Talk:Azerbaijanis

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ali Khamenei

Picture collage was changed into Ali Khamenei. I know nothing of his supposed Azeri roots, I am sure someone can prove it to me. Fine. Anyone can tell me what he has done for the Azeris or on behalf of Azeri people. By the same token Turgut Ozal can be included into Kurdish people section. SO the question is - what relation he has to Azerbaijanis. ?abdulnr 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Khamenei is of a iranian azerbaijani backround if that is what your asking, but if you are asking if he feels iranian or azerbaijani, he feels iranian, like the majority of iranian azerbaijani's. khamenei, as well as mossadegh, kasravi, and others, would go under famous iranians or iranians, not azeri's.Iranian Patriot 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Khameni is originally from Khameneh, a small city in Azerbaijan. I guess you are under influence of propaganda of some bias media that are trying to shows Azaris experience discrimination in Iran. In Iran when Iranians want to choose their leaders or high rank managers nobody ask if he is Azeri or Fars. Look at history of Iran and find other Azeris Leader and politicians in history of modern Iran. Do not ignore this fact they were Azeri Safavids who re-established Iran and they prouded to be Kings of Iran and be successors of Ancient Iranian dynasties like Sassanid. Did you know, when Qajar dynasty wanted to stablish the first modern Army in Iran (Qazaqs). They hired Azeris first, because they believed that Azeris are more loyal to their country and because of their patriotism.

Yes my friend, i know this and you know this, but foreigners only want to create divisions between us to make us weak! that is why we have to keep things safe for iran over here.Iranian Patriot 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at least have one female in this picture, males are not the dominant and thats why I think we should keep the first picture with Mehriban Aliyeva or something even better add Googoosh instead her as Googoosh is South Azeri, female and pretty important. Baku87 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Here I even found apretty good picture of Googoosh, see here. What do you guys think? Baku87 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Although picture of Googoosh is a nice idea, I think Supreme leader of Iran is a more iconic figure and should stay in the collage. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kashk, As an Iranian should know better that Khamenei' was borne in Mashhad east of Iran. His father was the an Ayatollah in Mashhad and even his grand father was in Najaf (Iraq). The only reason that one can claim he has some Azeri background is because of his family name that indicates somewhere down the line one of his ancestors may have originated from Azerbaijan. Please refer to his official website and have a look at his biography.[1] or our Iranian friends can have look at Persian Wikipedia fa:سیدعلی حسینی خامنه‌ای . It is in fact quite misleading to suggest him being a typical Azeri.

I strongly agree with Baku87 and believe that inclusion of Gogoosh in th collage is much more appropriate. Mehrdad 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect for Googoosh. But, I do not agree with selection of pop stars or celebrities as representative of a race. Their beauties or looks are usually exceptional and also sometimes fake(by unusual make-ups or beauty surgeries). Do you think, all Americans are handsome like Tom Cruz, or all Turks are handsome like Tarkan or Iranians like Golzaror or Chinese like Michelle Yeoh or all Iranian Azeris are as beautiful as Googoosh --Behmod 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

not all azeris have beards like khamenei does or are mullahs either, so khamenei does nto really represent azeri people in general. i didnt even know khamenei was azeri? and it looks like there is a small dispute about his ethinicy here so i agree with baku87 we should add a female azeri and googoosh is a perfect suggestion. she is populair and azeri and everybody knows googoosh her ethnicy is azeri but we dont know the ethnicy of khamenei for 100% sure Karabakh 12:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting about the beards, to me it looks Khamenei is not the only bearded guy in that picture. You have to remember that not all Azeris are as beautiful as Googoosh neither, I am sure. Looks have nothing to do with this. We know Khamenei is Azeri by ethnicity and thats all that matters here. Azeris live all around Iran not just in Iranian Azarbaijan, and Khamenei is by far the most famous Azeri in Iran. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everybody agrees with you on the ethnicy of Khamenei, I personaly never heard of it before but I think we definitely need a Azeri female between them, you cant give a picture of a nation without adding any females. At the Georgian people article a musician has been added, so why not here? Or a alternative is that we could do like the Irish people picture, we could add 4 more spaces expanding it to 8? And perhaps we can put the pictures in the right timeline, I think then it will look more smoother and more logical? Baku87 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Don't make this personal. I did not claim his ethnicity from my knowledge, but from his own article Khamenei --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Baku87 suggestion. We could add 4 more spaces expanding it to 8. And perhaps we can put the pictures in the right timeline, I think then it will look more smoother and more logical. As an example of Azeri woman from Iran, we can add image of Parvin Etesami, famous poet. What is your idea about the picture of her? --Behmod 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, yeah. I just wish we also had a picture of Samad Behrangi.. my favourite Azari author. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm well Parvin Etesami is a good suggestion but I was not able to find a good picture of her. What do you guys think about Shirin Ebadi the nobel prize winner? Baku87 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Selection of Gogoosh is the most apropriate as she is well known both in Iran and Azerbaijan. Our friend Behmod is mixing this selection with some "race" issue! . Please note we are dealing with ethnic identity of the person rather than race, if there is such a thing. Dear Behmod are you saying that Gogoosh is too beutiful to be represented as an Azeri? Mehrdad 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No Mehrdad, I think there is a misunderstanding here! I disagree with selection of pop stars and celebrities in general. No matter who he/she is, Golzar(Iranian actor), Tarkan, Tom Cruz or Googoosh! Where Azeris have such a great leaders, politicians, poets and scientists. We do not need to select a pop star or celebrities. We have many options and many successful people like Shahriar, Parvin Etesami, Kasravi, Seyed Hosein Mosavi(prime minister), Samad Behrangi, Ali Javan, Baghcheban, ....--Behmod 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Behmod, I respect your point of view, even so I have no problem with pop stars being there. She is a live, current, and represnts a modern personality. Mehrdad 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also thinking about Shirin Ebady (Nobel Prize winner). Is she Azeri or not? As far as I know, she is from Hamedan and Hamedan is a multi cultral city where Azeris, Kurds, Fars and Lurs are living together. If she is Azeri, she could be a good Candidate--Behmod 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have heard on tv that Shirin Ebadi was ethnicly Azeri, but I think we need a redirect to a reliable site for that. Also another important person is Sattar Khan, I dont think I need to explain anything about him as we all know him. I think we need Sattar Khan in this picture aswell only problem is we need a female aswell, any suggestions? Baku87 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Whatever the discussion - and am still not convinced about ethnicities (these things are hard to prove in Iran, since there is no reliable data on ethnicitiy)- sometimes it looks like almost everyone who is of any importance in Iran is Azeri :) - we need a woman on the picture. be it Googosh or Shirin Ebadi. As far as I know Googosh is famous across the border . Best combination is obviously Iranian Azeri woman rather than a bearded leader of revolution with uncertain ethnic origin.abdulnr 13:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So guys whats it going to be Shirin Ebadi or Googoosh? I personaly think Googoosh is more populair but I think Shirin is a better candidate?Baku87 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Here is a pretty good picture of Shirin which we could use. Baku87 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

First find a source that says she is an Azeri --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion of Gogoosh in the pictures for these reasons: - Need to inlude an Azeri from Iran - Most of us prefer a female figure for the balance - She is well known - There is no real objection to her picture being there, except the dislike of Behmod to include pop starts. Which is a POV.

The picture of Khamenei needs to be removed. As previously discussed, there is no proof of him being Azeri. And I quote myself as " Khamenei' was borne in Mashhad east of Iran. His father was the an Ayatollah in Mashhad and even his grand father was in Najaf (Iraq). The only reason that one can claim he has some Azeri background is because of his family name that indicates somewhere down the line one of his ancestors may have originated from Azerbaijan. Please refer to his official website and have a look at his biography.[2] or our Iranian friends can have look at Persian Wikipedia fa:سیدعلی حسینی خامنه‌ای . It is in fact quite misleading to suggest him being a typical Azeri. " Mehrdad 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You know that Azeris and other Iranians looks like each other, there is no way to distinguish between an Azeri or other Iranians except by his/her languages and where he is originaly from. If somebody was born in Azerbaijan or his ancestors were born in there, he/she is called Azeri. Also if his/her language was Azeri he/she is called Azeri.

Well, Khamenei is originally from Khameneh in Azerbaijan and he speak Azeri. Every Azeri in Iran remembers when he has a visit from Azerbaijan his speeches are in Azeri. --behmod talk 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, about Azeri female everybody agrees with Parvin Etesami but there is no complete agreement about Googoosh and Ebadi. Therfore, our first choice is Etesami.

Bye the way, I checked some sources but they do not say about her ethnicity. They just say, she is from Hamedan, which does not help. Maybe she is not Azeri? --behmod talk 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey All,

Today I was reading the last issue of "The Economist" (June 3rd-9th 2006). In the page 42 of current issue, it was an indication to ethnicity of Khamenei(Azeri).--behmod talk 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Azaris are about 80% of the Azari Population This SHould Reflect in the picture Selections

The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS!

I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179

The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS!

I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179

I think we should just have a vote between Googoosh and Parvin, if we could have proof about the ethnicy of Shirin that would be great Baku87 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

lot of false claims

There is alot of false claims in this article.. I have already dealt with the so called quote of Mu'awiyah and I will bring it here again to show its invalidity.

he quote from the book of Al-tijan is indeed one of the biggest lies made up by Pan-turkist historians. Indeed the quote is about an ancient Yemenese mythical warrior named Ra’esh. In the book Tajarob al-Umam by ibn Maskawayah, Ra’esh helps the legendary king Manuchehr defeat the legendary Turanian king Afrasiyaab. Indeed the quote has nothing to do with Turkish settlements and the quote refers to the Turanians occupying Azerbaijan and then the mythical Ra’esh the Yemenese king coming to the aid of the Iranian king and repelling Afrasiyab. Weired stories like these were made up by Shu'abiyyah movements. Some claimed that Zoroaster was Abraham and claimed Zoroastrianism was practiced from Sudan to China. Such stories and myths are not taken seriously in light of the fact that all geographers and travellers to Azerbaijan and Arran have mentioned the languages of the area before the Seljuqids. BTW, today (within the last 20 years) the Turanians are not considered Turkic by the majority of scholars. Also as you can see the quote is totally mythical a Indeed this is what happens when people do not read the whole page and just cut out one line out! In that book al-tijan it says Azerbaijan was in the “hand” of Turks (legendary mythical Afrasiyab) and this shows that they were occupying it(and not aboriginals) until Ra’esh the mythical Yemenese king came and forced them out with the help of Manuchehr! Here is the Persian translation of the whole story from Tabari.

Some of the yemenese myths go as far as saying that the yemenese king took over India, Rome, Persia.. All these have to do with the counter Persian nationalism (Sh'uabbiya) and are part of Arab myths some which were mixed with Persian myths (Manuchehr and Afrasiyab mixed in with Ra'esh). Kitab al-tijan fi muluk Himyar (The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar) is taken as a mythology book and the stories there about Ra'esh and his battles with various people are part of Arab folklore and not history. What is clear is that are many stories in Ctesias,Herodotus, Tabari and etc. which are not take seriously by all scholars. For example Tabari attributes Zoroastrianism to the mythical figure of Jamshid. Another time another Arab author considers Abraham a descendant of Zoroaster. Many stories convluted by the Shu'abbiyah were made up and it is up to modern historians to examine their veracity.

I have available a more detailed article in Persian on this manner of convulted history. Sufficient to say that any geographer and historian that has described the language of the area, has never mentioned Turkic until the Seljuqids. (with the exception of Khazaras who were mainly held off at Darband). Also the Turkic slaves taken from Central Asia and used in the caliphs army does not mean Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan. Neither does the Turkic commander under Arab Caliphs (Bugha, Ashnaas, ..) who were sent from Iraq to quell the Babak Khorramdin (Iranian) Mazdakite revolt. And all scholars agree Azarbaijan was part of Iranian Mede, Achaemenid, then Parthian, then Sassanid and Turks never had this area on their hand and the mythical characters of Ra'esh and Afrasiyaab and Manuchehr.. are folklore and myth. Much like the pre-Sassanid portion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, where Rustam is a mythical character. In that time myths and history were convoluted.

Also the Khazars were kept at bay at darband and the few incursions were beaten back by the Sassanids and later on Ummayyads and Arabs, until they were destroyed by Russians and so they were not part of the ethnic component. As per Huns, they did not have a presence in the caucus except for some minor incursion that has been dealt with in the Cambridge history of Iran. Also any group of nomadic people in history would be called huns. The fact of the matter is that the current language of the republic of Azerbaijan is Oghuz Turkic which was brought with the Seljuqid invasion. To show tha Turks are new to the area, the best proof is that there isn't a single manuscript in Turkish from the area prior to the Ilkhanid era. The name Azerbaijan does not occur once in any old manuscript. All the ancient cities have non-Turkic names. Herodotus and none of the ancient historians mentioned Turks in the area. Again the Attila Hun empire and the huns (who by the way were not Oghuz speakers) did major damage to the Roman empire and perhaps for a small interval invaded parts of Iran (although probably not Iranian Azarbaijan), but this exursion did not change the demographics of the region. And all the quotes we have from the begining of Islam to the Seljuqids (about 4-5 travellers+) mention the language of the area as Arranian, Armenian, Persian and Arabic.

--Ali doostzadeh 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it needs major rewrite --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary changes

User:72.57.230.179 has inserted some arbitrary changes on the ground that a consensus had been reached. Reading the talk page, and judging by the reactions, it remains a mistery when this consensus. I'm not middle-eastern and hardly ever edit in this area, but I must here say that since no real consensus appears to have been reached, that the situation must be brought backed to the previous edits. I invite all editors to give their best to search a solution to the present difficulties this article is having; but what is clear the solution does not consists in attempting to force past one version without previous consensus, in the hope of forcing it in.--Aldux 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section that was inserted into the intro was copied from the article Iranian peoples. That article had problems similar to the ones this one has. Some Iranian users insisted that Azerbaijani people are not Turkic people as all major academic sources say, but that they are Iranian people, even though they don’t speak an Iranian language. That paragraph was included into that article in an attempt to please those users, and it was not a good solution, as it turns out. But since there’s no effective system to stop POV edits in Wikipedia, the compromise with factual accuracy had to be made. Such position of certain users is a reflection of the official Iranian propaganda, which tries to make Azerbaijani people of Iran believe that they are not Turkic and are Iranians to prevent separatism in Iranian Azerbaijan and eventually assimilate them with Persian people. But Wikipedia is about reflecting the facts and not state sponsored propaganda. Tombseye made a good attempt to incorporate that statement into the relevant section of this article as well, but his edit was reverted without any valid explanation by the anonymous user, who’s been making unsubstantiated edits to this article for quite a while. Grandmaster 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you have several things wrong. we believe that azari's were turkified iranics, that is all, we do not claim that they dont speak an azari langauge and we do not claim that they arent linguistically turkic today, they are. and there is no such movement in iran to make the azari's think that they are iranic and not turkic. iranian azari's refer to themselves as torks, i have azari family members, i know how they think and feel. they believe that they are iranian and part of irans history, and many iranian azari's have come to accept the fact that they were turkified.Iranian Patriot 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an encyclopedia in which we have to present information that can be proven and not what we 'believe'. It's irrelevant as to what you or I believe, while what is important is what we can prove. Being Iranian by nationality and culture doesn't erase the linguistic affiliation of the Azeris, which, objectively needs to be raised along with the possibility that the Azeris have other origins, such as either a partial Turkic one and a Caucasian one. Simply focusing on one theory and claiming it to be absolute truth is simply contrary to how wikipedia works since you can't prove that all or most Azeris are simply former Iranians, which is itself simply a reference to the many Iranian peoples who aren't necessarily Persians or formerly Persian speaking I should say. What's more there is a historic cultural fluidity between Turkic and Iranic peoples as they have lived in the same region and historically overlapped quite often. All of that aside however, subsuming a group makes zero sense in terms of an informative encyclopedia. I have Encyclopedia Americana which describes the Azeris myriad origins as does Encyclopedia Britannica and several others. They nearly all relate to the varied origins of the Azeris, so what's the problem with presenting that here? We have a responsibility to be fair and at least try to be objective. If you feel that you can't be objective or compromise, then perhaps you should take a break and let those of us who can work out some compromise move forward. Tombseye 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the propagation of the Turkic language which started around the Seljuqid era, the history below the Aras river and above the Aras river are very different with two different people. Indeed Iranian Azarbaijan was Iranian speaking where as the caucasian one, had some Iranian elements , but it had a large number of caucasian speakers (Armenians, Albanians..) as well. When it comes to talking about origins, these two regions have had a different history and this should be mentioned. Another fact that should be mentioned is that the name Azarbaijan is clearly Iranian and such a name does not exist in any ancient Turkic documents. Indeed it has a clear Avestani root. This is agreed upon by scholars. Indeed the Pahlavi version of the name Atoorpaatekaan still exists in some of the languages of the area. --Ali doostzadeh 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree although saying very different is a bit of an overstatement as neighboring groups, even divided by a river aren't necessarily without some fluidity. And what mean is Median speaking as at that point we can be more specific than Iranian speaking. As for the name of Azerbaijan, sure we can mention that briefly, but it's not really relevant all that much if the name is Iranian or not as we're talking about the people. I didn't go into the origins of the name Afghan other than what was relevant in Pashtun people for example. We should start with the Median ruler Atropates as the most common theory links him to the name of the province followed by other more hypothetical theories that can't be proven. This is also the case with Origins of the name Afghanistan for example as there are multiple theories, but really only the verifiable ones are generally stated, while the etymology is discussed in either a history article, an article on the name itself or on the country page. You also have to ask yourself (not just you, but everyone) what the point is to this bickering as the real point should be to write a good article. All this energy wasted on debating could be spent turning this article into a feature article instead of arguing about Iranian the Azeris are since we may never really know to what extent the Azeris are of Iranian stock as that in and of itself is difficult to ascertain given the many new theories emerging about the Kurds, Persians, Pashtuns etc. We need to work on the Azeri article in terms of their culture and social conditions and flesh out the article, which is something I'll set upon doing tomorrow. Tombseye 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Book of Dede Qorqod

This book is at most 500 years old since the name Istanbul shows up. It has about 150 Persian words and 300 Arabic words and Turks were not Muslims 1300 years ago.. It is fact that the area was Iranian speaking in Iranian Azarbaijan and a mix of Irano-Caucasian in the Caucus before the Turkic languages was spread there. The Turkic viewpoint background has no solid academic basis and no major reference or Encyclopedia has mentioned it. So it should be deleted. [3]

--Ali doostzadeh 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. See Iranica about Dada Qorgut:

The language spoken today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 5th/11th and 6th/12th centuries and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form. For two centuries after their appearance in Iran, the Oghuz Turks seem to have had only an oral literature. The origins of the stories, attributed to Dada Qorgut, which are about the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks, probably lie back in this period. The accepted text, however, was complied only in the 9th/15th century. [4]

The fact that it was written down in 15th century does not mean that it did not exist earlier as an oral literary tradition. So Dada Qorgud epos formed in 11th century at the latest. The Turkic background section needs to be expanded and referenced. It is known that Turks first appeared in the area in the 3rd century. Huns, savirs, khazars and others frequently attacked the area and some of the local rulers hired Turkic tribes to protect their state from other invaders. Many of them settled, specifically in Arran and Shirvan, which bordered with Northern Caucasus. This all should be reflected with reference to the sources. Grandmaster 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Arran and Azerbaijan, two different histories

The article says: Other noted historians include Tabari, who describes in detail various incursions into Azerbaijan by Ural-Altaic tribes (Huns and Khazars) in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. Tabari also states that by the mid-6th century, there was a significant Turkish presence in Azerbaijan and other adjacent regions.[citation needed]

Kalankatly also states that in the year 629, the army of the Gokturks as well as a series Khazar Turkic tribes entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks

Firstly the theory of Ural-Altaic is not mainstream anymore and Uralic and Altaic are now considered two different language groups. The second point is that. Secondly the Khazars and Huns did not make any incursions in Iranian Azerbaijan and despite some minor incursions during the Sassanid times in the caucus, they did not have political control over the Caucus. The third point has no reference. Also the Caucasian Albania (who were not Turks) has a different history than Iranian Azarbaijani which at least from the time of Medes to the Seljuqid era was solidly Iranian. This difference needs to be taken into account. These two areas had different histories and despite some authors mixing Armenia, Azarbaijan and Arran, (due to political control of one on the other), they have had historicaly different names. I can tell you that virtually any geographer and writer who has visited the area from the demise of the Sassanids to the rise of the Seljuqids has not mentioned the language of Azarbaijan or Arran as being Turkic. Indeed there is not a trace of any Turkic languages in manuscript or rocks or plates or anything prior to the Ilkhanid era. At most there was some renegade Khazars and Huns used as mercenaries, but these were not the main inhabitants nor the natives of the region. --Ali doostzadeh 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever next, he's gonna say they speak the language of Chenghiz just like the number one Persian Racist Chauvanist the toppled Shah.

There were Turks in the region prior to the Seljucks, people don't just pick and choose who they are and their language.

Your anti-Turkism is why events like this are happening in Iran

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1503/1902/1600/3.3.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1503/1902/1600/1.6.jpg

http://www.dalgam.com/merend2.jpg

http://www.dalgam.com/axim.jpg

Sorry buts thats not a few hundred not even a few hundred people, there are close to a million there.

This isn't in Azerbaycan, this isn't in Turkey, this is in Iran by the TORKE of Iran ;_) Accept it.

Have you ever been to Iran? Azeri Turks arnt even called Azeri Turks their just called "Torke" ie Turk, that's a fact if you knew Iran you would know that I don't know why your trying to lie like this, its an accepted fact in Iran that they're Turks, try telling them their not ;_)

I mean common, just be honest, look at the pictures theres close to a million there there are marching as Turks thats the reality, look at their hands what's going on there? is it all a big conspiracy, I don't understand why you blaim Azerbaijan or Turkey for this they didn't fund or support it. The reality is, Turks of Iran want their language, identity and rights recognised, as long as you carry on with this self-destructive racist chauvanism and pretending that everything's just fantastic and rosy these problems will escalate and escalate.

Accept people for what they are not what you'd like them to be!

Turks in Iran are not a minority, they are the largest group, Azeri-Qasqai-Turkmen can understand each other, there population is roughly 30 million, Azeri Turks alone constitutre 23-24 million which is more than the Persian population according to ethnologue.com.

They deserve recognition and equality.

--Johnstevens5 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Johnstevens5 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well nice name but you should write with your own Turkish name. The fact of the matter is that Azarbaijanis in Iran did not make your their statement. BTW 30 million figure is bloated and it is about 20% of the population if you calculate the math. There about 25 million Kurds in Turkey, which you should worry about. Now this article is about history and I say that either back up your wild theories by mainstream history references like Encyclopedia Britannica or else do not claim that Turks existed in the area from time immemorial. The fact is that the old Turkic inscription is the Orkhon from Mongolia which is around 8th century A.D. That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says. The oldest manuscript in turkish from Azarbaijan is also around the time of Ilkhanids. The language of the area prior to turkification has been explained by many travellers and geographers. This is not a place for psuedo-theories that have no academic backing. --Ali doostzadeh 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then Persians are not Persians or Iranians or Aryans or Indo-Europeans, they are Arabs and they were ruled 1,000 years by Turks so go figure what they are.

But in reality, the only reason why Persians say that Azerbaijanis are not Turks is because they are intimidated by the word "Turk" and that's why the Pahlavi Shahs of Iran tried to efface the identity of Iran's Turkic people (Azerbaijanis, Turkmens, Khorasani Turks, Qashqayi Turks, Khalaj Turks and others) so that they will assimilate them. Since Iran is built on Persian nationalism, Persian "free-thinkers" are taught that Turks are only from Turkey, which has kept them either chauvinist or naive.

There are so many Turkic activists from Iran that are fighting for their rights that it seems almost pointless for a chauvinist from Iran to say that the Azerbaijanis are anything but Turks.

Johnstevens5

Just an idea as to how to approach this article

Okay, I've been reading a lot of what's been said here and I just wanted to put this out there. How about I re-write the article in a way similar to Pashtun people or even Iranian peoples? One is a featured article and the other is on its way and I have many friends here who are both Persian and Azeri and I believe we worked out a compromise with Iranian peoples for example. I'd be willing to do the same and consider the various factors including the differences between the regions north and south and the various influences and other factors. The thing is that I'll be doing it academically and I'll ask the advice of some of the people whom I have a history of working with such as Kash, GM, Mani, Abdulnr, Tajik, and of course Khoikhoi and various other folks such as Zereshk who has done some good work on Greater Iran that I've seen. I'm in both the Azeri and Iran wikiprojects and I'm planning to work on the Persians next anyway. If people are cool with the idea, I'd be willing to redo the article and make it a lot more in compliance with encyclopedic standards. We could also agree that all statements placed in the article will have citations that are reputable since this is such a controversial topic as well. Just an idea as I was asked to help fix this article so I wanted to make sure everyone is okay with it. Thanks. Tombseye 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea. Grandmaster 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Holes in the Article, Shariatmadari

Why is there no mention of Ayatollah Shariatmadari, he is one of the KEY reasons the Azeri Turks revolted in Iran, he promised equality, an end to racism, a federal state, acceptance of the Turks language and identity.

However, after the revolution he was PLACED UNDER HOUSE ARREST AND LEFT TO DIE, Azeri Turks never forget this! next Khomeni carried on the oppressive Persian orientated view and lived up to none of the promises.

The people were lied to and this lie is building up and up and comming to a point where they are having enough of it all.

Shariatmadari must be mentioned and his image used instead of Khomeni, the people have so much love and respect for Shariatmadari WHY IS HE NOT HONOURED, A MATYR WHO DIED FOR THE AZERI TURKS AND THEIR RIGHTS!

Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari himself was also later placed under house arrest. With many followers among the Azeri population of northwest Iran, he had been an important figure in the religious opposition during the period under the former Shah. Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari had opposed Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution, passed in December 1979, which created the post of vali-ye faqih, apparently claiming that it contradicted the concept of the "national sovereignty of the people", also expressed in the Constitution. He was also reported to have repeatedly stated that the clergy should not participate in the political running of the country .

In December 1979, unrest broke out in Tabriz after Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s house in Qom was attacked reportedly by supporters of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, apparently on account of his objections to the Constitution. At least two of his supporters were reportedly killed. The unrest continued until January 1980. It was at about this time that Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari was reported to have been placed under house arrest.(12) Keesings Contemporary Archives, 20 June 1980.)

In 1982 he acknowledged on television (reportedly after the arrest of relatives including his pregnant daughter and two sons-in-law) of having been aware of a coup plot in which Sadeq Qotbzadeh, a former Foreign Minister, was implicated. Ahmad Abbasi, the Grand Ayatollah’s son-in-law, was also tried in the same case and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and ten years’ house arrest. Sadeq Qotbzadeh, and up to 70 army officers, were later executed.(13) See Amnesty International Report 1983

Grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari died in June 1986. His supporters were prevented from holding a public funeral and he was buried secretly in the middle of the night in a remote place. 

SOURCE: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMD...OUNTRIES%5CIRAN

Over the past century, several major anti-government movements have been launched from the region, starting with Iran's constitutional revolution in 1905. Azerbaijanis also claim to have started the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79. Its independent spirit was exploited by the Soviet Union in the immediate post-World War II period, when Azerbaijanis tried to set up an independent People's Republic of Azerbaijan in 1945. For a short period, they succeeded. Then the Soviet Union tried to convert it into a communist republic. The United States intervened at that time, and Iran took the extraordinary measure of using the World Court in the Hague to get the Soviets to withdraw.

Ever since this period, the Iranian central state has kept a wary eye on the Azerbaijanis. Under the Shah, publication in Azeri and other minority languages was repressed, and although there has been some relaxation of this policy, publication and school instruction in Azeri is discouraged.

Under the Islamic Republic, chief resistance to the form of government espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini came from Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who had extensive support in Azerbaijan. When Khomeini held a referendum on the kind of government Iranians were to choose, he gave voters only one choice: an Islamic republic with the chief ayatollah as head. Shariatmadari lobbied for wider choice, and his followers rioted and occupied the Tabriz radio station. Eventually, Shariatmadari was arrested and stripped of his religious credentials. Azerbaijanis were deeply resentful of this action.

The idea of independence for Azerbaijan is still alive. Chehregani says he was welcomed warmly across the Iranian border in the Republic of Azerbaijan recently. That country's citizens would welcome reunification with Iranian Azerbaijan, something that the Iranians do not favor. Chehregani has espoused a government for Iran that would be a federation, somewhat like the United States or Germany, where individual states would have a degree of autonomy.

SOURCE: http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_arti...b2a755d420116a4

Racism and Xenophobia

In the periods before and during the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Hezbullah’s rhetoric of salvation coupled with their romanticization of an Islamic society in which exploitation, racism, and discrimination would be non-existent, breathed new life into the struggle of Iran’s various nationalities for self-determination. Such notions as racism, discrimination, and even nationalism were supposed to be alien to the spirit of ‘the true Islam.’

In an Islamic society governed by an Islamic Faqih there would be no room for racial oppression. As a matter of fact, Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous saying that “Islam is against nationalism and nationalism is against Islam,” written in colorful letters adorned the walls of all major cities and towns during the early days of the Islamic rule. Accordingly, in the constitutional text of the Islamic Republic, as well as in all governmental literature, the word “mellat” (nation) was replaced with the word “umma” or in Persian accent, ‘ommat’ (the community of believers), emphasizing thus the non-nationalist character of the new community.

During the Pahlavi monarchy (1925-1978), the multiethnic, multinational and multicultural character of the Iranian society had been vigorously denied and brutally suppressed. With the demise of the absolute monarchism, various nationalities were expecting the realization and restoration of their social and national rights. Among various groups, two major Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalities posed the greatest challenge to the new regime. The Azerbaijanis or Azeris, as the largest nationality in Iran, comprised over thirty-five percent of the entire population at the time and were mobilized around the reformist grand Ayatollah Shariatmadari and his “Muslim Peoples’ Party.” Among other things, the party worked towards acknowledging Iran’s multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual character, emphasizing on linguistic equality, lifting of discriminatory policies, and creation of civil society (see also Razmi, 2000).

Nevertheless, after the consolidation of Islamic rule, the highly romanticized rhetoric regarding racial and ethnic equality was all but disappeared into the thin air. Following the previous regime’s racist doctrines, Farsi, the mother tongue of Iran’s Persian minority, was accorded the status of ‘national language’ of all Iranians. Further more, Farsi was elevated to the status of ‘the second language of Islam,’ following the Arabic. This way, not only all the non-Persian Iranians had to learn Farsi but even non-Iranian Muslims were encouraged to learn and speak it. As a result, the language and culture of non-Persian nationalities such as Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs, Arabs, Turkmans and others were subjected to eradication and annihilation.

In legal terms, Article 115 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic clearly stated that the president of the country should be a Shia Muslim (Man). This was a blatant discrimination against over twenty-two percent of the population who were either Sunny Muslims or non-Muslims--not to mention the over 50 percent female population along with a sizeable number of seculars. Other Articles in Penal and Civil Codes demonstrated sharp inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims in areas of criminality, inheritance, citizenship, divorce, schooling, employment and so on (see for example Articles 12, 88, 121, 147, 207, and 494 of the Penal Code).

By and large, suffice it to say that under the Islamic rule, racism and xenophobia continued to flourish in Iran, just as it had been under the previous Pahlavi regime.

Johnstevens5