Talk:Districts of Yerevan

The subject of this article

What is it? Is it the districts of old Yerevan, before the Soviet period? If so, a title change is needed, Or the districts of both old Yerevan and the central parts of modern Yerevan? Or all of Yerevan? And the text reads like a bad translation of something originally in another language. Meowy 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the old and new quarters (small districts) of Yerevan. Quarters of Yrevan both - old and new period.--Hovik95 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with removal of Azerbaijani spelling? If anything, the names sound more like Azerbaijani than Turkish, for instance Bulagh is more similar to Azerbaijani bulağ, than Turkish bulak. Also, even though shahar is the word of Persian origin, it spelled more similar to Azerbaijani shahar and Turkish shehir, rather than to Persian shahr. Grandmaster 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry chief, no original research of names based on your interpretation, find the proper spellings of old quarters and foreign spellings according to cited sources of "siktir" like y'all usually should.GrandamsterFarizismailzade (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In local pronounciations "K" tends to becomes "Gh" the more east you go. Bulagh is Bulak - it doesn't change its core identity just because of local variations in pronounciation. Azerbaijani is a modern term, so I think it isn't accurate to call medieval place-names "Azerbaijani". Meowy 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulagh is Azerbaijani, same as shahar. And who says that the term Azerbaijani cannot be used? Britanica and Iranica use it in historical context, and there's no rule in wiki prohibiting to do the same here. It is the same language as it was 200 year ago. Grandmaster 14:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Bulagh, however it is spelt and however it is locally pronounced, is a Turkish word. The only real question is whether it should be described as Turkish or Turkic. Meowy 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to post a link to dictionary? I can do it. Bulagh is Azerbaijani, bulak is Turkish. Please stop removing Azerbaijani spelling. Whether someone likes it or not, it is the fact that the Turkic population of Yerevan until the creation of the modern Armenian state was Azerbaijani. Grandmaster 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkic population of Yerevan was Turkic - the term "Azerbaijani" (when used in this context) is an irredentist invention by modern Azerbaijan. And anyway, we are dealing here with the etymological origin of place-names and their meanings, not with populations and their ethnicity. Meowy 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1905:

Население Эривани (17345 мужчин и 11688 женщин) слагается из русских — 2 %, армян — 48 % и адербейджанских татар — 49 %; остальные — грузины, евреи и проч.

i.e. Armenians constituted 48%, and Aderbeijani Tatars - 49% of population of Erivan. According to other articles in the same Russian cyclopedia, the Turkic Azerbaijani Tatars were the largest ethnic group in the Caucasus. Now please tell me, who were these Aderbeijani Tatars? Were they not the same people as Azerbaijanis? If not, then who were they, and what language did they speak? Don't tell me that they were just some Turkic people without ethnicity, because the word Azerbaijani used by Brockhaus speaks for itself. And why do you remove that bulagh means spring in Azerbaijani? Are you denying that it does? If anything, Azerbaijanis still lived in Yerevan until 1988, although in much smaller numbers. --Grandmaster 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is just more irredentist propaganda. Alternative or historical place-names are just that - names: they are not associated with modern claims of ethnicity and may even be unconnected to the ethnicity of those who lived in those places. You are engaging in strange OR by claiming that "Demir-Bulagh" is "Azerbaijani", and are inserting invalid content by spelling it using the Azerbaijani alphabet. Meowy 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange OR? Open any Azerbaijani dictionary and look for the words Dəmir and Bulağ. What is strange here? And who says that modern alphabets cannot be used? They can, and should be used. The rules allow the use of modern alphabets. --Grandmaster 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demir-Bulagh is not "Azerbaijani", the words demir and bulagh are Turkish. Meowy 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they have no meaning in Azerbaijani, right? Grandmaster 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they have a meaning in Azerbaijani? Yerevan is not in Azerbaijan, and these place names date from the late medieval period or earlier. Azerbaijani is a modern language. Meowy 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides foreclosure on rabid azeri nationalsim, there is genuine issue of true translation and accurate citation from proper sources accourting to wikipedia, above is original research, if user knows this name he should provide reliable citation?VrbanNomad (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)![reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Districts of Yerevan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]