User talk:Xashaiar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Xashaiar bidi nist keh baa baad belarzad. Please see my latest message and see if you agree or disagree..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Xashaiar, could you please explain why you just came and reverted? Please discuss on the appropriate talk page why you are doing it. We've discussed the issue of [History of the Name of Azerbaijan] with Alborz Fallah, facts are clearly presented, and the changes are mandated by the administrators as the notice on the top of the page states. --Agasalim (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from disruptive changes to the santur page.[edit]

Further changes without citations can end up in a ban of your account.

Please sign your comment. I cited a reliable source and you removed that source. You come here and write "Further changes without citations can end up in a ban of your account"! This is the first time I see clear falsification as your comment.Xashaiar (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sassanid symbol[edit]

About this edit: does the Enc.Ir. article contain an image that verifies this particular shape? Because its online version [1] certainly doesn't. Neither does it contain a verbal description that would imply anything even remotely similar to the image here. Fut.Perf. 08:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No. But in the EIr article you link the description is there. To be clear: I sourced "derafsh Kaviani" and not its "depiction". I do not care about the image. But that image is somewhat everywhere and I do not know where it is properly sourced. I may need sometime to find out about it.Xashaiar (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But then I'll remove the image. As long as it's not sourced, we must assume it's just the uploader's or somebody else's fantasy reconstruction. If you see a description in the EncIr article that is anywhere precise enough to draw a picture after, please point me to it; I can't see any. More importantly, there is nothing in the EncIr article that would give us any basis for expecting that anybody tody could possibly know what the standard looked like – if there were any ancient descriptions or depictions of it that allowed for such a reconstruction, the article would certainly mention them. Fut.Perf. 09:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these pictures do not have much encyclopedic values. If we can source them, uploading them again will be easy. Just go ahead and delete the images you find dubious. Regards. Xashaiar (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Actually, deleting might not even be necessary – I've just removed them from the articles and noted on the image description pages that they are unsourced. (They are on Commons, where I personally can't delete them anyway.) Fut.Perf. 09:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I will use this space to list the first references found in internet which could be used: 1. In Persian Wikipedia the image is attributed to Kaveh Farrokh (Derafsh-e Kaviani) probably this page 22 also this. Xashaiar (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, it's strange, isn't it. Farrokh in his Sassanid Elite Cavalry book cites this information to another publication of his, "Farrokh 2004", but I can't figure out what that is supposed to be – the bibliography is not accessible on Google books, and his online bibliography [2] doesn't contain any item that matches. From [3] (an otherwise unreliable and fringy blog) we can take away the information that some ancient Persian king was using a symbol resembling the alleged "Kaviani" [4] (but that coin must be wrongly described or wrongly dated on the website – an "Artaxerxes" around "100 BC"?) From [5], again by Farrokh, we learn that the Shah regime in 1971 was using that same symbol in patriotic shows of reconstructed ancient Persian army units [6]. Farrokh then goes into far-reaching speculation about the identity of this symbol with even older, decorative elements in some early Iranian carpet work. All this time, he is apparently taking the identity of this old symbol with the "Kaviani" for granted, but isn't saying what he is basing that identification on. Others have apparently followed him. Here [7] we have an unreliable website mirroring an academic text from Encyclopedia Iranica, which mentions the "Kaviani". The (reliable) EncIr article has no images and doesn't offer any claims about the shape of the symbol, but the editors of the mirrored rip-off have added their own images to it, apparently again from Farrokh but without documenting the source, among them a prominent image purporting to be the "Kaviani" (probably Farrokh's), making it appear as if the EncIr author made that connection (which he didn't.) I have so far not found any source predating Farrokh that makes any such connection between that ancient diagonal-cross symbol and the "Kaviani". It's all a mess, that's for certain, and reeks of very poor scholarship somewhere on the way. Fut.Perf. 11:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, it's all a mess. So far we know that A: Farokh has made a reconstruction (in his book and website), 2004 could be just a date he "made it"! B: It is not all due to him as, from what you link, in Pahlavi's celebration we see almost the same Derafsh. The actual source could be the cover image of a magazine published by Taghizadeh during WWI. C: EIr's relevant articles are 1. Derafš-e Kāvīān where it says: "There is no direct mention of the Derafš-e Kāvīān in the Avesta or in Achaemenid or Parthian sources, but several scholars have argued that it is depicted in a damaged portion of the Alexander mosaic from Pompeii, the subject of which is the victory of Alexander the Great over Darius III (qq.v.) at the battle of Issus.." There are some references there that may help us. 2. Derafsh (see Plate XXV.a linked at the end). 3. flags of persia Note "By the 6th century a “national flag” had emerged, called Derafš-e Kāvīān (q.v.), which consisted of a heavily bejeweled purple background, a star (aḵtar) as the emblem, and red, golden, and purple streamers". (these last things are explicit in Shahnameh). So far I can find only these. I wish Iranica articles talked about these "very popular" images, though academic sources tend to care only about academic concerns. (Later I will check The Cambridge History of Iran..) Xashaiar (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah. We're getting closer. Among the refs given at that passage in the EncIr article, there's something. The article by Sarre in Klio 3 (1903) is in fact making the connection. Not directly with the banner on the Alexander mosaic itself (which he hypothesizes was showing a rooster), but with coins of the same type as in this image. According to him, the vexillum pictured on these coins (i.e. apparently something involving a diagonal cross inside a square, and with four smaller circles in the four sectors) must have been a standard used during the Parthian era by local Persepolitan princes, from whom the later Sassanid dynasty descended, and he hypothesizes that later legend identified this standard with the banner of the legendary Kāwe, and that the Sassanid rulers would have regarded it as a symbol of their dynastic legitimacy. The older article by Levy was a blank; it also deals with coins of this type, but I couldn't find any explanation about the vexillum in it. Note that, according to Sarre, the flag with the golden star on purple background (he says "sun" but he evidently means the same item) was a different symbol, which was used side by side with this one. Fut.Perf. 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationalistic approach[edit]

About this POV pushing edit. It's very clear your attempt is to remove the term of Shah of Azerbaijan. This is historical fact. First of all, he became the Shah of Azerbaijan. And then he became the shah of all of Iran. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Or: "Azerbaijan" had no Shah. We use official title. Please read Britannica. Where is "shah of Azerbaijan"? Xashaiar (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


با سلام و تشکر از ویرایشهای خوبتان در ویکی انگلیسی.متاسفانه انگلیسی من تعریفی نداره و برای همین به فارسی براتون می نویسم.راستش من پیگیر مقاله پروفسور جوان هستم و دیدم شما در این مقاله ویرایش هم داشته اید و از اینکه بعضی از کاربران آذری سعی در مصادره ایشان دارند خیلی متاسف شدم بخاطر همین چند نکته رو را دیدم و گفتم به شما بگم شاید بتوانید کاری انجام دهید چون زبان انگلیسی من خوب نیست و نمی توانم بخوبی از نظریاتم دفاع کنم اول اینکه این دوستان آذری دو تا منبع برای اثبات آذری بودن والدین ایشان آورده اند یکی ازطرف یک سایت متعلق به جمهوری آذربایجان است و به گفته این سایت خودشون این مصاحبه رو با پروفسور انجام داده اند که اعتبار این سایت های آذربایجانی و گفته هایشان بشدت مشکوک است و در ویکی پدیا جز منابع قابل اثبات و معتبر به حساب نمیایند برای مثال این سایت آذربایجانی خانم عبادی رو آذربایجانی معرفی کرده است و در مورد منبع دوم هم باید بگم که این سایت ایرانی همین مصاحبه را عینا از همین سایت درج کرده است و این منبع هم مستقل نبوده و وابسته به همان سایت اولی است در هرصورت من ازتون میخواهم که برای اثبات آذری بودن والدین پروفسور درخواست منابع معتبر بکنید در غیر اینصورت این منابغع نامعتبر را حذف کنید .با تشکر از وزحمات شما در ویکی پدیای انگلیسی برای اتحاد و یکپارچگی ایران.( در پایان اگر خواستید این متن فارسی مرا پاک کنید ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Please read why you should not edit others' comments. Thanks. Xashaiar (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you may be unhappy that your comments were removed, and I offer you my personal apology for any umbrage you feel. It was not my intention to offend or upset you. However, I have made it clear that I will not tolerate personal or potentially disruptive comments on that talkpage, and your comments could have been disruptive. I cannot make any exceptions, and I do not wish the matter to escalate to the point of blocking editors. Dispute resolution is time-consuming and wearying for all concerned, and the issue can get side-tracked by people bringing up old grievances, so that the article at the heart of the dispute does not improve. If you have issues regarding any past behaviours of other editors, then please take the issue to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. If you have views on the issue at hand - removing bias in the Iranian Azerbaijanis article - then please share those, and I will listen very carefully. Your help is appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. But disruptive? Interesting. One major issue is the "naming" in that article. I do not remember talking about other editors in my last comment there. I pointed out that the article was called "Iranian Azeris" which based on WP:NAMING is the correct one. And your reason "almost all articles on Wikipedia which deal with Azerbaijani people use Azerbaijanis" is not understandable for me because we are talking about Iranians whereas most other article in wikipedia you saw are talking about citizen of Arran. Did you read about the Greece - Macedonia example? (as a guide only). Xashaiar (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


May I ask why you only grouped the Iranian languages in Template:Ancient Mesopotamia and not the others? And why exactly do you think it is useful? And the problems I am referring to is that an anon editor was using your grouping as an argument to push for his own edits, so yes, I see problems ahead with this kind of groupings, for which this template is not intended (there are other templates for that). I will not revert at the moment, but at the moment I disagree somewhat with your edit, so a reply would be nice. Thanks! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RM for "Darius the Great"[edit]

Hello my friend[edit]

Just droping by to say hi and wish you a happy and well weekend. Your friend Persi :) Dr. Persi (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


You added the following sentence in the article about Sasan: "...the four named persons "Sasan, Papag, Ardashir, Shapur" have different by importance titles...". I don't understand what this sentence means. — Parsa talk 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Iranica Antiqua cover.jpeg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Persian mathematicians[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Persian mathematicians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)