Jump to content

Talk:Azerbaijanis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.68.163.64 (talk) at 20:01, 20 June 2011 (→LIES: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAzerbaijanis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2004.


Genetic studies

Exceprt from Russian Journal of Genetics was intentionally misquoted to include "and Iranis" in part about genetic affinity of Talysh people. Reference link is also vandalized to point to anti-Azerbaijani site, here is the correct link to article: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/ruge/2003/00000039/00000011/00479088 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.163.242 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics section!

Please remove this section completely or fix all the nonsense stated here! The section in its current version is derogatory of Azeri people and claims that Azeris of Iran are somehow genetically different to Azeris in Caucasus! References provided to support that [76], [78] don't make such claims. In fact reference [76] implies quite contrary. And reference [78] redirects to page in persian.

Section also makes insulting claims about Azeris being "mixed population" of Europeans, Iranians, Caucasians etc. Firstly, all modern populations are mixed! But I can't see statement line this in Iranian people or German people pages! Secondly, Europeans, Iranians and others mentioned here are not genetically homogeneous people, again as per respective pages, are much more "mixed" than Azeris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.6.175 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of the NovaSkola

As in other ethnic groups , the info box needs a mosaic.PNG file . With current images , the fitness of the images have problems . Please see the same images in French people mosaic image and German people.
Besides , please don't forget to include Iranian Azeris such as Ahmad-Kasravi and Khamenyi and Shah ismail [File:Shah Ismail.JPG].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borders

Rewrote the part based on facts. There is no need for POV. Azerbaijan exists and its borders with Russia and present-day Iran were formulated in 1918. Kept the links to Gulistan and Turkmenchay. Atabəy (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it is easily verifiable. I hope for response from our Iranian folks here. Brandt 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gulistan and Turkmanchay treaties defined the borders between Iran and Russia at that time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The modern borders were established in 1918. I don't think we need to mention the old ones. Brandt 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The modern borders between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan were established in 1991. ADR and post-Soviet Azerbaijan republic inherrited the Russian empire's and Soviet Azerbaijan's territory of course. Something else is that in 1920 Iran ceded small piece of land to Turkey. This is the short borderline bewteen Turkey and Nakhchivean autonomous republic. Reza shah gave it to his friend Ataturk. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADR certainly had not inherited, Azerbaijan SSR yes. The first one was a democratic and independent country, recognized by several states, with its own flag and coat of arms, see the corresponding article. Everyone can compare the 1918 borders and the present ones to verify. The Azerbaijani borderline was formed in those times. Brandt 08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you talk to the Iranians in a more resppectful and less thugish ways. thanks. As for your answer: Yes about the territories you are right but not strictly about borders. The borders between nakhichevan autonomous republic and Turkey was the result of Iran giving away small territory to Turkey in Reza shah-Ataturk's time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Nakhichevan#War_and_revolution: "When the TDFR (Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic) was dissolved in May 1918, Nakhchivan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Zangezur... and Qazakh were heavily contested between the newly formed and short-lived states of the Democratic Republic of Armenia (DRA) and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR)". In any case the main borders are nearly the same as of ADR, I'll put it back if you don't mind. Brandt 07:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should then mention: Gulistan and Turkmancchay defined borders between Imperial russia and Iran, ADR inherited the Russian empire's (name provinces), Azerbaijan SSR inherited ADR, and post-Soviet Azerbaijan Republic inherited Azerbaijan SSR's territory. And here mention that territory was the same but the border with Turkey was established after Iran ceded territory to Turkey". Be precise. I think this formula also serves your interest.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you still believe that ADR inherited something? The fact that the territory was a part of former Russian Empire, does not mean it was a native Russian land. I've already clarified this issue few strings above. Brandt 08:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always you are thinking in racial ethnic terms. Politics is not necessarily in these terms. We are now dealing with political issues and it is mainly a legal issue. Of course the Russian empire had non-Russian subjects and territories, but this does not mean that those non-Russian territories were not part of Russia. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By 1918 Azerbaijan was already independent and recognized, instead you will not see the Azerbaijani borders in Russian Empire. So I see no problem to paraphrase the related sentence. Brandt 20:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that ADR was not independent. You can claim that Azerbaijan Republic's territory today is the same as that of ADR, as it is your aim in enhancing your position on the Karabakh issue. The borders between Iran and the Azerbaijan ADR/ ASSR was established after 1918, when Iran had to cede small part of its territory to Turkey (under force)in order to give Turkey a short borderline with Nakhchivan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my position of enhancing, I simply believe that ADR is a vital part of Azerbaijan's history. Certainly, the basic borders, the greater part of them were established under ADR - it is promptly verifiable. Brandt 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why don't you use territory instead borders?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14
55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop WP:POINT please. Brandt 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is irrelevant here. Your statement has factual inaccuracies. That's the case here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it even a problem here? And why do we need to mention Torkmanchai twice in the lead? Is it the most important thing about Azerbaijani people? It says:

Despite living on two sides of an international border since the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmenchay (1828), after which Iran lost its then northern territories to Russia, the Azeris form a single ethnic group.

But then a few lines below it says again:

Following the Russian-Persian Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, Persian territories in the Caucasus were ceded to the Russian Empire and the treaties of Gulistan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828 finalized the borders with Russia and present-day Iran. The formation of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 established the primary modern borders with Russia and Persia, now Iran.

I think we should remove the second statement, as repetitive, and find a better wording for the first one. There's no need to go into detail about the treaties, as we have a history section, which describes all the major developments. The lead must contain only the brief introduction about who Azerbaijani people are. Grandmaster 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that Brandmeister insists that the borders between Iran and ADR was made in 1918. In fact it was after Iran had to ceded territory to Turkey (under coercion) to give Turkey a short borderline to Nakhchivan. This is an important fact in the history, without it Turkey could not have spoilt the politics in the republic of Azerbaijan against the Iranian interests. I told Brandmeister that he can use that ADR territory was determined then. Then it is up to Armenians, Georgians and Dagestani to deal with it, but it is wrong that the borders were determined in 1918. Moreover there was strong support for reunification with Iran in the early days of ADR! And particularly in Nakhchivan even thereafter during the peace process after the world war I. I know that brandmeister hates this and anything related to Iran as he wants to be Yurupiyan, but these are the facts.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a compromissed placement so far. If Babak wants to mention Iran and Russia in the lead of Azerbaijani people, then Azerbaijan Democratic Republic should naturally be there as well. Brandt 09:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babakxorramdin the fact that you refer to Turkey turning the Azeris against Iran shows how misinformed you are. I think you should read the history of this region before making unverified claims. I agree with Grandmaster the introduction is convoluted and should be describing who the Azeris are rather than focussing on the border changes in the 19th and 20th centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.235.132 (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Republic population

According to the given source, the CIA world factbook, the population of Azerbaijan is 8,238,672 per July 2009, also source 6 doesnt seem to work anymore. I changed the population number according to this. Baku87 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source [6] is Azerbaijan Statistical Office, www.azstat.org, which is often inaccessible on weekends. We should try their home site again on a week day, and then look for the update in Azerbaijan in Figures 2008 (instead of the original 2006 reference, which is now probably defunct). --Zlerman (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of girl from Khachmaz

I just added a photo I took of a girl in Khachmaz under Azeris in Azerbaijan. RetlawSnellac (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijanian people are not turkified iranians or caucasians

First of all this disccussion about "turkification" process of Azerbaijan is largeley based on speculation since there are really no documents that could explain how people of Azerbaijan changed their language from a dialect of persian to oguz turkic tongue so fast. There is no proof of any mass migration that occured in 900-1100s or later except the rule of Seljuks. But Seljuks ruled over whole Iran and even part of Iraq, and still they didn't leave much turkic-speakers in these parts, except some migrant turkic tribes that settled in Iran and northern Iraq, even today are minority. Settlement of turkic-speaking soldiers of Seljuks and later Ilkhanides also can't explain turkification because migrant turks should have been assimilated by local peoples, since 40.000 army of cumans who migrated to Georgia did not assimilate a single village but were assimilated among georgians, the same story is with mongol army in Afghanistan and kalmyk-oirat invaders in Kazakhstan. Cultural and anthropological factors do not directly connect Azeri people with Turkmens, except by language. And the most reasonable factor here is the anthropology of azerbaijanians. Indeed many southern and lowland azeris mostly look the same way as many modern persians do, however mountain azerbaijanis still possess native turkic caucasoid or dinaric types of face, a bit mixed with caucasian type. If turkic-speakers were not native to the region then azeri folklore would mention migration westwards from Turkestan, in the same fashion as Yakut folklore tells about migration from south-west to the evenkian tundra after wars with mongols and manchurians. Or Balochi people's folk poetry which tells about their probable origins in the Alborz range among kurds or another theory that they are descendants of Qurayshi arabs who were exiled from Aleppo. Azeri people's lack of asian mongoloid genes can't be used as a claim of their non-turkic origins since turkic-speaking peoples are not mongoloid by nature, all mongoloid genetical elemenets in different turkic peoples are alien to them because caucasoid elements' frequency is still higher. The best example of that are iranian Hazara people, who are not directly related to any turkic-speaking peoples and whose origins are iranian, but mixed up with mongolic newcomers in 1200-1400s, this however didn't assimilate ethnic iranian hazaras into mongolian-speakers. Indeed modern Azerbaijani people are descendants of Caucasian Albanians. But their language is shrouded in mystery, and the claims that Caucasian Albanians were lezghian-speaking people are not based on any real sources but are matter of sheer speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.112.78 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this user. The turkification stated here in this article is fake. Amir.azeri (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Azerbaijani from Iran i have to mention to some problems in this article, we are not turkified there is no document of this turkfication, this is just for people who like Persian people, we don't call ourselves Azeri, we call ourselves Turks[ name of our land is Azerbaijan], and our language Turku (Turkish),tell the world we can't read and study in our language( we have to study Persian), tell the world we have got problems with Persian people, PLZ tell the world persion people have a racism on us, just because they are Persian and we are Turks, don't deny our population we are even more than 20 million in Iran, if this is a site of reality don't tell lies tell the truth ! snake.co1 —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I am just stunned by how stupid you guys are. Azeri people are local people who were Turkicized by the 13-15th century with no doubt. ofcourse there are no documentation to describe this process, do you think we could find the so called documentation to prove the Arabization in Syria and Iraq? and Turkicization in modern day Turkey? the Turkic people originated from the Mongolian plateau and moved westwards after major defeat by the Chinese. read some history please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.185.91 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly please refrain from personal attacks it is uncalled for. Secondly the Turks or the modern day Azeris came first to the Iran with the conquest of the Seljuqs in 1037 by Tugrul Bey. This is quite contaray to your claim of 13-15th century. You say the local population was tukofied, well I can say the exact same thing. The local population of Iran were not Persian but were greekofied by the greeks. Yea... not very appealing is it, this is as ridiculas as your claim. Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with an account remove this OR

In many respects, Azeris are Eurasian and bi-cultural, as northern Azeris have absorbed Russo-Soviet and Eastern European influences, whereas the Azeris of the south have remained within the Turko-Iranian and Persianate tradition. Modern Azeri culture includes significant achievements in literature, art, music, and film.

I don't know what in the heck that is supposed to mean, from my experience in Azerbaijan, Azeris from the north and the south are just "Azeris". "Turko-Iranian" is what Iranians call Azeris; it's not the other way around!! Can someone please remove this paragraph? 174.18.11.130 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in my experience as an Iranian Azeri , that is true ! In Wikipedia , we use facts , and not experiences .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are just reinforcing my own point! The paragraph is unsourced, and should thus be removed, so please remove the paragraph.174.18.11.130 (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this paragraph should be removed too. Amir.azeri (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RV

I have reverted recent edits that seemed like POV to me, and restored the last (IMO) stable version from 10:03, 27 September 2009 by User:Neftchi. Please discuss any further edits. Tajik (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern population of Azerbaijan

The current statistics seem rather outdated, here is the UN based report on the 2008 population of Azerbaijani Republic, which is 8,832,000. The statistics should be updated based on the UN report and this should be reflected in the article. Neftchi (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the word Azerbaijani is incorrect

Our Country is called Azerbaijan. Please Wikipedia, change the name of the page to People of Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan people. We, Azerbaijan people do not like to be called Azerbaijanian, Azeris, Azerbaijanis, Azers or other names that various foreign people call us without prompting for a correct way. The Republic of Azerbaijan is never to be the Azerbaijani Republic, if it was - then i wouldn't be writting here. I mean it doesn't sound awful or disrespectful, it's simply incorrect. There is a page "Azerbaijani language" too which needs to be changed to Azerbaijan Language. That's all, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fərman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia . Nice to meet you ! Please do not consider the that term as "disrespectful" . Any used word in this encyclopedia is selected by considering the popularity and not the correctness of that word . Thanks --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the main content of this part. But your resoning is surely wron. Amir.azeri (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

The parts regarding turkification , origin, Iranian origin and genetics should be seriously and neutrally reviewed. I think these parts are dominated mainly by ethnocentric pan Iranic writers. Amir.azeri (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) You can't dispute something that you do not like. Also you cannot commit original research and debates in wikipedia see WP:OR. All you can do is bring valid Western peer reviewed and modern academic sources (written by well known and established scholars) that contradict the position of the article and provide it as an alternative position. As per your false claim that the sources are ethnocentric (which only shows that your sources are), see these sources:[reply]

Tadeusz Swietochowski (Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community, Cambridge University Press, 1985 ) "Azerbaijan maintained its national character after its conquest by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century a.d. and its subsequent conversion to Islam. At this time it became a province in the early Muslim empire. Only in the 11th century, when Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty entered the country, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant number of Turkic inhabitants. The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azeri language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia"

The line " The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia " does not appear in original text.[1]. Amir.azeri (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you did a close enough search he has mentioned that line in other articles and books. Here is the actual source:(Azerbaijan:Historical Background Vol. 3, Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 02-28-1996) And also mentioned by the same author (Tadeusz Swietochowski) here is mentioned[2]
Dear friend, Please take more care when referencing instead of expecting the reader to search for every sentence you write.Nevertheless the book you first mentioned is closely related to Azerbaijan under soviate occupation. It just has a single paragraph on the introduction section stating the paragraphs you reference. It does not specialize on the issue of ancient history!Amir.azeri (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote existed so there is no issue. Neither does Asgharzadeh specialize in ancient history. So please use your own criterion. I will quote some specialists below for you and show you they state what is the concensus.


Vladimir Minorsky: "The original sedentary population of Azarbayjan consisted of a mass of peasants and at the time of the Arab conquest was compromised under the semi-contemptuous term of Uluj ("non-Arab")-somewhat similar to the raya (*ri’aya) of the Ottoman empire. The only arms of this peaceful rustic population were slings, see Tabari, II, 1379-89. They spoke a number of dialects (Adhari(Azari), Talishi) of which even now there remains some islets surviving amidst the Turkish speaking population. It was this basic population on which Babak leaned in his revolt against the caliphate." (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian history, Cambridge University Press, 1957, pg 112) Vladimir Minorsky. See also Encyclopedia Britannica under Azerbaijani people. There is a good Russian book as well: (“History of the East” (“Transcaucasia in XI-XV centuries” in Rostislav Borisovich Rybakov (editor), History of the East. 6 volumes. v. 2. “East during the Middle Ages: Chapter V., 2002. – ISBN 5-02-017711-3. http://gumilevica.kulichki.com/HE2/he2510.htm ) I would serisouly read WP:FORUM,WP:OR and WP:RS if I were you. Turkicization of the population of Azerbaijan and Caucasus is a well sourced WP:RS fact. Since you are a new user, you do not know that you can't use dispute tag if you don't like an idea (here a well known historical fact). You need to use it only when you have other valid academic academic sources that dispute what is in the article and those sources have the same WP:weight and are not WP:fringe. So again dispute tag is only for something that does not have multiple WP:RS references, not for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Read these guidelines so you become familiar with wikipedia as the argument you brought above belongs to a forum WP:forum and WP:soapbox. Since you are a new user, I took time to make you familiar with policy but just throwing dispute tags and justifying it with WP:soapbox comments can warrant administration action. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the POV sign back because it would look like an act of vandalism. Here I give you my answer and I will ask an admin to read this talk page and put it back for me. Fortunately the article by M.Ashrafian is available online and free of charge through the publisher, Nature,[3]. I read it twice fully. It only concerns recent history of migration and its effect of human DNA parameters. Nowhere in that article, the author claims anything on historical points. One notes when reading that article, If the population structure in the country was closely related the research and sampling and the results would be wrong (read the introduction carefully)! This point made me sure the wikipedia article has been written with with an eye ( or maybe many!!!) on ethnic benefits. I will be reading the rest of your references in a short time if get them at reach.I took the time to read the link to Britannica ,(you do too if you have time!)[4]. There it mentions both turkification and persification with merely a century or two time distance which should have been noted in article if you see Britannica as a valid source![. Too, I will reread my own references and mention them here.
The last lines of your last paragraph seem to be threatening me with an administrator action due to my being new. I should tell you I am doing every thing here without any benefit and as far as I can without any violations of Wikipedia's rules, as far as I know them. Further reading of above sections and comments from other viewers would be supporting my action of dispute, had you taken a look at.
Finally, I have a word for those seeing Wikipedia as fortune to change some facts , Surely your attempts won’t yield defraud World. Amir.azeri (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Amir , please also read this section : Elite dominance language replacement hypothesis of Turkish people

.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even there , I didn't find anything certain. The article mainly reports some unproved theories about Anatolian Turks. Take a look at the talk page there,too. Amir.azeri (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


To Amir. It doesn't matter if 500 people in the talkpage dispute something or have a different opinion. So you are wrong when you say: "comments from other viewers would be supporting my action of dispute". That is not how things work. What they need according to wikipedia rules is WP:RS sources. Personal opinions does not justify tags. So when you say "Turkification is fake"(and say 20 million people say it also), then you need academic WP:RS sources stating that it is fake (and by sources I mean real Western academic sources not local nationalistic sources). For example: Olivier Roy. “The new Central Asia”, I.B. Tauris, 2007. Pp 7: "The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name “Turkmen” for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they “Turkised” the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."

So if you have comparable Western academic sources (that are modern) which has a totally different take on history (and are academic and published in peer review journals and by well known publishers and are not WP:fringe), then bring it.

As per Persification/Iranicization (since say the Medes) that does not relate to this article necessarily, since what is relevant is that the Persophone/Iranophone population became Turkicized and the synthesis created the modern Azeris. The Iranicization/Persification of the Iranian plateau is relevant to an article that discusses Persians. Also the timeframe between the Seljuqs and Sassanids is not one or two centuries. It is 800 years (the advent of Sassanids around 220 A.D. and the Seljuqs coming to the area around 1070 A.D.). Before that, the Parthians, Achaemenids, Medes also contributed to the Iranicization.

I do not agree with this. You are claiming to be mentioning the history of a nation but removing a part of its history and anounncing them to be persians turkified!. The word Iranicization dose not exist. What do you mean by that? Amir.azeri (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree or disagree with what? Where did I do an announcment? And where does the article say "Azeris are Persians who are Turkified"?(if the article has the exact same sentence let me know, but you cannot go against WP:RS sources). We can only quote WP:RS sources here. If some WP:RS sources say a portion of Azeris are Turkified Iranians..then you cannot remove it. Removing it would also constitute WP:vandalism. The word Iranicized and Iranicization does exist [5] and [6]. The Iranicization of Iranian plateau and Caucasus are not related to this article in full details but they are mentioned under the ancient period (Scythians, Medes and etc.) section. You might have confused the history of the land with the history of the people. The formation of a unique Azerbaijani ethnicity comes from the 13th to 16th century, where-as the bulk of the people of such ethnicity are probably of indigineous Caucasian, Iranian and even pre-Caucasian/pre-Iranian peoples. So that is why the Turkification period gets more attention as the formation of the Azerbaijani group would be a result of this phenomenon which started with the Seljuqs and culminated during the Safavid era. Other articles deal with the issue of early Iranian settlements in more in more details Iranian peoples, Nozhat al-majales, Arran and etc, although there is an ancient period section in this article.--Pahlavannariman (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the genetic section, if you believe that section is wrong, you should not put a whole dispute tag in the article. But simply on that section (and justifying by academic sources or sources that have a different opinion). As far as I know, there is no dispute about the closeness of the genetics of the Armenians and Azeris of the Caucasus. The same is true for other adaject neighbors. That is simply saying Azeri genetics or Persian genetics or Armenian genetics are closer to each other than say Yakuts in Siberia or Kirghyz in Central Asia, or Germans in Europe. However the Turkification section is not disputed academically but the genetics is a relatively new area and more samples will always help. Note I did find one other study which confirms the other study. See what it says [7]. "Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity." If you look at the figures "TI" represents Iranian Azerbaijanis. See for example Figure 1 and ..

However there is no reason to put a dispute tag for the whole article. You can just put an expert tag on the genetic section of this article . Since you are new, I would read WP:RS, WP:fringe, WP:weight, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLE, WP:ATTACK and specially WP:OR. Thanks.--Pahlavannariman (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when Amir says "I didn't find anything certain" , he may also read more about the scientific concept of theories and certainty . In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. That means Amir will never find a certain proved theory about the Turks . In modern science , there are always theories and no 100% statement (so-called proved theory) . All famous , applied and in use science are theories , like Theory of General relativity in physics . If Amir is expecting a proven theory from modern science , he will never find it ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Since I am a MSc. student in Photonics, working on my thesis , I do not have enough time to read all of you resources at the moment. The immediate answer I can give you is this book, Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles,[8]. I found other resources stating vice versa the story you told, But since I haven't read them I do not mention them here. I will have enough time in a week or a two to further improve my discussion. Amir.azeri (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Alborz Fallah, you would better read the text above and the book there. When you do so, You will find out I have taken an snippet view on the topic and there is nothing about Azeris. Secondly you should keep in mind that wikipedian pages cannot function as reference in wikipedian articles. Third, When I read the article by M.Ashrafian and found its content in direct contradiction to what was claimed in the article, I was depressed. So don’t expect me to believe whatever I see, I have to read and verify! Amir.azeri (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although that book is irrelevant to our topic and discussion , but the book itself is a piece of propaganda and person who wrote it (Asgharzadeh) has known radical political views and racialist tendencies . Such sources can't be used in Wikipedia due to WP:RS. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you attacked a book published by McMillan publishing and its author. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. The book is however related to our discussions. It generally overviews the history and references about history of Azerbaijan and influence of persian racism in it. However the idea is not ristricted to this book. Soon I will mention other books here for your kind attacks and violation of wikipedia rules! Amir.azeri (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section that I show , only give you a overview of whole concept and Dr Ashrafian's article did not said direct sentence about origin of any people in any region . "Elite dominance language replacement hypothesis" is not a theory only about the Middle east or Anatolia or Iranian Azerbaijan , but that is a general theory in linguistics and history . If we simplify the Dr Ashrafian's research (and other researches of the article ) , the whole concept is that the modern population in the region is descendant of the ancient population of that region (a mixed one ) . It has nothing to do with Aryan , Indo-European and Central Asian (Turko-Mongol) immigration : that is only about the relationship and bandage among neighboring populations .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for you to put up your theories. You are just allowed to give references which make statements on behalf of your idea. You are not allowed to conclude anything. I think You yourself too, admit that the section about genetics should be removed. Isn't it? Amir.azeri (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alborz explained it. Amir, you are wasting time if you think you can quote a loony like Asgharzadeh and go against experts in the region and waste the time of users.[9]. The publisher itself is not sufficient, the books must be written by historians. Asgharzadeh quotes the likes of Pourpirar and Zehtabi (who believed the Medes and Sumerians were Turks) and is just a political rant. It starts manipulating statistics and goes on to manipulate history. Swietchowski is at least a modern historian (since you brought specialty) and a full professor. Asgharzadeh is simply a lecturer (paid to teach courses on sociology). Here are some other nonsense from Asgharzadeh. Now note his article here:[10]

“In The Ancient History of Iranian Turks, Professor M.T. Zehtabi traced the origin of current Azeris to ancient Sumerian and Ilamite civilizations, dating back over 5,000 years.”

Pure nonsense and Turkish nationalism. These are the sort fringe views that have no place in Wikipedia. It is not only us Iranians (me and Alborz) who oppose this nonsense but generally non-Turkish editors will make sure such nonsense is not inserted.

You can't accuse me of ethnocentrism just because I am presenting an idea against yours. This is the way persian fascism takes always against any one against.Amir.azeri (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, using the term "Persian fascism" shows that you are ethnocentric. Since none of the authors I brought were either "Persians" or "Fascist". I accused whoever calls ancient Elamite/Sumerian civilization as Turkish as "nationalism" not even fascism. Such theories have no place in wikipedia. You can present your ideas in a forum, but since you constantly use the term "ethno-centrism", "Fascism", etc.. then you could be associated yourself with such terms. By wikipedia, I can accuse an idea but I can't accuse a person.

Asgharzadeh:"Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.”

Not a single work in the Azeri Turkish (for Asgharzadeh Azeri=turkish) language is from this era! Shirvanshah were not actually Turkish speaking. They were a mixture of Iranic and Arabic people and were thoroughly Persianized by the 11th/12th century.( Barthold, W., C.E. Bosworth "Shirwan Shah, Sharwan Shah. "Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2nd edition). Indeed the Shirvanshah proudly claimed descent from Sassanids. So where is the example of "Azeri Turkish" literature from the 12th century Shirvanshah?

See this [11] although it persents an idea close to persian ethnocentrics but there he calls it Azerbaijani turks. Amir.azeri (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop WP:soapbox. Stop using terms like "Persian ethnocentrists" specially for scholars whom you disagree with. You will get a warning from admins and subsequent use will get you banned as Wikipedia is not a place for WP:soapbox. Learn how to engange in proper discussion. If you can't present a proper argument, then it is best not to engange in wikipedia. As per the term "Azerbaijani Turks", this term is also used in the article. But the Turkicization of Azerbaijan is mentioned by the same author (page 7) ("These events do not refer to settlment by Turks. Complete Turkicization of Eastern Caucasia can be dated to the arrival of the Seljuqs in the 11th century and more fully consolidated with Turkish migration during the 13th century mongol eruption"(pg 7). However more correct is that Shirvan under the the rule of Shirvanshah was not Turkicized completely even after the Mongols and this is mentioned by more detail sources. The author you mentioned gives an overview of some local nationalist scholars (which is not a concern of wikipedia and sovient sources..which is again not a concern of wikipedia). But it is well known that Shirvanshahs were not Azerbaijani Turks (neither does that author make such a claim). Also the author of the book you quote is not a well known historian of the antiquity and is just quoting Soviet and local sources (which do not have the same weight as Western academic sources). Once there is a concensus and general agreement (as the sources I brought shows), then any other idea must have strong following. Minorsky, Bosworth, Golden, Perry and many others are full professors and well known scholars. All you have presented thus far is a local nationalist (fascist) lecturer which has no weight relative to Full Professors and giant orientalists like Minorsky, Frye, Planhol, Perry and Bosworth.
the very first paragraph of the text dede qurqud is " We begin with the name of the Creator and implore his help. Years before the time of the Prophet [Muhammad], there appeared in the Bayat tribe a man by the name of Qorqud Ata. He was the wise man of the Oghuz people. He used to prophesize and bring reports from the unknown world beyond, having been divinely inspired " Geoffrey Lewis (ed.), The Book of Dede Korkut (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974). How do you then claim the book is written in 16th century?Amir.azeri (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know the difference between myth and history. Also the different between oral folklore and written literature. No doubt the Turkish nomads of the 11th/12th century had an oral folklore, but a written literature is not proven (in the Caucasus). By your assumption, we must also take all Greek and Roman myths seriously because they are in some book? Or all the folklores, legends and myths of the world seriously? Again, the book you mentioned was put in written form in the 15th/16h century. It has a good amount of Arabic and Persian vocabulary and it talks about "Istanbul" (which was not called Istanbul until Muslims took it over from the Byzantines in the 15th century). And it sure wasn't written in the court of the Persianized Shirvanshah in the 10th/11th century! Look here: [12]. It has nothing to do with Shirvanshahs. Also if you are writing a message, write it after my message. Not in between so readers get confused. And please stop labels and forum labels that do not help the discussion. The Turkicization of Azerbaijan from the Seljuqs to Safavids has nothing to do with any sort of "fascism", "ethno-centrism" and etc. It is a well established historical fact and a concensus of scholars and there is absolutely no room for any other theories or ideas which claims that Medes, Caucasian Albanians, Sumerians, Elamites and etc. had any linguistic relationships with Turkish languages. Wikipedia is not concerned about how facts are used, but simply it must state the scholarly agreed upon facts. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Asgharzadeh: "Aside from Dede Qorqut Kitabi, there are other common Turkic works, such as Diwan Lughat at-Turk written by Mahmud of Kashghar in 1072-73 and Qutadghu Bilig written by Yusuf Khas Hajeb in 1077, that bear witness to the early literary works in the Azerbaijani language."

Actually that is incorrect. Modern scholars put Dede Qorqut around 14th-16th century. And the works of Uighyurs like Mahmud Kashgari and Qudaghdu Bilig are in Eastern Turkic and have nothing to do with Azerbaijani language. It is like claiming English and German to have the same literature due to their anglo-saxon roots or that the Zoroastrian Iranian language and book Avesta is modern Persian literature.

So as you can see, the guy you are quoting is WP:fringe, WP:UNDO and wikipedia will not quote this nonsense.

Now here are some real scholars.

Professor Peter Golden has written one the most comprehensive book on Turkic people called An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz, 1992). pg 386:

John Perry:

(John Perry. Iran & the Caucasus, Vol. 5, (2001), pp. 193-200. THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF TURKISH IN RELATION TO PERSIAN OF IRAN)

According to C.E. Bosworth

(C.E. Bsowrth, Arran in Encyclopedia Iranica)


According to Fridrik Thordarson:

(Fridrick Thordarson, “Caucasus and Iran” in Encyclopedia Iranica)

According to W.B. Henning:

(The Ancient Language of Azerbaijan,” TPS, 1954-55.)

There are now clear sources which show the language of the Muslim populations of Caucasus (Arran, Sherwan) and Azerbaijan were Iranian. See Safina-yi Tabriz, Old Azari language and Nozhat al-Majales

Now here is a nice general rule: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim."

So there is a concensus and general agreement here as mentioned by Hennning and Thoradson. Now your view would simply be put in WP:fringe and WP:undo, since there is a general agreement by scholars (as mentioned through secondary sources). So the fringe view and any view opposing the Turkicization of Iranian speaking lands cannot be put in the article. It is simply WP:fringe. It is a violation of Wikipedia rules and the sources you brought is not even written by a historian. You should read these rules to understand that when scholars have a general agreement on something, then you cannot quote fringe views about Turks predating Iranians or other peoples in the region.

So when there is a general agreement, there is absolutely no need to bring WP:fringe views. These are well known Professors of history. As for what you term "Persian racism"(none of these Professors are Persians first of all) that is off-topic and one can state that "Tukish racism" which wiped out the native Persians(most of the Mongol tribes were of Turkic origin) from Azerbaijan, Arran/Sherwan and good part of Central Asia. But that off topic, since none of the real scholars mentioned here is a racist and none of them are from the region to make such an accusation.

Please note again WP:forum and WP:soapbox. Wikipedia works by weight WP:weight and when there is a general agreement on a matter by well known scholars and historians, you are simply violating wikipedia rules by trying to insert fringe opinions. If there are statements from scholars that there is a concensus and agreement that the language of Azerbaijan was Iranian speaking (see Iranian languages if you are unfamiliar with the term) before the advent of Turks, then any other idea is surely WP:fringe and will not be inserted in the main article. Scholars like Minorsky, Frye, Planhol (Geographical historian who has studied nomadism in details), Golden, Bosworth, Perry and etc. are well known Professors with many publications in history and languages. If you have a problem with this, take it to the fringe noticeboard and claim that the Medes, Manneans, Sumerians, Elamites, Parthians and etc. were Turks (like Zehtabi whom Asgharzadeh quotes claims all these and more were Turks including Gutians, Lulubis, Kassites, Caspians) are and it is "Persian racism" to claim they were not! Here is the noticeboard [[13]]. If they accept your sources that Turks pre-date Iranians in the region (like Mr. Asgharzadeh claims), then I will too. Make sure to say "Persian racism is denying these facts that Medes were Turks" as well. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir says :"Wikipedia is not a place for you to put up your theories" . My theory ? where is my theory ? I wrote a simple summery for you to get the idea , in the talk page - and not in the article itself - and you name it putting up my theory ? Please show me where did I put my theory in the article !!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by simplify then ? Isn't it you trying to show your idea as if its stated there? Afsharians aricle only and only is concerned with the effect of migration on recent ,merely with in three generations, population's genitic structure and there is stated that the diversity of population genitics in iran helps the study resualt to be true . I think you havn't studied it. Amir.azeri (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article in wikipedia refers to an interview with Dr. Ashrafiyan where he states the MtDNA of the people of Iranian Plateau goes back to 10500 [14] and several other points. If you have some reports contradicting this report, then please bring it (since genetics still a science in its infancy). However the concept of "elite dominance" is not madeup by Alborz. Here is another article that supports his claim. [15] " Thus, all of the genetic evidence agrees that the Armenian and Azerbaijanian languages reflect language replacements, which occurred without any detectable genetic contribution of the original Indo-European and Turkic groups, respectively. This may still reflect an “elite dominance” scenario, a presumably the original Indo-European/Turkic migrant groups were very small and/or did not mix exensively with the resident groups. In any event, the migrant groups had a negligible genetic impact on the resident groups.". ([16]).

Note, all Dr. Bonab is stating is the same for the Iranian plateau [17]. Here is another assessment that agrees with him: [18] "Indeed, the different Iranian populations show a striking degree of homogeneity. This is revealed not only by the nonsignificant FST values and the PC plot (fig. 6) but also by the SAMOVA results, in which a significant genetic barrier separates populations west of Pakistan from those east and north of the Indus Valley (results not shown). These observations suggest either a common origin of modern Iranian populations and/or extensive levels of gene flow amongst them."

And also: “Another important replacement occurred in Turkey at the end of the eleventh century, when Turks began attacking the Byzantine Empire. They finally conqured Constantinopole (modern Istanbul) in 1453. The replacement of Greek with Turkish was especially significant because this language belongs to a different family—Altaic. Again the genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers and even if they sometimes traveled with their families, the invading populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had along civilization and history of economic development. After many generations of protection by the Roman Empire, however, the old settles had become complacent and lost their ability to resit the dangerous invaders”(Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza , in “Genes, People and Languages”, 2000, pg 152). Maybe Alborz can rewrite that section based on this [[19]] since fundamentally it states the same thing as the interview with Dr. Bonab [20]--Pahlavannariman (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir , "simplify" means In this place (talk page ) - that is not the main article - I'm showing you a perspective of the whole image . Bonab's article has only a little part in it all , and the whole theory is saying the neighbors have genetic ties , and language and recent immigration are not the main determinant . Is it Pan-Iranistic ?! (See also [21] , Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) and Y-chromosome of Iran )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the writer of the genetic section tries to use a very well respected journals article to defraud the readers is very well reflected in the article. Not even a word is there in afsharians paper regarding genitic homogenity or the theory of lingual replacement. Dear alborz where dose afsharian in his nature article say such a thing "neighbors have genetic ties , and language and recent immigration are not the main determinant "? The Voa persians report is not a valid resource for citation in wikipedia. The part of "People and Languages" as cited has nothing to do with our discussion. There is not any thing regarding any genetic structure in turky. The last paper you cited alone dose not qualify to proof the genetics section. It is merely a single recent article. A wikipedian page is not a valid source for discussion, as you know.Amir.azeri (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, Amir pleas go back to learn some history. I am a Chinese and our nation has dealt with Turks for centuries. The Turks appeared on Mongolian plateau around 4th century, then Turks defeated other nomad groups and unified the Plateau at the 5th century. Tang dynasty defeated the east Turks in 6th AD and west Turks in 7th century. Turks built two Khanate, the east and the west, as I said they were both defeated by Chinese empire, after that, central asia was captured by the Arabs. Now how come the Turks, who is originated in south Siberian also became an ancient population of Caucasus??? And our books clearly said the Turks right that time had "mongoloid" appearance, now look at the Azeri people, do they have this "Mongoloid" physical appearance? If not, where were that appearance come from?? I doubt you can understand the books written by the ancient Chinese historian. And others already gave you enough brilliant books, read the books above and stop lying to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Azerbaijani" girl

This picture must be used only in the article of Azerbaijan. The term of Azerbaijani means both a ethnic group named Azeris (Azerbaijani Turks) and citizens of Republic of Azerbaijan.In this article is ralated Azeris not citizens of Azerbaijan. Our fiends of Azerbaijani Turks said that she must be Lezgin and its impossible to be Turk. Now nobody can prove that she is Turk or not, Lezgi or not. In wikipedia (of course in other encyclopedias) Wikipedia:Verifiability is very important. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long discussion about this photo in Commons, I fail to understand why you keep making this an issue. The author of the photo added it in this article himself. Now I believe he knows about it more than you or me. Arguments like "A friend of a friend said that she may be Panamanian..." are ridiculous. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijani has two meaning. Nobody prove it. Wikipedia:Verifiability is very important. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also mistook and added this picture to the article Azeriler of the Turkish language Wikipedia. But a friend of mine who is Azeri Turk of Azerbaijan said that she isn't Turk and must be Lezgian people. Turkish/English I said OK and remove this picture and added to the article of Lezgiler. I wanted to comfirm it and asked to other Azeri friends. They also said that she isn't Turk. And after some user claimed that its impossible to prove her Lezginess. I asked to Azeri friend again. In conclusion we cannot prove the ethnic group she belongs to. We can use this picture in article of Azerbaijan. Because of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Takabeg (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but friend's opinion is not a serious argument. The author of the picture says that she is Azeri. He knows better. It is not up to us to conduct our own research about who she is, or ask our friends' and relatives' opinion about that. We must rely on author's description. Grandmaster 18:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author is not Azerbaijani. I'm not Azerbaijani Turk. But many Azerbaijani Turks think her Lezgins. We cannot neglect their knowleges. If here were a forum or blog, maybe we can use this picture for the article of Azerbaijani Turk. But here is an encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short they can use the word of Azerbaijani to explain Azerbaijani Turk, Azerbaijani Lezgin, Azerbaijani Jewish, Azerbaijani Tat and so on. But this article is concerned with only Azerbaijani Turk. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "many people think" does not constitute an argument. Many people think that Elvis is still alive. Get real. Parishan (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Grandmaster . An encyclopaedia needs a source and not roumors. But if there is a doubt about the relevancy of a file, the issue can be discussed and the the author can be consulted. Unfortunatelly the author in this case, has been disabled to talk in en-Wikipedia and is silent in Commons. So we are unsure if this fair complexion girl is an Azerbaijani or Lezgian. Maybe it is best to change the caption of the file as A Girl in Khacmaz (either Lezgian or Azerbaijani). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is a need for that. It would be resorting to a rather baseless stereotype to assume that Azeris can only have darker complexion. Parishan (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, no need, this photo was uploaded without the permission of the true author, but by impersonating him. On the photo informations we see comments allegedly made by the author, which he did not make. It qualify for deletion. Ionidasz (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Parishan that someone saying something about something doesn't make it true but I also have to agree with Takabeg, Azerbaijani Turk or not, I'd like to see it being verifiable. The words of the author doesn't necessarily proves the argument. What is preventing me being an author of a picture of a Rabbi and saying that he is a Mormon? Regards. --Iggydarsa (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the words of the author..., after digging, I have found that RetlawSnellac on wikipedia was Neftchi, who was blocked for impersonating the real RetlawSnellac to upload his pictures. This any any pictures uploaded under the RetlawSnellac account should be then removed. Ionidasz (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzûlî

Is Fuzûlî Azerbaijani Turk ? There is no room for debate about his influence to Azerbaijani language and literature. But he belonged to the Bayat tribe (one of the Oguz tribes). Takabeg (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is. He wrote in Azerbaijani language, and is considered one of the greatest Azerbaijani poets. Grandmaster 13:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of Azerbaijanis in Iran

I want to mention to human rights of Azerbaijanis in Iran. Azerbaijanis in Iran are in a very bad situation, they even can't read and study in their own language, they should send their children too school which Persian language is taught there. they can't have their own economy and always important factories are built in Persian cities. there is racism in Iran, always Persian people insult Azerbaijanis with jokes,movies, and even in official newspapers such as Iran's newspaper caricature. Azerbaijanis want to at last study in their own language but Iran's government doesn't let. Iran's government has never given a reliable population of Azerbaijanis (haven't you thought why there is so much different reports of Azerbaijanis' population in Iran?) the migration of Kurdish people to west Azerbaijan state with the support of Iran's government has made west Azerbaijan state a Kurdish state, this state was first named as West Azerbaijan because there were only Azerbaijanis there, they also doesn't let Azerbaijanis too have a unique state of Azerbaijan ( included all part of where Azerbaijanis live). I wanted to tell that there is racism in Iran specially with Azerbaijanis. I think it is better to be a part for human rights of Azerbaijanis in Iran.

sorry for mistakes i am not so good in English --Snake co1 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.28.25 (talk) [reply]

its hard to know. but if i am not mistaken, then isn't the great ayatollah of Iran who is an Azeri? Compare with your neighbor Turkey with prohibition of Kurds into political life. I believe Persians are doing pretty well, I know you probably want to unite all the Azeri land together but its not very real consider the power of your two neighbors Russian and Persian. If you push too hard then that may hurt the group as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but do you not know that our Kurdish brothers in Turkey are in the AKP party which is the leading party in Turkey. They are in the ministries, they also have their own political party called BDP so please know before you write. Secondly there is a violation of human rights in Iran that should be discussed. I'll give you some sources:

Here is a source from Amnesty International (I am sure you know who they are): 

Iran: Continuing crackdown against peaceful critics

This makes it clear that peacefull activits are being detained by the iranian authorities for expressing their freedom of expression. Now please do try to discuss the reliabilty and the validity of this source.

"In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists." This indicates not only Azeri civil society and political activits are target of the Iranian regime but other ethnic minorities and religious groupings. [1]

Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this the report made by UNHCHR also supports the claims made by previous sources and I suggest you give it a read. It includes many statements which have not been answered in this article [2] Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The human rights groups are political pressure groups in nature . That means they magnify every report about every unrest in the world . They can improve the human rights , but they are not sources for judgment about a nation . The human right report about Turkey is always negative , but I'm sure the nation of Turkey is not judgable in this report . The worst thing is to use such reports as a weapon in political conflicts : that makes any improvement impossible . So neither Turkey is anti-Kurdish , nor Israeli nation anti Arabs and Iranians anti.... based on the human rights groups . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove that human rights groups are political by nature, prove that they are preasure groups. If not please do not make false claims. The last time I checked Amnesty International was a well recognised human rights watch dog as well as the UNHRC which is in its self connected to UN therefore follows no secret "agenda". Please, lets keep the consipracy theories away from this article and place them where they need to go. Wikipedia Conspiracy Theories. Going by your manner of thought I can say that all Scholars follow their own political agenda...Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri girl from Shusha

That's not what the original source claims..., and sources claims (including Britannica of the time), that the term Tatar was not only applied to refer to the Turkic speaking Muslim people. going directly from A to C is original research and should not be accepted. I am sure that there are other sources which are more acceptable. Ionidasz (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to remove a photo. The word 'Tatar' in the context of the South Caucasus referred to Azeris. See [22]. Parishan (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Turkic people were refered as Tatar, but it is also true that not only Turkic people were refered as Tatars (see Britanica of 1911 for example). Ionidasz (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said and as it is confirmed in the source provided, in the context of the South Caucasus, it was only used to refer to Azeris. Parishan (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is refering to South Caucasus also..., and the next time you add back an image which was added without the authors consent, including it's instruction, I will report you. It's not an independent investigation, check Neftchi and Retlawsnellac block log. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica talks about the Caucasus in general. It is true that some Turkic-speaking peoples of the North Caucasus, such as the Karachai and the Balkar, were referred to as Tatars. But the source I have provided mentions Transcaucasia/South Caucasus specifically. There was no other ethnic group in the South Caucasus that was referred to as Tatars. The image stays. As for the other one, since it is its copyright status that is in question, and not its factual accuracy, I will not comment until the issue is resolved. Parishan (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue

Ethnologue has updated its numbers. While previously claiming that Azeri is spoken by 23m people in Iran, it has reduced the number to (more realistic) 11m. That should also be updated in the article. Tajik (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

Can someone could please do collage of famous Azerbaijani people's photos? It's finally time to update our nation's picture over some random picture of girls--NovaSkola (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like 'random' pictures better, especially the current one, and not because I picked it myself, but because it contains an element of Azeri folk culture. As for the famous people, there have been huge debates on Wikipedia about who should be included and what the ratio of Azeris from various countries of origin should be. Parishan (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in question

In this changes : [23] , some invalid sources has been used . According to previous discussions, UNPO is not a reliable source , diplomaticobserver and other sites are news sites and not statistics sites, so I don't think the changes are acceptable . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say UNPO is not reliable can you please discuss why it is unreliable. Then we can go on from there.To add to this one of the sources that is referenced in the population data is from 1999. 1999 is 12 years ago please tell me how this source is even vaguely relevent to now.If you are going to say to give us an idea then the reader should be made aware on the date the sources estimated the population.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unpo has been discussed prevously in wikipedia and is seen ad unreliable.. check the wikipedia reliable sources archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.221 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's population and total population

Sources (in this article) show that total Azeri population in Iran is 16-25% of Iran's population. The country population is 75-77 million. So the correct max number is 18-19 million. 30 is incorrect.

Total population must calculated by countries data. So 22-29 or 22-30 million is better. Because it matches the other data (population in other countries). Zagroos (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe the figures that presented "30 million" are an exageration of the real population of Azeris. However we can still discuss the source that was presented to us which incited the editor to edit like wise. According to CIA world factbook the population of Iran as of 2011 is 77,891,220 of which 24-25% are of Azeri origins. This makes the population of Azeris range from 18,693,892 to 19,472,805. However in the article it under estimates this figure by 693,892 - 1,472,805. Therefore the article needs to be updated. As always this is only one source, feel free to present other sources. Thank you, regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before doing any edits

Please do not edit war as is happening at the moment. Present the information you wish to place on the discussion page first then we can reach a consensus then go from there. Edit waring is both counter-productive and damaging to the spirit of wikepedia. Please present reliable sources and we will discuss them.

Thank you. Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 Million is a nationalistic figure - not WP:RS

I notice some user [24] has in the past few weeks constantly changed the statistics, without discussion. There are RS sources that reject this number outright:

  • Azerbaijan since independence; "Estimates from sources close to the Iranian government tend to mention the number 15 million; nationalist Azerbaijani sources talk of close to 30 million, or even more. ...the figure 20 million often mentioned in the literature is likely no exaggeratgion"(Svante Cornell (2010), "Azerbaijan since independence", M.E. Sharpe, 2010). It should be noted Cornell is biased against Iran and is no way a pro-Iran source.

However, it should be noted that the library of congress (estimates 16% of the population) is not associated to the Iranian government.

  • Jacob M. Landau (1995), Indiana University Press, 1995. "Pan-Turkism: from irredentism to cooperation ", : "It has, however, a considerably longer frontier with Iran, on the other side of which live another 8-10 million Azeris, a fact which has nourished a vocal irredentist movement aimed at shaping a united Azerbayjan",
  • Library of Congress, Library of Congress – Federal Research Division. "Ethnic Groups and Languages of Iran". http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Iran.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-02. 16% estimated in 2009.
  • Kenneth Katzner, The Languages of the World, Routledge, Published 2002. Total population of Iran: (65 million) Persian: 40 million, Azeri (10 million), Luri (3 million), Kurdish (5 million) ..etc.[25].

Other conventional estimates:

  • CIA factbook: 25%
  • Tadsuez Swietchowski (against somewhat biased against Iran): "Swietochowski, Tadeusz; Collins, Brian C. (1999). Historical dictionary of Azerbaijan. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 0-8108-3550-9. pg 28: "15 million (1999)" ". (This 15 million in 1999 is the same as the CIA factbook figure).

Note also actual statistics done in Iran:

in Iran are either conducted or monitored by the Iranian government and other affiliated interest groups, and can be untrustworthy. By contrast, our poll—the third in a series over the past two years—was conducted by telephone inside Iran over May 11th to 20th, 2009, with 1,001 interviews proportionally distributed covering all 30 provinces of Iran, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent". Note this is statistics that with a 99% confidence level has a +/- 3.1% error. The Azerbaijani population is put at 21.6%, so the margin of error would 24.7% to 18.5%.

  • Mehrdad Izady [26] referts to Iranian census of 2001 as well and provides an estimate of 19%.
  • There is an Iranian census from 1986 that 82% of Iranians speak Persian and 86% of these speak only Persian. Of course this might include Iranians from other backgrounds that speak Persian[27][, but it makes the figure of not
  • Provincial statistics in Iran: [28]. The population of provinces that speak more than 95% Azerbaijani are East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan. Together they make 5.5 million people. If we add half of West Azerbaijan, this figure becomes 7 million. In Hamadan, the number of Azeri speakers per actual statistics done by the province is 30% (Azerbaijani) -70% (Persian, Laki/Luri/Kurdish) [29]. In Qazvin, there is also an Azerbaijani population but majority is not Azerbaijani (Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Peter McDonald, Meimanat Hosseini-Chavoshi, "The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction", Springer, 2009. pp 100-101: "The first category is 'Central' where the majority of people are Persian speaking ethnic Fars (provinces of Fars, Hamedan, Isfahan, Markazi, Qazvin, Qom, Semnan, Yazd and Tehran..." ). One can confirm by visiting the area themselves or look at the local state statistics: [30]. However, for the sake of the argument, lets exaggrate and put 2 million for Hamadan and Qazvin. That turns into 9 million. Let us exaggerate more, and put 3 million outside of Tehran from nowhereland and these area just mention, and this becomes 12 million. Finally lets exaggerate about Tehran and consider out of the 13.4 million, that 8 million are Azeris. This exaggerated value becomes 20 million based on provincial statistics [31].

However, in reality there is 7 million in Ardabil, Zanjan, East Azerbaijan and half of West Azerbaijan (the other half or more is Kurd): [[32]. The numbers in Hamadan and Qazvin are 30% and 20% respectively, and that of other provinces outside of Tehran is at most 1 million. This gives: 9.2 million (roundedup). Lets round this more up to 10 million. Finally, in Tehran, 98% of the population known Persian and 67% identify as Persian based on comprehensive statitics that has been done already: [33] [34]. Also most Azerbaijanis in Tehran speak Persian as it is the cities language, and have intermingled with Iranians of other areas. Outside of the 67% in Tehran, there are many Iraqi, Afghan refugees and Iranians from other provinces (Kurds, Baluchs, Lurs), but for the sake of the argument we will say 33% which is 4.4 million. So the total (again rounded up several times) is 14.4 million out of 70 million or around 20-21%, which also agrees with the actual statistics provided by survey from a US organization: [35] (has a 3% margin of error with 99% confidence).

  • So given this, the figure 30 million is a high exaggeration and as one source put it, it is a "nationalistic figure", and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Random websites that mention such a statistics are unreliable and per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions".

A note on out-dated statistics:

  • The newspaper article from 1922 is both outdated and non-RS (published in non-peerreview popular journal) and itself does not making claims on percentages. The author claims it is all a conjecture and a detailed study is needed. So not WP:RS.
  • Just as the following from 1890 would be outdated: "Persian question, by the Hon. George N. Curzon, 2 v. illus., plates, ports., maps (1 fold.) 23 cm., London, New York, Longmans, Green & co., 1892.). Based on the Russian scholar Zolatoraf who used official Iranian documents in 1888, the population of Iran was recorded as six million people, half of these were Persian, 1 million Turk/Tatar (the term Turk/Tatar was used for the speakers of Azeri-Turkish language), Lurs 780,000, Kurds 600,000, Arabs, 300,000, Turkmans 320,000." [36] (p 494).

So modern sources at least from 90s to 2000s should be used in the article and the figure of 30 million for 2010 is a non-RS "nationalistic figure", and needs several reliable scholars (Full professors doing research in the area (e.g. Abrahamian..) not lecturers in USA/Canada etc.) from serious academic backgrounds to make such a claim.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kasravi 1922 article

I already discussed the 1922 Kasravi article:[37] which is translated by Professor Evan Siegel. Via email (which can be forwared to wikimedia foundation) he states: ""Thanks for your interest in the article. I think you're right about the statistics. They're completely impressionistic. All indications are that writing in Azeri Turkish was fairly non-existent in Iran. It was developing in the Caucasus. I think it's significant that he never published this article in Persian. It shows that he kept his feelings about Azeri Turkish literature to himself among Iranians. And, as you said, he made a sharp change as a result of pan-Turkish provocations.".

Ebrahimi Amir and the other user who appeared after four months right after canvassing here: [38] who falsified numbers (Kasravi never mentions 30 million Azeris in modern Iran) [39], wants to make two points:

  • The first point is what is the Turkic component of Azerbaijanis and how much it is. Whatever it is, the Kasravi source from 1922 is out-dated as is Kasravi 1925 (with radically different opinions). Besides just putting a long copy & paste (copy right violation), one should also note that: a) The article is written in 1922 in a non-peer reviewed journal. 2) Kasravi makes significant changes in his thesis in his book on 1925 "Azari ya Zaban-e Baastaan Azarbaijan". c) Kasravi was a popular writer but had no academic position and some of his theories are accepted while others are rejected (his negative view on say Rumi, Hafez, Sa'adi or religion and etc.). The only place that the 1922 article belongs to is really in the article about Ahmad Kasravi. Kasravi overall is a controversial figure, but the theories that he brought that have been accepted with regards to scholarship (verified by modern scholars) of course deserve weight. It should be noted that despite popular belief, other authors such as Markwart, Mohandas-Abdullah and Abbas Eqbal Ashtiyani had all mentioned the old Azari or Fahlavi language before Kasravi. Kasravi simply elucidated the sources more, but in a travel by a certain Mohandas Abdullah in 1900, the author (Mohandas Abdullah States):"The old sources indicance the people of Azerbaijan spoke a language called Azari which appears to be from the Iranian branch", this is 25 years before Kasravi. Or Abbas Eqbal Ashtiyani with regards to editing the Divan Obayd Zakani which had quoted a Fahlavi poem from Homam Tabrizi, states;"This is the old language of Tabriz".. and Markward also states: "The old language of Azerbaijan was Fahlavi...". Note by Fahlavi, they mean Fahlaviyyat of the Islamic era where in Azerbaijan, it was also called "Azari" or Fahlavi-e-Azari. Now Kasravi in his "Azari or Old language of Azerbaijan"(written 3 years after the 1922 article and actually praised by orientalists in peer-review publications and academic press books while his 1922 was forgotten) has on page 18: "In the Safavid era, Turkish all the sudden became majority and the Old Azari died out" and on pgs 16-20, he constantly refers to change of language due to rulers being Turcophone Whatever his theories, all these issues have been studied in more detail since 1925 and Kasravi's 1922 article. So it has no point being here, and his 1922 article is obviously supplanted by his more peer-review book of 1925 ("Azari ya Zaban-e Baastaan Azarbaijan") (also available on the internet for free).
  • The other issue that the the two editors wanted to push (and they were constantly asked to enter discussion which they did not) wants to use is about Census. First Kasravi's article is from 1922 and he states: "It is difficult to decide these days whether there are more Turks than Persians. This can only be decided after a census is taken which distinguishes Turks from Persians, but the Iranian government has not to this day conducted such a census of its citizens or the population of its provinces, let alone distinguish Persian from Turk. ".[40]. This part was conviently left out: [41]. Secondly when estimating populations from early 20th century, we do not use a vague source which the author is unsure of. I would point out that Professor Ervand Abrahimian (2008) in his book has a rough estimate of a census of Iran's population in 1900: [42]. As the translator E. Siegel told me via email with regards to the statistics: "They're completely impressionistic.". But to put 30 million based on what Kasravi states in 1922 is simply a gross vandalism.
  • Overall, Kasravi is a very interesting person, however a translation of a 1922 article or even his book "Azari ya Zaban-e Baastaan Azerbaijan" can be discussed in his own article. He made some contributions to history but all of those have been improved or modified. There is no way they can be considered modern sources with the much new information and advancements since 1922 in the field of historiography. Specially, the 1922 article was not referenced as a serious. And again, unlike what some have claimed, people before Kasravi have mentioned "Fahlavi" or "Azari" Iranian languages being replaced by Turkish in Azerbaijan (e.g. Abbas Eqbal Ashtiyani, Markwart, Mohandas Abdullah etc.). His best contribution is probably Shahriyaraan-e Gomnaam which was pioneering work as well as the history of the constitutional revolution. But the 1922 article in a popular newspapers besides not being WP:RS is outdated and supplaned by Kasravi's 1925 book, which today is outdated due to 10x more information and books. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Thank you for explaining your revert. I've read the preface of the 1998 article and agree with removing that quote, or at least putting it into a better context. However there are two other paragraphs that are being removed.[43] Let me know if the removal of those paragraphs is justified in discussion above, and I will catch up before commenting again. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes you are correct, the other two paragraphs have nothing to do with the 1922 article.. Unfortunately the article was hit with a lot of vandalism and I tried to delete the very long quote, which then went over to other parts of the text. I have restore those two pagraphs that were unrelated to the discussion. Also the link for the article (the journal may be reliable but that specific article is a translation of a 1922 source for study of Kasravi and not meant to be the opinion about current historiography). Thanks.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-88

"The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages"

This quote features in the article however it is from the source: Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8)

This was written in 1894. Now according to Khodabandeh "The first point is what is the Turkic component of Azerbaijanis and how much it is. Whatever it is, the Kasravi source from 1922 is out-dated as is Kasravi 1925" which is obiviously true for a source which dates back 90 or so years, it is considered stale and has the chance of not matching with current data. However Al Mas'udi's source is from 1894 and thus is more stale than Mr Kasravis, this source can not be used to develop an opinion about the current state of matters. It therefore should be removed; after all we want consistency in our articles do we not? Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Kasravi, his article in 1922 was published in a non_RS popular newspaper and supplaned by his 1925 wortk. But please stop WP:OR. Al-Masu'di is 10th century (1000 years ago) source so it is primary source, not a secondary. It doesn't matter if the book of his was translated and published in 1894 just like Herodotus's book might be published 100 years ago. It is fine to quote primary sources from 10th century just as it is fine to quote Herodotus, Pliny or etc as long as secondary sources support such a quote or general statement as well. Wikipedia handles primary sources differently, and although caution is needed (should be checked if secondary sources make the same statement), it is generally fine to quote it. Not only Kasravi 1925 has mentioned the al-Masu'di quote, this quote but so have modern authors.

  • "Al-Mas'udi (d. 956) mentions Azari alongside Dari and Pahlavi" (Louise Marlow, "Iranian languages", Medieval Islamic Civilization: A-K, index , edited by. Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach, 2006.
  • "Āḏarī (Ar. al-āḏarīya) was the Iranian language of Azerbaijan before the spread of the Turkish language, commonly called Azeri, in the region...The next testimony is the statement by Masʿūdī (d. 345/956) which points to the original unity of the language of the Iranians and its later differentiation into separate languages, such as Fahlawī, Darī, and Āḏarī—obviously the most prominent Iranian dialects in his estimation (Tanbīh, p. 78). "(E. Yarshater, "Azerbaijan: The Iranian language of Azarbaijan", ("Azari, the Old Iranian Language of Azerbaijan", Encyclopædia Iranica, op. cit., Vol. III/2, 1987).
  • "Azarbaijan was the domain of Adhari, an important Iranian dialect which Masudi mentions together with Dari and Pahlavi."(Lazard, Gilbert 1975, "The Rise of the New Persian Language" in Frye, R. N., The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, pp. 595-632, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 599 )

So I hope you see the fundamental difference and also the quote was there when the article had FA status. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of primary sources are not encouraged in wikipedia and one as old as 1000 years is just stale as a source can get. An oppinion stated 1000 years ago has no value as it is in not context in match with todays knowlege not in this article any way. Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with it as secondary sources have confirmed. "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" [[44]]. Since we ave secondary sources to support the primary source, there is no issue about quoting the primary source, since these secondary sources are more reliable than Wikipedia itself (which is tertiary source). If there was no secondary sources supporting the primary source, then your argument might or might not be valid. But the secondary sources have confirmed and quoted this primary source, so there is no argument. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Azeris

According to Prof. Amikam Nachmani of The Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies who is in association with the political science department at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

"Between 33% and 40% of Iran are of Azeri origins; other estimations vary from 8million to 25 million" [3]

This new information should be added.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the post I made above that 30 million is a nationalistic figure with RS sources.
  • The person you are quoting is not a Professor but a lecturer (two very different positions).
  • On your quote, these are wild estimations, as it mentions 8 million, then 25 million and etc. I already brought sources that claim 30 million is the nationalistic figure, so such sources are actually exceptional claims. Your source shows that it has not done any studies and to put a figure between 8 million to 32 million based on one author, is an exceptional claim. Both 8 million and 32 million seems to be quoting fringe sources as these are not conventional.
  • Note Wikipedia policy: "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources" and "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources"[45].
  • The BESA center does not seem like an academic insitution and seems very biased towards seeking national interest of a country. So it is not an academic organization
  • One can also find for example on the google books: "Kurds, who constitute one-third of the population of Turkey..." [46] and "Mutlu, however, concluded that although the number of Kurds in the west had increased from one-fifth of their total population throughout Turkey in 1965 to one-third in 1990" [47] and "Kurdish people will make up 40 percent of the population in the year 2010...". Just because a google book exists, does not make it reliable for Encyclopaedia. In the numbers you brought, the RS sources mention it is a nationalist figure. Although they do not mention anything about the 8 million, but that seems low, because 8 million today would be the population of Azeri-speaking provinces and adjacent areas that speak Azeri (see my post above about nationalistic figures).
  • Given the fact that the author you mentioned has done no analysis, and the sentence (a single sentence and no depth) is not sourced (with any reference), I think such sources need to be examined in light of other sources. Basically, stronger sources like Swietchowski which specialized on the topic of modern Azerbaijanis is better than the source which is not about Iran.
  • Plus I brought sources clearly stating that the 30 million is a nationalist figure (33%) (see above). [48] (Azerbaijan since independence; "Estimates from sources close to the Iranian government tend to mention the number 15 million; nationalist Azerbaijani sources talk of close to 30 million, or even more. ...the figure 20 million often mentioned in the literature is likely no exaggeratgion"(Svante Cornell (2010), "Azerbaijan since independence", M.E. Sharpe, 2010). ) (This book is written by the way by anti-Iran biased person, but again more specialized on the topic as it has a half page discussion).
  • I also brought actual census work (not imaginary work) that has been done in the same link by US based organizations which should clearly make any off-set figure as an exceptional claim which would mean it requires a detail analysis rather than one sentence. The relative perctage of error would be +/-3.1% and even 5-6% is acceptable within the margin, but 15% or 20% is a statistical impossibility.
  • I would read the above post [49] carefully as I have broken down numbers based on provinces. Provincial statistics in Iran: [50]. The population of provinces that speak more than 95% Azerbaijani are East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan. Together they make 5.5 million people. If we add half of West Azerbaijan, this figure becomes 7 million. In Hamadan, the number of Azeri speakers per actual statistics done by the province is 30% (Azerbaijani) -70% (Persian, Laki/Luri/Kurdish) [51]. In Qazvin, there is also an Azerbaijani population but majority is not Azerbaijani (Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Peter McDonald, Meimanat Hosseini-Chavoshi, "The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction", Springer, 2009. pp 100-101: "The first category is 'Central' where the majority of people are Persian speaking ethnic Fars (provinces of Fars, Hamedan, Isfahan, Markazi, Qazvin, Qom, Semnan, Yazd and Tehran..." ). One can confirm by visiting the area themselves or look at the local state statistics: [52]. However, for the sake of the argument, lets exaggrate and put 2 million for Hamadan and Qazvin. That turns into 9 million. Let us exaggerate more, and put 3 million outside of Tehran from nowhereland and these area just mention, and this becomes 12 million. Finally lets exaggerate about Tehran and consider out of the 13.4 million, that 8 million are Azeris. This exaggerated value becomes 20 million based on provincial statistics [53]. However, in reality there is 7 million in Ardabil, Zanjan, East Azerbaijan and half of West Azerbaijan (the other half or more is Kurd): [[54]. The numbers in Hamadan and Qazvin are 30% and 20% respectively, and that of other provinces outside of Tehran is at most 1 million. This gives: 9.2 million (roundedup). Lets round this more up to 10 million. Finally, in Tehran, 98% of the population known Persian and 67% identify as Persian based on comprehensive statitics that has been done already: [55] [56]. Also most Azerbaijanis in Tehran speak Persian as it is the cities language, and have intermingled with Iranians of other areas. Outside of the 67% in Tehran, there are many Iraqi, Afghan refugees and Iranians from other provinces (Kurds, Baluchs, Lurs), but for the sake of the argument we will say 33% which is 4.4 million. So the total (again rounded up several times) is 14.4 million out of 70 million or around 20-21%, which also agrees with the actual statistics provided by survey from a US organization: [57] (has a 3% margin of error with 99% confidence). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The official sources based on the American or Canadian governments are the most reliable and accurate ones. We should follow the neutral sources based on WP:RS. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 08:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit waring.

Both users please stop edit waring. State clearly what your argument is first in the talk pages then support your argument by credible sources then we shall discuss them all in good and civil maner. If the change is correct one to make we will make a draft here by collective work. So please stop edit waring, it gets us no where it is counter productive without a proper discussion it only takes someone to click undo to revert the change. Thank you, regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azeris are Turkified Kurds

Azeris are the closest to Kurds geographically, historically but ofcourse it is sexier to be closed to Persians than to Kurds who still struggle for own country ! So many Azeris might not admit this. The theory about the Cauasian-Iranic mix origin of Azeris is exactly the same as Kurds, and the ancient Azerbaijan was part of Greater Media. Persians were not even close to the Medes before Cyrus took over his grand-father's kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! Azeris are Americans how can you not know this fact!Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIES

STOP this Pan-turkist propaganda, I'm Azeri with grandparents born in Baku and it's common sense for most of us, that we are NOT Turkic people, we SPEAK Turkic Language because Oghuz turks once upon a time occupied our region, but that's about it. We are 100% Iranic/Caucasian people and have always been so. I'm so sick of reading this crap written by Anatolian Turks to spread their political agenda and influence... CHANGE THIS NOW PLEASE.

  1. ^ http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/24/world-report-2010-abusers-target-human-rights-messengers
  2. ^ http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/09521f127b6419d0c1256d250047d9e6/$FILE/G0314153.pdf
  3. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xxp61eBvGzMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Amikam+Nachmani&hl=en&ei=9LyuTej-JI_P4wac7KjGCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=azeri&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijanis&oldid=435331767"