everybody can make words; just put some letters next to each other and you have a word). Now, as for what Google says and what it does not say, for me Google is not a standard of scholarship; it is a repository of what people say and in general people say a great deal of incorrect things, and as I mentioned earlier I have absolutely no problem with what name people decide to give to things in the confines of their private homes. My argument was, and is, that one cannot take one incorrect pronounciation and turn it into a standard one solely on account of an incorrect public perception: take Frankenstein, over 90% of the general population think that Frankenstein is the name of that man-made monster, rather than the name of its maker. Does this make that we should accept what this 90% of the pouplation say, or should we go and read the book by Mary Shelley? As for what the Misplaced Pages says about Azarbaijan, I am well aware of that article and what it says; I have not made any attempt to put the wrongs in that article right simply becasue I have not the time to take on everything that everybody says; please just consider the volume of communication that I have had with you on the question of two letters, that is "e" versus "a" --- life is unfortunately too short to spend it on convincing all those 6,610,000 people who according to your Google research refer to "Azeri" (it is certain however that left to its natural course, the latter number will continue to grow, and of course your misplaced perception and your zeal in changing of "Azari" into "Azeri" in Misplaced Pages articles will only make the matters worst). You will have to accept it from me: I grew up in Iran, know the language and its literature, not a single soul in that country refers to "Azeri", except perhaps those who may have started learning things from Misplaced Pages and Google --- if you say "Azeri", either they will laugh in your face, or if they do not, they will do it later when they think of their conversation with you, for perhaps having taken Google too seriously. This is a fact, and I have no interest in bending facts specially for the present occasion. Now as for the Oxford English Dictionary, if you have the complete dictionary at hand, then you will see that the first reference, dating from 1888, is the following:

"1888 Encycl. Brit. XXXIII. 661/2 Azarbaijāni Turkish. Ibid., Turki dialects (Derbendi, Azarbaijāni , Krimmi, Anadoli, and Rumili)."

Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary has no independent entry for either "Azeri" or "Azari". Be it as it may, an English dictionary is no authority on the pronounciation of Iranian names (to say otherwise smacks of the old-fashioned Imperialism), and vice versa --- I certainly do not consult an Iranian book when I wish to know something about a British province. A lexicographer (in this case of an English dictionary) just collects what others say; he or she has no independent mind of him/herself.

May I take this opportunity and refer you to the Misplaced Pages article concerning Hafez? There is a translation by Gertrude Bell, somewhere in that page, of one of the most beautiful poems by Hafez. I can tell you, it is one of the most appalling translations of any Persian poem I have ever seen in my entire life --- rather than translating, Ms Bell in her so-called translation simply demonstrates her utter ignorance of the Persian language; she also proves that she does not understand the poem itself (please do not take my word for that; ask a native Iranian read the original and the translation; whereas the original makes your heart beat twice the normal rate, reading Ms Bell's so-called translation has the effect of taking a cold shower --- and this leaves aside the fact that Ms Bell's translation is devoid of any hint that she understood the poem); yet she has had the brazen audacity to so-called translate that poem. I was shocked when I first saw that translation; clicking on Gertrude Bell, I immediately saw my suspicion confirmed: a student, fresh from classroom, looking for adventures (amply provided by the Middle East of her time), sent on an imperialistic mission, full of herself; having not set her feet in Iran, on the second day of arriving in the region deigns to translate Hafez. And now we have her so-called translation in Misplaced Pages (please read her biography, and it will not scape you that she has been full of herself; somewhere she says: "I'll never engage in creating kings again", this apparently after having Faisal crowned king of Iraq in 1921; according to the same article, "Bell earned the nickname, "the Uncrowned Queen of Iraq" --- it is no surprise to me that she has subsequently undertaken to so-called translate Hafez, having apparently taken some rest following the arduous task of crowning a king. Yet who is Getrude Bell in the annals of literature? I can assure you, no one! Her so-called translation of Hafez is a testimony to this statement. Gertrude Bell may have at best been the Paul Bremer of her time (which I doubt --- my understanding is that despite her bloated character, she has been no more than a little office subsidiary translating messages back and forth, between her superiors and the local people) and insofar as I am aware, Paul Bremer, to his credit, has no claim of being an expert in the Arabic or Persian poetry. Being in danger of being misunderstood, I must emphasise that I equally object to a man or a woman who sets his/her feet in an English-speaking country and on the second day fancies translating Milton. My problem is with people who have the audacity to translate a language or a culture without knowing either. In short, no matter how many people outside Iran say "Azeri", it is and remains "Azari". As I wrote to you in my first message, Azar has a meaning in Persian, Azer has none, except that when small children become unreasonable and start crying, they are said to do zer-zer. And that is what I subconsciously associate the word "Azer" with.

I propose that we conclude the present discussion just here, since by the end of the day there should be some bread on the table and I have to make sure that this is indeed the case; otherwise the kids will start zer-zer-ing. Kind regards, --BF 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend Parishan, I have no doubt in the sincerity of your statements, and as you have noticed I am not so pround as to avoid saying sorry when an apology is due. I precisely know what you are talking about, however my argument is that everyone who writes or pronounces "Azari" as "Azeri" is referring to a name which is non-existent in the Persian vocabulary; it is not a result of bad intentions, it is simply a result of not being so sufficiently familiar with the language as to be able to distinguish between distinct sounds: just consider how Russians pronounce "the" (they all invariably say "ze"); they pronounce "h" as "g" ("Gamiltonian" for "Hamiltonian"); this is not because they set out to mispronounce English words. It is just that beyond a certain age the majority of people lose the ability to notice subtle differences in sounds. I can imagine that an Englishman, or an American or a Canadian hears "e" for what to a native Iranian sounds "a". This aspect is relevant as regards the way in which phonetics get into dictionaries. Let us consider Oxford English Dictionary about which I may know a thing or two. They receive a letter from a member of the public about a new word. The letter contains supporting material, such as cuts from newspapers and magazines, etc. In which language are these material? Naturally in English. Who wrote the newspaper article which is now used as supporting material? Let us say, a journalist having just returned from Azarbaijan. How old is this journalist? A man or a woman in his/her forties, that is past the age when a human being can distinguish between subtle sounds --- just think of the names of the foreign politicians that one hears on the national radio and tv stations, which to my best judgement are all wrongly pronounced (I could compile a list consisting of twenty names just off-hand --- of the hundreds of people I know for years not even one pronounces my names correctly; some better, some worse, but none correct). He or she heard "Azeri" for "Azari" and in his/her article wrote "Azeri". Already this single article may have fixed the editorial policy of the newspaper for which this journalist works: for the sake of uniformity, henceforth this newspaper will be using the word "Azeri" for "Azari". Now, if the editor of OED decides to include "Azari" in the new edition of OED, he or she is in no position to include it as "Azari"; this by the fact that OED is simply a repository of English words as appeared in English. So, they include in OED "Azeri", and of course subsequently a certain Parishan considers that therefore "Azeri" should be accepted as the English word representing what in Farsi is "Azari". My argument is that on this matter OED cannot be authoritative; neither can Mirriam Webster Dictionary. Yes, they are authoritative as regards original English words, not as regards the words which belong to an altogether different language (and I just gave an example of how non-English words enter into English dictionaries --- I left it unmentioned that minor dictionaries just copy each other and the major ones; compiling a good and original dictionary is extremely labour-intensive and therefore very expensive). Indeed, my OED has the entry "Azerbaijan", and no entry for "Azarbaijan"; surprisingly, however, the same dictionary gives a quotation from 1888 in which one sees both "Azarbaijan" and "Azarbaijani" (please consult my previous writing). Does this mean that I have to accept this, no, of course not, for the reason that I just explained: someone, who does not know the language, got something terribly wrong at some stage; why should I fall in the same error, when I know better? Please note that errors by others do not absolve us from doing the right things. I believe that as responsible citizens, rather than repeating these mistakes we have the obligation to communicate our findings with the respective dictionaries, requesting them to examine the entries that concern us, rather than repeating their errors and thus perpetuating them. With kind regards, --BF 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parishan, you seem not to wish to give attention to what I write. That is fine with me. I have no more to say and close the discussion here. But remember, humans have their destinies in their own hands, they need not (but they can, if they so badly desire) behave like slaves to the dictates of some unknown lexicographer in some dank office somewhere; speakers of each language are the true owers of that language, not some uneducated careless hacks. As for Greeks, I am sure they can speak for themselves. I close the discussion here and wish you best. --BF 10:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, just wished to let you know that if you interfere with my language once more, I shall lodge an official complaint against you for your persistent vandalism of my text. I have lost my patience with you, and I should like to tell you that my belief in your intellectual integrity will be the next casualty of this sad affair. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than roaming Misplaced Pages articles and applying your incomplete knowledge of a perticular language to them? According to your own statement in your Misplaced Pages page, your Farsi is average (which you give me reason to doubt --- please find some Iranians and pronounce "Azeri" and then carefully watch their faces --- someone who does not know this, cannot know the language, or perhaps "average" means something different to you than it does to me). Please just write something new and creative for Misplaced Pages; for instance, write an article on the etymology of the words "Azeri", "Azari", "Azerbaijan" and "Azarbaijan"; in your scholarly article you can then enumerate your reasons why my use of the word "Azari" must be wrong. Please note that your present actions, showing utter disrespect to my considered opinions, do not shed a positive light on your intellectual attitude, I regret to say: you have clearly proved to be impervious to reason, and this is not a characteristic of an intellectual or someone who aspires to be one --- my basic assumption is that those who spend their leisure time on Misplaced Pages must love and respect knowledge, so please do not prove me wrong in this assumption. --BF 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, I requested you to conclude this saga. The fact that you count the number of entries on Google, the number of your Misplaced Pages contributions, the number of your barns, etc., just proves to me that we belong to different planets; I find such attitude highly anti-intellectual (this is not what I mention solely to you, but to anyone who behaves like you). You should just ponder on the fact that qualitative matters cannot be quantified; it is common nowadays to quantify everything, but that is simply a sign of our declining appreciation of the fundamental issues that distinguish humans from automatons. Our appreciation of, say, the revolutionary paper by Einstein on General Relativity, cannot be quantified, say, in terms of the number of times that that paper has been cited by others, yet that is how nowadays academic works are ranked; scientific journals have got Impact Numbers, etc. We have become a people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Can one quantify one's love towards one's children? Now, if you are not convinced by my arguments, it is in my opinion because apparently you read, but do not sufficiently contemplate. The problem of fundamentalism of any religious hue from which the world at present is suffering, can be traced back to the fact that some people read a particular holy book and put to action what they just have read, without contemplating the context of what they have read. In the case at hand, apparently you have seen something in Mirriam Webster concerning a Persian word, and that apparently has convinced you that you must have some special right to impose your shallow knowledge on others (I say "shallow", because if you knew Persian in any depth, you would not have consulted WB of OED to find out about the word "Azari"); in a way, in the present context you are treating WB as a holy book and consequently the rest of the world should shut up if they cannot get themselves to be grateful to you for your efforts (`Henceforth shall "Azari" be called "Azeri", even though the latter is a nonsense word to those who know the language, leaving aside the undisputed fact that it sounds ugly and uneducated.'). Please note that I would have said exactly the same thing if an Iranian with insufficient knowledge of the English language would have started imposing his views on the names of the languages spoken in the UK (my approach to the present problem is absolutely not nationalistic, but aims at maintaining purity in things). Many of the words presently in use in Modern Persian can be traced back to words used in Old Persian (take the words Darya and Dadvar about which I made some comments in my recent article). The word "Azeri" is simply unknown to me --- it amounts to an invention which has nothing to do with what I know as "Azari". If you think you know better, then I am affraid that you will have to find the root cause of your viewpoint. I offer one possibility for this: there is something called preception of cultural superiority; adherents to this viewpoint consider their own culture as superior to those of others, to the extent that they can dictate to the people of other nations how they should pronounce their languages, "Azeri", as opposed to "Azari", to name but one example. Just ponder on this; once you have done so, then you will realise that your insistence on a matter for which you can only cite English sources can deeply offend those who demonstrably know their mother tongue. You may wish to consider to talk with someone who teaches Persian in the university which is close to your home town; he or she may be able to help you. You should certainly stop viewing Misplaced Pages as a place where one can dump what one has just read somewhere in some book. --BF 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, please stop writing to me, as I requested you already for a number of times! You just confirmed to me what you had set out to dispel. You say: "But guess what: no one cares what the word sounds like in Persian." Is this the respect you have for a language spoken by others? Has that occurred to you that in its various forms, Persian is spoken right to the western border of China? Does Persian mean to you anything? or are you out there merely to impose your mistaken views on others on a language you know about only through secondary sources? Incidentally, if you do not care, why do you care so much about "Azeri"? Further, I did not insult you in any way: I simply recounted facts taken from your own text; it was you who presented me with the number of your achievements and credentials on Misplaced Pages (I had never asked you about them, and why should those details have been relevant to the discussion at hand, except for reasons that only you should know). If you felt insulted by me, recall that you just saw your own words in my text. Lastly, you accuse me of "spilling your esoterism on me ". Where did I do that? What was esoteric about what I wrote to you? You further say: "when you get to edit the Persian ... whatever magnificent knowledge of the Persian language you possess ...". Is there anywhere in my text where I boasted on what you call my "magnificent" knowledge of the Persian language? Knowing that "Azeri" is wrong and "Azari" is correct is not an indicator of one's possible magnificent knowledge; it is just common knowledge which one acquires by having grown up in Iran --- nothing special about that, as that is the mechanism whereby cultures, that is all cultures, are passed down from one generation to the next. In short, I am not aware of any hint in my texts that would imply who I am, what I know, what I do, etc. I just wrote to you about a single word, that is "Azari", with no reference to any personal credentials, which I may or may not have. No my dear friend, if you felt offended by my words, you should seek the reason for that inside yourself.

I just received your second message. What you say is not true. You say:

"P.S. Nobody in Iran calls the language Persian, they call it Farsi. You should stop contradicting yourself by calling it Persian."

"Persian", from the Greek word Persis, is the English word for the Modern Persian word Parsi, which has its root in the Old Persian word Pārsa and the Middle Persian word Pārs (the word Pārsā, an Avestan word, is the modern Farsi word for Devout, Absteminous, A God-fearing person). The word "Farsi" is the Arabicized version of the word "Parsi". As you may know, the Arabic language has no letter "P" and consequently many Persian words with initial letter "F" are the Arabicized forms of original Persian words with initial letter "P". The province now called "Fars" is the province "Pars", etc. (I have no problem with Arabicized Persian words). Now, if people in Iran refer to "Persian" as "Farsi" it is because "Parsi" has become archaic; "Parsi" is nonetheless a Persian word, with a long history (see above), found abundantly in literary texts (such as poems, both classical and modern). Now, compare this with "Azeri". The only thing that this word has in common with "Azari" is the four letters "A", "z", "r" and "i"; that is all. I have written to you repeatedly that I am unable to trace the root of the word "Azeri" in Persian --- I conclude therefore that it must be the work of some illiterate hack, which you so avidly are trying to perpetuate (I am mystified by your blind adherence to your secondary sources of information). The word "Āzar" is a variant of the Persian word "Ātash" (both Avestan words), which means fire. We also have the month "Āzar" whose root lies in the old Iranian calendar of Zoroastrian origin. Iranian folklore has it that the names "Azari" and "Azarbaijan" refer to a main characteristic of the Azarbaijani people, namely that they are serious people whose anger is like fire; it consumes any one who dares to interfere with their business. Many constitutional revolutionaries of Iran were from Azarbaijan, and I have no doubt that the entire nation feels indebted to them for their courage, sacrifice and dedication to a worthy cause. Now, given these facts, please do not call their language "Azeri". Aside from all else, "Azeri" sounds just ugly; some feel for aesthetics would prevent one from using this word. --BF 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Azeri

In English, Azeri is not considered a pejorative term. See Merriam Webster Dictionary: 'Azeri'. Parishan 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, perception of a word as pejorative is not dependant on the language used as much as it is dependant on the context. --TimBits 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yaşar Əliyev

Hi. I won't revert your edit once again on Yaşar Aliyev because I simply don't care about this article. But I can't approve it. How can you seriously write that Yashar Teymur oğlu Aliyev is "is how Azerbaijani names are ALWAYS transliterated"? Why should the "ğ" be kept while the "ş" should be "transliterated" by "sh"? Either you change the whole spelling (Yashar Teymur oloo Aliyeff), or you keep it completely (Yaşar Teymur oğlu Əliyev). There is no happy medium. I strongly oppose every kind of "transliteration" of a language written with a Latin script to another Latin script. As it is done on French, German and Polish Misplaced Pages, this article should simply be titled "Yaşar Əliyev". If it is not, why shoud we keep native spellings for other languages (German: Richard Wagner and not Richard Vagner; Polish: Lech Wałęsa and not Lech Vawensa; Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz and not Vladimir Simoshevich; Turkish: Beşiktaş and not Beshiktash, and so on) and not for Azerbaijani, or Turkmen, or Uzbek? How will we discriminate betwwen the "good" languages and the "bad" ones that must be transliterated? And don't tell me it's all about the Azerbaijani "ə" as I was too often told: the same endless discussion happens allways about Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow's name despite the fact this spelling has no peculiar letters. (PS: You can answer here rather than on my own talk page if you want) Švitrigaila 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh Jews

Some sources using "Kazakh Jews":

• National Council for Soviet Jewry
• Jewish Virtual Library
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency
• American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
• Euro-Asian Jewish Congress
• Chabad in Kazakhstan

--Jayjg 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe?

Which parts of Azerbaijan are in the European continent? AlexanderPar 09:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On Forough Farrokhzad

Parishan, I do not wish to waste time on useless discussions. Just wish to let you know that you have proved yourself to be a man or a woman who has a single aim in life: roaming pages and changing "Azari" into "Azeri", and the like. Believe me, I do not wish to denigrate you, as no one is perfect (and I should be the first one to confess to that for myself), but you seem to be so focused on a single issue that I feel at the same time both surprised and sad. Your behaviour seems to be utterly compulsive. Please note that I am not doubting your sincerity for what you are doing; I am deeply concerned about your evident compulsive behaviour; you have proved to be utterly, and utterly, impervious to my long arguments about why in texts related to Iran and Iranians "Azeri" makes no sense. You are simply insisting to perpetuate an error on a subject that, on the basis of all evidence that I have from you, you are utterly ignorant. This urge in you is something I fail to comprehend.

Above this text I read a complaint by Švitrigaila from which I deduce that you are making yourself an un-welcome guest on other pages of Wikpedia as well. Your response on his/her page shows that you have claims on being expert not only in Persian but also in other languages. I have no evidence, whatever, that you know any Persian let stand at an "average" level (I will certainly officially contest your claim on your page that your Persian were "average" at a later time should you decide to persist on interfering with my texts --- you never came up with any supporting evidence from Persian texts or literature; your strongest "arguments" seemed to be based on some numbers harvested on Google; you even demonstrated not to know the origin of the word "Farsi"). Not to my surprise, from your response to Švitrigaila it appears that you may have gained your knowledge of the Azarbaijani language by looking through "a foreign ("travelling") passport of" someone "from Azerbaijan". If so, this suggests the worrying prospect that you may be considering the contents of passports as constituting literary works. In the same response you confess that "That's why that vote was initiated in the first place, and that's why I still refuse to concur with the final decision,". So you seem to be an impulsive individual who forces his/her one-sided views on others and when a decision is made refuses to concur with the decision!!! Have you ever asked yourself whether you respect anyone at all? Please do not write to me; I have had enough of you and your actions in the past weeks.

I end this note by telling you that should I once more see you changing in the pages related to Iranian personalities the word Azari into Azeri (I have absolutely no problem with whatever you decide to do in the pages relating to the Republic of Azarbaijan/Azerbaijan, as I have no claim on knowing the language or culture of the people of the Republic of Azarbaijan), I will raise the matter to the highest level in Misplaced Pages, which will be either your place or my place, but not both; you seem not to wish to co-exist (mind you, despite all my arguments, I have never attempted to change "Azeri" into "Azari" outside those entries directly relevant to me owing to my personal contributions towards their present forms). Now you should know what your choices are. --BF 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, you have a problem which you have to solve it by yourself, which is ascribing things to me which are not by me. I never introduced myself, either to you or to anybody else for that matter, as an expert in whatever language and if there is any language that you might have inferred from my correspondence as being the language of my expertise it was Persian; yet you say: "user who considers himself a more reliable source on the English language than dozens of Anglophone Ph.D. scholars from all over the world". Where did I introduce myself as an English expert? (I hope that you are not implying that someone who is an expert in English has anything to say about the Persian language, unless that person is simultaneously an expert in the Persian language, otherwise I will consider your statement as seriously offensive.) In your first message to me you ascribed to me the statement that "Azeri" did not exist; yet despite my later remark that you had entirely misread my message, one week later you did not hesitate to use the same misreading in your arbitration statement (in normal circumstances I tend to call such behaviour as disingeneous). I never called anyone a "mindless hack" (read my texts); once I wrote that a lexicographer who compiles an English dictionary which is supposed to record words as printed in English texts (I was explicitly discussing the OED), cannot have her/his own mind on what is correct or incorrect; s/he just records, as much as s/he might like to do otherwise (please read my text), what s/he is presented with to record; I said all these in the context of explaining to you the ease with which an incorrect spelling can enter into dictionaries. Find a piece of text by me where I might have called those experts of yours as "mindless hacks" (I did use the word "hack" but not "mindless hack" let alone "mindless hacks" --- I wrote that compiling an original dictionary is very labour-intensive and thus expensive and that, as a consequence, majority of dictionaries just copy other dictionaries; when I referred to a "hack in some dank office somewhere", I referred to those busily copying dictionaries by others; yet you do not hesitate to accuse me of having labled your "Ph.D experts" as mindless hacks). It seems to me that in the absence of any solid evidence with regard to correctness of the word "Azeri" (which might very well be the way in which the word is pronounced in the Republic of Azarbaijan --- as I said before, all my statements have bearing on the way this word is pronounced in Iran) you feel compelled to make false accusations against me. I advise that you first read my texts and then ascribe things to me that are truly ascribable to me (this for your own sake, for I have said what I have said). My only point in the course of the past two weeks has been: No human being in Iran pronounces "Azari" as "Azeri", for the various reasons that I have already discussed. Now, if there are so-called experts who think otherwise, they should stop calling themselves experts. Consider someone who would claim to be an expert in the western classical music, however has never heard of Beethoven (for clarity, I am not an expert in music). And so is it with "Azari"; someone who claims to be an expert in Persian language must know that in Persian "Azari" is pronounced as "Azari" and not as "Azeri". Notwithstanding all my detailed explanations, you introduced "Azeri" into the entry of Forough Farrokhzad, not once, not twice but thrice. This is what I call compulsive behaviour. As you may know, Forough Farrokhzad spent a great deal of time in Tabriz and even adopted a son there. In spite of this, I cannot recall her ever pronouncing "Azari" as "Azeri". You may be whatever you claim to be (dedicated, hard-working, etc., and I am prepared to accept that you are genuinely all of these), but as a human being I can only record my own personal experiences of your actions towards me in the course of the past two weeks; I have experienced you, rightly or wrongly, as someone with fixed ideas, as someone who is not prepared to accept a very basic fact that I as a native speaker of the Persian language am making a point that s/he must consider. This, combined with your various remarks (one of which betraying that you even did not know the root of the word "Farsi"), have left me with no alternative but to consider you as a compulsive individual. If you are not such an individual (as said, as a human being I am only able to know you through your actions towards me; to say otherwise would be a lie), then you will have to prove it to me that I was wrong. We had decided to leave the matter to arbitration by others, and yet you proved unable to abide by our mutual agreement through thrice changing "Azari" into "Azeri" in the entry of Forough Farrokhzad. What was I supposed to do? To praise you for your diligence on Misplaced Pages, while experiencing you as an unruly individual in need of constant watching?

Finally, I absolutely agree with the basic principle that your personal correspondence with others is none of anyone's business. However, things change when I discover that your problems with me are not unique to me. As for your "multiple-sourced arguments", I am aware of three sources mentioned by you: (1) Two large numbers harvested from Google, (2) OED, (3) Mirriam Webster Dictionary. Google doesn't count, for the simple reason that you can even establish that in my correspondence with you I have used as many times "Azeri" as "Azari", if not more. Does this mean that I favour "Azeri"? Concerning the OED, I wrote you time and again that OED is not a primary source (not even in English --- it is however a relatively reliable record of English words); I mentioned to you for a number of times that when I wish to know how an English word is pronounced, I do not consult a Persian dictionary. The same as regards the Mirriam Webster. Concerning the OED, I myself told you two additional things: (i) my OED has no independent entry either for "Azeri" or for "Azari"; (ii) it has an independent entry for "Azerbaijan", however its first quotation refers twice to "Azarbaijan"; it gives as its source the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of 1888. Therefore, as I told you, one of your three sources (of which one being Google) partially rules against you. On this, you asserted that 1888 was too far in the past. Well I do not know from whose perspective you were speaking, but the word "Azar" is several thousand years old (read some Avestan texts, to begin with); the distance between 1888 and 2007 is a thin layer of time in comparision with the history of the word "Azar". I conculde therefore that your so-called "multiple-sourced arguments" amounts to a figment of your imagination, as I am aware of not a single genuine argument by you, academic or otherwise, why "Azeri" should be acceptable. Incidentally, you would oblige me by citing the names and the academic credentials of those "dozens of Anglophone Ph.D. scholars from all over the world" to whom you are referring. If they are such great experts, as you claim, I might like to read something written by them and eventually have some correspondence with them. Having said all these, I nevertheless propose to end this unproductive correspondence here. Wish you best. --BF 13:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parishan, I know what you are getting at and have always known this, from the very moment that I received your very first message. I disagreed with you then and I disagree with you now. Nothing is fixed, even the mountains move; if I live long enough, I will get "Azeri" changed into "Azari", no doubt about that. As you must know, for centuries is was "fixed" that the Earth was flat; it was "fixed" that the entire visible sky consisted of concentric shells of stars revolving around the Earth. All these views changed and changed irrevocably. Those who "fixed" the Persian word "Azari" as "Azeri" did that out of their sheer ignorance of the language, of the culture and of the folklore of Iran. You may not know it, but there are Old Persian scripts (such as can be seen in Persepolis or in Bisotun) whose evolved forms I can see in the scripts of Modern Persian, Arabic and Hebrew. The "A" in Azari is written in the Modern Persian script (which you just typed in your message in connection with the word Azari) in almost exactly the same form as it was written in the inscriptions of 3000 years ago. These are cultural hertitages of the entire humanity and we cannot lose them. They are subtle things which link us to the origins of the human civilization as we know it today (I am not talking about the civilization in China or even India; they had parallel but different developments); it does not belong merely to Iran, it belongs to the entire world; if you want to understand the old and new testaments, you will have to be aware of all these subtleties (although I do not know Aramaic, I can understand what is spoken when the speaking is clear). When I hear Old Persian read out, it is like hearing a sound recorded on a magnetic tape over 3000 years ago; I hear the Modern Persian in it; I recognise words, I hear voices of people who died over 3000 years ago. Can you not feel the sensation of hearing voices of people who lived some 100-200 generations ago? That is why I insist on the purity of sounds. This change of "Azari" into "Azeri" looks to me quite frankly like raping a word which has survived several thousand years of history; I cannot put it better and more frankly. Imagine an analogue master tape which one digitises to some kilo bits per second. Once that has been done, the subtle contents of the sound on the master tape will be lost for ever. This is what happens with our languages. Change "Azari" into "Azeri" and in two generations hence another link with our history will have been lost. To summarise, the entire world may say "Azeri", but that does not change my resolve in maintaining that it is "Azari", has always been "Azari" (Encyclopaedia Brittanica of 1888 had it remarkably right --- what is more, Encyclopaedia Britannica had the "z" in "Azari" denoted by "d" and that is remarkably accurate --- Persian has two sounds for "z", the second of which is unfortunately lost, as alomst no one can tell the difference between the two --- fortunately the notational difference is still there; the actual sound of "z" in "Azari" corresponds to this second type of "z"); those modern dictionaries that make "Azeri" out of "Azari" sell people ignorance as knowledge. --BF 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Azerbaijani footballers

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of Azerbaijani footballers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jogurney 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Salam

Salam Parishan! Mən Azərbaycan Vikipediyasından Vusal1981-əm. Adətən Azərbaycan kinosu ilə əlaqədər yazıram. Sənin kinoçularımız və sənətçilərimiz barədə yaratdığın məqalələri tqdir edirəm. Ama xahiş edirəm məqalə yaradanda onun Azərbaycan variantını da qeyd edəsən. Hələlik bəzi məqalələrim qısadır. Amma yaxında onlar da zənginləşəcəkdir. Bir də sənə təklif edərdim kinolarımızı da tərcümə edəsən. Buna sənə cinema.aznt.org kömək edər. Mənim vaxtım yoxdurə Çünki az vp-də iş çoxdur. Mənə kömək etsən minnətdar olaram. Xahiş edirəm cavabını buraya yazasan :

Uğurlar!

Hi

I responded in here, and as I said you are welcome to put it back. take care--Pejman47 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows: The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Shushi Massacres

Pls first read the talk page to ask questions and revert. Everything is explained in the talk page! About Turkish-Azeri: You know that Azerbaijani name accepted by Caucasian Tatars in 1918 so no statistics are available before that writing about Azeri population. Also Azeri and Turks sometimes means the common etchnics (otherwise we will change the text for example in Anti-Turkism). Anyways, if you think Azeri is more correct, you can try to change it. Hope no problem with sources! Andranikpasha 08:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Shushi Massacres

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. .Andranikpasha 10:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Mongols in Russia

Hi, either your source is wrong, or you're not reading it correctly. There are several hundred thousand Buryats living in Russia, which are a subgroup of the Mongols, and there are a few smaller subgroups as well. The number you give looks much more realistic (but still small) if you just count immigrants from Mongolia. For comparison, there are roughly 3,000 Mongolians, mostly students, living in Germany. Please don't just blindly copy numbers, but try to apply a minimum of common sense when interpreting them. --Latebird 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do NOT repeat your edits without prior discussion. Other than you claim in your last editor note, the Buryats ARE Mongols according to the definition used in that article. If you would like to change the focus of the article, then you're welcome to make a proposal on Talk:Mongols, and see if you can get a consensus for your views. --Latebird 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

POV fork Azeri waffen ss

Salam Parishan ,I need your help. I made recently a heavy revision of the Azeri in Waffen Ss formation page. The original page was so weak and full of errors that it was impossible to “fix”it . So I decided to write a new one.This is considered as a Pov fork and the page will be deleted soon. Like I am new on Misplaced Pages I ignored this rule and now I do not know what to do. I have gathered lots of infos about this topic while working on the biography of a well known Azerbaijanese historical figure issued from the emigration.Could you give me some useful advices of what I should do .Sag ol Zulfugar 10:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning?

You recently attached a {{hoax}} tag to an article about an Azeri poet. May I ask why? DS 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Please see here

The difficulty with evaluating a report like this is that it is impossible to say for certain whether this was an act of intentional disruption without being an expert in the topic and making a content decision. That it was an intentional act of disruption to make a point is certainly one reasonable explanation, and I think a word of caution is in order. In the future, please follow the naming guidelines here:

I am not an expert, but it appears that this instruction and the linked guideline suggest that the article header should only include widely used common current alternate names for the place in question. Historic names and names that are not widely used could be included in the body of the article with appropriate references when the name is controversial. Controversial naming issues should be discussed on the talk page. Thatcher131 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi DYK nom

• ...that Sakina Akhundzadeh is considered the first female playwright and dramatist in Azerbaijani literature? User:Parishan nom by Victuallers

Is this Ok with you? The article currently is 1585 characters ... it needs to be over 1500. A critic may say that currently it contains a lot of chars that are just a list of her work. Is it possible to expand it a bit? I would also like to add an infobox... OK? Victuallers 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Last revert on Shusha

Hi Parishan! pls at first look at the Shusha talk page and discuss there. I just want to say to use my username at editsummary during the unexplained reverts more carefully. Im not the author of the text you reverted (Im just a supporter open to discuss at article's talk page). And we're using the editsummary to describe our changes related to the topic, not each other. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, I reverted you on the Shusha article, because you didn't justify or explain the reason for the revert. Regards. VartanM 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

DYK Medal

Azerbaijani language map query

Hi, I have raised a question at Talk:Azerbaijani language#alternate map that concerns you. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Incident of Tolishi Sedo and Azerbaijan page.

The incident of Novruzeli Mammadov was referenced in Washington Profile and referenced there in my first edit. I added another reference and reverted your edits. Here is the link of the news where it mentions the supposed crimes by the Talishi scientist: http://www.anspress.com/nid51166.html

Obviously these charges are source of concern by international community as receiving funds to do research and academic discussions about history are not crimes elsewhere. Here is what the newspaper says:

Editors of "Tolishi sedo" newspaper took stand of betrayal of country

Azerbaijani well-known poet Nizami Ganjavi and historical hero Babek were shown as Talish in these materials published in the newspaper.

Court consideration on the cases of Novruzeli Mammadov, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Linguistics department chief, editor-in-chief of” Tolishi sedo” newspaper and Elman Guliyev, official of Linguistics Institute was started in the Court of Grave Crimes today. Shakir Alasgarov presided at the trial. Court consideration was held behind closed doors. Answering the questions of Ramiz Mammadov, lawyer of defendant Mammadov, Guliyev admitted that Iranian Talish Study scientist Ali Abdeyin rendered amount of financial assistance to “Tolishi sedo” newspaper. Azerbaijani well-known poet Nizami Ganjavi and historical hero Babek were shown as Talish in these materials published in the newspaper. It was shown in the newspaper that Turkish came to Azerbaijani regions afterwards where Talish people live and these lands were Talish lands historically. Guliyev admitted that they received $1000 a month from Talish organizations in Iran. Trial will continue in the second half of the day. Novruzali Mammadov was detained on February 3 and Yasamal Court passed decision to arrest Novruzeli Bayramov for 15 days. Novruzeli Mammadov faced charge under Article 274 (State betray) of Criminal Code on February 17. Elman Guliyev is also accused of the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Magi (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. -- Cat 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zaifband.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zaifband.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Your removal of UNHCR sourcing at Azerbaijani Jews‎ is not acceptable; just because you have another source contradicting it does not mean you are allowed to remove sourced material. - Penwhale | 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dov Gazit

Borys is shortened form for Borislav The boy's name Boris \b(o)-ris\ is pronounced BOR-iss. It is of Russian and Slavic origin, and its meaning is "small; battle glory". Originally from the Tartar nickname Bogoris, then used as a shortened form of the Russian name Borislav

BORYS Pochodzenia starosłowiańskiego, jako skrót od Borysława, oznacza: waleczny i sławny. Niektórzy uważają, że imię to przynieśli z Azji Bułgarzy. W wersji mongolskiej oznacza: mały, biedny. Inne formy: Borysław, Borzysław, Borysz, Borzysz. Obce formy: Borislaus (łac.), Boris, Borisav, Borislav (ogólnie przyj. forma), Bogoris (fr.), Vorislaos (gr.), Borisas (litew.), Borisz (węg.). Forma żeńska: Borysława.

Borys = "Borislav" - "bor" means fight, "slav" means "fame"

Boris je mužské křestní jméno slovanského původu. Obvykle je považováno za zkrácenou verzi jména Borislav - „proslavený bojem“, nebo Borimír - „bojuj se světem za mír“ nebo „podněcuj svět“. Někdy se také označuje za zkráceninu jména bulharského vládce Bogorise (z mongolského bogori - „malý“).

Since Dov Gazit is of Russian decent, his Russian name "Borys" was the shortened form of "Borislav", i.e., we can eliminate "Boromir"Birnam11:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Greeks

Because there was no info in the article at that time. If you have a reference, then you can add it. I'm not stopping you. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Let's resolve this: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Syunik -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like arguing with you. It's a waste of my time. I still disagree with your position but as long as the section has a disputed tag, then that's fine. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

Здравствуйте

У вас на странице указано, что вы свободно владете русским, если вы не против я объясню отмену вашей правки по-русски. Вы утверждаете, что название Агстафа чаще употребляется в вашей первой ссылке на странице 6 указано Aghstev/Agstafa, а не Агстафа. вот тут обсуждается преименование статьи на русской Википедии, там я привел карты СССР, более поздние, чем приведенная вами ссылка на большую советскую энциклопедию и там указано Агстев. Вы так же необсуждали переименование, так то мой откат был вполне оправдан.Gragg (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know? nomination

Hi. I've nominated Surat Huseynov, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 23, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Collegebookworm (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats on its success! See it now on the main page! CB (ö) 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Shamakhi Dancers

Please help to improve the article Shamakhi Dancers.

Signature

--Arkankipcak (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do read the edits

Using such language doesn't seems to be positive and polite . Please becareful in talking with other editors .
Reverting your edit , was not only getting back of a repetitious phrase that was already contained in the body , but also getting back of a Disambiguation link . This links are extremely important for the readers and should not be deleted without a good reason --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You add this note to my talk page :

Your constant deletion of references to Iran from that article leads me to certain conclusions. Even the source itself defines Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group who lives in both Azerbaijan and Iran, despite not mentioning Iranian Azeris much within the Azerbaijani immigrant community. There might not have been enough research carried out, or lack of data, or other methodological reasons for not including them, - that is not the point. The point is, Iranian Azeris are accounted for as members of the global Azerbaijani ethnic community by the source, and your constant deletion of references to them can be interpreted as fear that Iranian Azeris are being 'torn off' the main Iranian immigrant body. That is NOT the case. Nobody is challenging the cultural affiliation of Iranian Azeris with Iran. That was the whole point of adding the 'Middle Eastern Americans' template into the article. The Azeris in that template were even added as an 'appendix' to other Iranians. In addition, the 'European Americans' template has a footnote referring to Iranian Azeris. Is this all not enough for a third-party reader to understand that, yes, Iranian Azeris are also Iranian Americans? Why do you keep deleting that information, why do you keep limiting Azerbaijani Americans to immigrants from Azerbaijan only, when that is clearly not the case? Also, before you decide to make any changes to the article, see the talkpage.

Don't know how did you find out about my so-called hidden reasons , but please note that the article is not about definition of the Azeri ethnicity but to inform about the Azeri Americans, then there is no need to repeat the definition of that ethnicity in that article,and it should be mentioned in the beginning that this article gives no information about the Iranian Azeris and is talking about the Az.Republic Azeris . The goal in Misplaced Pages is to inform the reader about the topic and giving false information can't be justified in Misplaced Pages . As an example , the first Iranian ambassador to USA was an Iranian Azeri , as late as 18th century and I'm sure the Iranian Azeris are much more older than what article says about "after World War II". By your especial sensitivity to name Iranian Azeris as Azeris alone , the article may be a prototype of badly ambiguous articles . Please consider the accuracy of the article as the primary goal . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Blue Mosque

Parishan, your contributions are highly valued here. However, they are not when you make comments such as these. Please calm down, there are better ways to resolve this dispute than resorting to incivility. There are complaints about your comments here, and I have to say that I agree that you should tone it down. Perhaps if the dispute drags on further you can make a formal request for mediation. However, please refrain from making further uncivil comments. As I'm sure you're already aware, but certain users can be placed on restrictions related to the second Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case. Now this is a road that I'm sure you don't want to go down, so please stay cool and avoid similar comments in the future. If you have any further questions about this particular dispute or others you can leave a note on my talk page, but I'm going to make a comment that you've been warned in regards to your comment at Talk:Blue Mosque, Yerevan at the arbitration enforcement page. Thanks in advance. Khoikhoi 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Turks

Are they Azerbaijanis? Or they are merely Turks from Armenia? So they are nor Iranians neither Azerbaijanis.--Faikpro (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

cewap

bak qardeş azeri türklerde bulunan pezemek rus isimleri (ov, ev gibi) sildim onun yerine oğlu koydum . bazıları geri getir. he kurban —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporcu (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Old text source

When you created the article Azeris in Iran (now Iranian Azeris in your 02:40, 21 August 2006 edit, you used text from somewhere which had embedded footnotes. I am trying to fix those footnotes, but it would help to know where the text came from originally. I haven't found Higgins, but Shaffer is Shaffer, Brenda (2003) Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity MIT Press, Cambrudge, Mass., ISBN 0262194775. The text you used read:

Many others live in Tehran, Karaj and other regions.(ref name="Library of Congress Iran")Azarbaijanis(/ref) Generally, Azeris in Iran have been, "a well integrated linguistic minority", according to academics such as anthropologist Patricia Higgins.(ref name="ISBN6")pp.188-191(/ref) In fact, until the Pahlavi period in the 20th century, "the identity of Iran was not exclusively Persian, but supra-ethnic", as much of the political leadership, starting from the 11th century, had been Turkic.(ref name="ISBNShaffer")Ibid.(/ref) The Iranian and Turkic groups were integrated until 20th century nationalism and communalism began to alter popular perception.(ref name="ISBNShaffer")Ibid.(/ref) Despite friction, Azerbaijanis in Iran came to be well represented at all levels of, "political, military, and intellectual hierarchies, as well as the religious hierarchy."{ref name="ISBN6")Ibid.(/ref)

• I have converted the brackets to parenthesis so that the footnotes are visible. You can see the problem. Can you tell me where the text came from? --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I found it. It was the Azerbaijani people article. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass redirects?

Hi Parishan, I wonder if you could shed some light on the mass redirects you've done on a number of articles just recently? My understanding is that it is OK to create wikipedia articles on historical districts/provinces. For example, there is an article on Mingrelia eventhough that province no longer exists and the historical province is part of a province named Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti. I realize that the articles that you redirected could use some work and sources however if sources can be provided, they would make for some interesting articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To Parishan about the Massaget

Salam Parishan,Massaget is derived from Maz Saka= the Great Saka, it is a word of Iranic root. The Albanian Maskout and Massaget are not necessarily related. Also Khazars came much later and there is no evidence that there were any tribes called Massaget among the Khazars, and moreover no evidence that they came to the Caucasus. Tell me exactly where in the sources says such a thing. Thanks. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Church_of_Caucasian_Albania"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

well thanks for the source. I will read it and investigate it more. It is true that Massagets were related to the Alans . They both were the ancient East Iranian speaking Scythians. However the location and the time of massagets are different. Massagets lived in the 6 century BC in Central Asia, while Alans who came to the Caucasus did it from the Northern Caucasus at around 7 century AD. Maybe the author speculates that the offsprings of the Massagets from Central Asia, came together with the Alans to the Caucasus, much later?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Atashgah of Baku

Atashgah of Baku

http://en.wikipedia.org/Atashgah_of_Baku

You are needed here. Despite the abundance of Local Azeri Zoroastrian accounts, some Indians push still theire POV--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Church of Caucasian Albania

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Minkend. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. VartanM (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

David Bek's rebelion against Iran

Hi I wrote something on David bek's talk page: Guys let's see it this way. I do not know what kiesling says. But it is certainly true that david bek fought against the Iranian rule in Zangaezur. As Iran was associated with the Shia Muslim Turkic people in Zangezur it is very probable that this population was targetted. It is very opportunistic to claim to fight Safavid rule, when the Safavid Iran was invaded by Afghans and Ottoman Turks. This sheds some line in whose camp he initally fought. Shia Musliems were an enemy of the Ottomans (and Afghans) and traditionally favored by the Safavids. No offense intended though. I know David bek is a national hero in Armenia, no offense but these facts are facts. History is history. Just be sincere about it and let it be as it is --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

my answer

you know who those authors are. Please do not divert the subject. And living in Canada does not mean that you are not from the republic of Azerbaijan. i know that you are not a Turkic Azeri, but that aside. You cannot claim that ethnic minorities are not discriminated against in the Republic of Azerbaijan. All reports confirm that. No offense, but I just wanted to tell you and the Armenian editor that neither Armenia nor republic of Azerbaijan is a perfect place for the minorities.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wont reveal your identity in wikipedia. I am a man of ettiquettes. However I apprecaite that you also try to teach some IPs that they reffrain from fool language at my user talk. I know that they cannot turn down your advise. So please tell them it is not good for them to get troubles with the Iranian Azeris like me.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

About /ə/ in Juhuri

Hi Parishan

You're right, there is a phoneme distinct from /i/ represented by 'и'. I should have looked at your source before reverting.

However, I don't think it's /ə/. The source describes only its backness, but not its height. I don't think the height is mid. It sounds more like a near-close vowel. Of course, I don't have any sources to back this up, so my assessment amounts to no more than OR.

Your thoughts? Juhur (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably near-close central unrounded vowel. It can't be close because that happens to be the Russian 'ы' and the source says that it's not the same as 'ы'. Juhur (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Disagreeing with you is not 'obvious vandalism'. That is something like blanking an article, or inserting genitalia into an article. Please don't abuse the term. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw it; but assuming good faith, I took it to be he had hit undo (as everyone else in the fight had been doing) and took out a legitimate edit along with the map. If you were looking only as that as the 'clear case of vandalism', then by that right, you should have only restored that image, unless you consider switching the map as a 'clear case vandalism' (it isn't). I would have fixed it myself, but I've decided not to edit the article itself, since I feel strongly enough about the different maps that I couldn't feel neutral in the matter. --Golbez (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Села

Я переименовываю в доконфликтные названия, село называлось Азох, а не Azikh, смотрите доконфликтые карты.Gragg (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Сел Ванк много, я помню 4 доконфликтных Ванк. Соотвественно привязку Нагорный Карабах нельзя использовать, но я использовал привязку по райну АзССР (Мардакетский, а не Мартакерский) Если хотите уточните в скобках по координатам. Ок? Gragg (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Каракенд действительно Каракенд. Gragg (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Info

Hei, do you have an email so I can contact you?

Mamedyarov/Mammadyarov

Hi there, I just wondered if you could explain this move and what views you have sought from other editors. As far as I am aware, the former is the popular version used in English texts and is also the officially recognised form of his name used by FIDE. Consequently, I am slightly confused as to why it has changed. Thanks for your time. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's very clear. We are not unfamiliar with the whole transliteration (via Russian) issue here on the chess pages and it often causes controversy and/or divides opinion. Personally, I believe in using the popular English version, in other words the version that most English speakers would type into Google and I take my lead from the policy stated at WP:Naming conventions (common names). I have raised my concern at Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiproject Chess and will certainly abide by the majority verdict there, should anyone wish to comment. Please feel free to post your point of view, as I wouldn't want any discussion to be one-sided. Thanks again. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Information about discretionary sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad discretionary sanctions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing advice

Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions such as dealing with vandalism, or libelous material. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Boris
2. http://kartki.onet.pl/S,0,imiona.html?Param=130991
3. http://www.foreigndocuments.com/a18.html
4. http://cs.wikipedia.org/Boris