Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

UNPO is not a Reliable source

According to Reliable sources Noticeboard , UNPO , can't be cited to replicate UNPO's claims . So this edit :[1] have to be changed .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? I think it's reliable sorce for this purpose. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

With full respect for your point of view , the determining decision is the opinion of the admins in Wikipedia . Please read this discussion again :Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• My reading of the RSN discussion as well as my understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY, is that Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization can be used as a source, though used with care, and if appropriate use a phrase such as advised on RSN - "UNPO alleges that..." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If we look at [2] , I think UNPO is only a source for reporting the claims of one side of conflict , but may not have the independent value as a RS . And also please look at this conversion that we previously had about the UNPO , and the result (Third opinion) was :

"The UNPO is probably not a reliable source. It seems to represent extreme minority positions and also appears to be a questionable source. It does not appear to be received as credible or widely acknowledged as a credible organization. I strongly recommend sticking to what's been reported about the organization's statements and views by traditional reliable publications (if they're to be included at all)"

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And also please look at : [3] and [4].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Southern Azeris" is politically motivated and should not be used

Some scholars and sources , view the term "Southern Azerbaijan" as being irredentist and politically motivated.

1. Michael P. Croissant, "The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications", Praeger/Greenwood, 1998. excerpt from pg 61:

   "During the Soviet-era historical revisionism and myth-building intended to denounce imperialism, the notion of a "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan was created and propogated throughout USSR. It was charged that the "two Azerbaijanis" once united were separated artificially by conspiracy between imperial Russia and Iran."

2. Michael E. Brown Ethnic Conflict and International Security, Princeton University Press, 1993Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia ’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001. Excerpt from pg 24::

   "Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as 'Southern Azerbaijan', with demands for liberation and, eventually, for 're'-unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direction, as in 1945-46 etc. The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union."

So I think using the terms that may be considered against the "pillars" of Wikipedia , (I mean WP:NPOV) should be avoided .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disagree. This is as far from the recent political views, and widely useded in Sothern Azerbayjan [5] [6].--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I too disagree, what we call the Azeri heartland which is northern Iran was divided in two by the Turkemchay which formed what people call northern and southern Azerbaijan, there is also wide scholarly use of the term "Southern Azerbaijan". Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the term of “Persian Azerbaijanis” is nationalistically motivated. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people. It is impossible to call Germans lived in England as English Germans.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we may ask for the third party opinion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Melikov and you may feel free to ask a nuetral, third party.Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

According to google books, Iran + "South Azerbaijan" -Llc minimum 142 results. As long as I understand, South Azerbaijan is used not only as politically motivated term but also as normal term. So this term can be used. But it's not common name. Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijani is best. Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Google test shows only the times that the word has been in use . For rejecting the political motivation , we need sources . I show two sources that say the term is a propaganda . i can show other sources . Can you show any reference that show the opposite opinion  ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You (We) can find many sample for the neutral usage of South Azerbaijan. For example, "South Azerbaijan (or Azarbaijan in the accepted Iranian pronunciation". Takabeg (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That one was not the source we need . Can you show me an example like this "South Azerbaijan is not a political term and it is in routine use " --Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Southern Azeris" and "Southern Azerbaijani" and "Southern Azerbaijan".--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Google test shows only the times that the word has been in use . For rejecting the political motivation , we need sources . I show two sources that say the term is a propaganda . i can show other sources . Can you show any reference that show the opposite opinion  ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We live and talk in recent time, and your refrence about old time.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael P. Croissant is from 1998 , Michael E. Brown 1993 and Schendel is 2001 . Iranica is August 18, 2011 . Please read my comments ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject time is old!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject time is old ?! What do you mean? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alborz you yourself, if I remember correctly marked Iranica as an unreliable source when I wished to include what it promoted in the article. Now giving Iranica yourself as a source is a testament. Emir has condcuted a search on google books which clearly show Southern Azeris as a well recognised peoples. I believe wiki common name stands with the notion that the term Southern Azeri be continued to be used. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Iranica tends to be one of the best sources that can be used in Wikipedia . Although that is the editors name that stands at the top and is the most important factor, but generally the editors of the Iranica are among the bests . Anyway , I would be glad if you show me when did I said the Iranica is unreliable . And again , we are not talking about " well recognized " or not being recognized , to go after Google searching , we are talking about the political meaning of that term .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion response: Thanks for making use of the 3O process! Unfortunately I must decline this particular request - the 3O process is intended to help resolve disputes specifically between two editors, but it appears there are multiple editors involved in this dispute. We do have processes that are better suited to disputes involving multiple editors, and I recommend you make use of the Request for Comment (RFC) process if you're still having trouble here. RFC is designed to attract opinions from a broad range of editors that should help you determine consensus.

For my part, I think that it's worth remembering that even if a term is politically charged or motivated, it can still be included in Wikipedia as long as it's presented in a neutral and verifiable way, usually by presenting both sides of the argument. I'm not well versed in the Azerbaijan situation but a similar situation might be a dispute on whether or not apples are good for you, that could be worded 'Apples are widely considered to have health benefits, however some critics believe these benefits are overstated', along with appropriate sources. I'm not sure if this sort of compromise is possible here but it's worth considering. And of course, please do consider making use of RFC if you're not able to come to a consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It can still be included but it should be noted that "Southern Azerbaijan" is a recent, revisionist, nationalistic and politically motivated term. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New terms and phrases emerge and grow the fact that they are "new" (even that I do not believe)does not make them neither nationalistic nor revisionist. The terms are developed to suit the political and historical context of the time, inclusion of them is necessary. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

@TechnoSymbiosis : I'm not asking to delete the term from whole Wikipedia. As I had no objection in mentioning the word in articles such as Azerbaijan (Iran) . But I am saying routine use of a political term , that is not directly relevant to the subject of article is against the NPOV .That is ironic for me that less important Wikipedian rules such as using the dominant English names are better applied in articles , but the essential rule of NPOV , that is of the five most important Wiki rules , is less considered ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "Southern Azeris" in this article, not because of any irredentionist connotations, but because it is not clear. The text should make it clear in each case whether those from the south of the republic of Azerbijan are being considered or those of Azeri ethnicity from the south of the Azeri ethnic area, or those whose ethnicity is rooted in the souther part of the repbulic, or... Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

• Avoid, but use (with qualification) if the sources do - If "Southern A" was an artificial concept invented by the Soviets, then POV and UNDUE policies suggest that it should generally be avoided. However, if the sources being used for a particular article use the term "Southern A", then WP can reflect that, and the term may be used. If the usage in that situation is politically motivated, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that the source should be identified (as in "Historian ABC writes that Southern A's ..."), so the reader is notified of potential bias. Also, WP:UNDUE suggests that, when "Southern A" is mentioned, a parenthetical note (perhaps a footnote) could be included to explain the history of the term. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!And how can we save this result for coming discussions?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but my opinion is just one editor's opinion. My opinion is not final, or more important than anyone else's. The RfC is a way to get several uninvolved editors to provide input. RfCs normally last for 30 days before they are finished. At the end of 30 days, usually there is a consensus that emerged. If, after 30 days, there is still no clear consensus, you can ask an admin to "close" the RfC, which may include a formal decision one way or another. When the RfC is finished, it is kept in the Talk page archives forever. If it is a BIG issue that comes up a lot, you can add a permanent comment to the top of this Talk page (usually in a "FAQ" box) summarizing the RfC decision. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC Comment. Noleander is correct; I would add that if Southern Azerbiajan is used in the sources (and checking sources suggests that it is), it really has to be mentioned and explained here; where else are readers going to find out what the phrase means? I would avoid using it as a name for the Iranian province; it is too likely to be misunderstood as the southern part of the province, or even the southern part of the Republic.

On the other hand, some of the discussion here comes all too close to claiming that Baku is not an Azeri city; this is not what Croissant is saying. The sentence quoted is here; it immediately follows the observation that there was no historical Azerbaijani state (in 1826; Media Atropatene is another matter), and that there were Azeris on both sides of the new frontier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica

Name of the Azerbaijan Republic itself , has not been a historical term and adopting that name for that region had political basis . But as a accepted international name , it can be tolerated , but changing the historical place of real Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan ) with the new Soviet nomenclature and applying the term "Southern Azeri " to real Azerbaijani's of that region , is wrong . Let us read more about the name of Azerbaijan : Encyclopædia Iranica, 2011 , [7]:

“ AZERBAIJAN (Āḏarbāy[e]jān), historical region of northwestern Iran, east of Lake Urmia, since the Achaemenid era.

The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia.

After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable

”

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

user Orartu changes

Recent changes :[8] , done by user Orartu , should be discussed here . I think this user believes Ali Khamenei and Farah Pahlavi can't be considered Azeri because they are not pure Azerbaijanis (According to this edit :[9] ) . Because the definition of so-called pure Azerbaijani is not clear , I think this edit is controversial and should not be done before consensus is reached . In using the word Azerbaijani versus Azeri , I think the term Azeri is more correct , because it shows the ethnic status of the person , but Azerbaijani is a geographic name that can only show the place of birth or residence , but can not show the ethnicity : As an example many Kurds are Azerbaijanis , but are not Azeri's . This article is about the ethnicity , so then it shall use Azeri , and not Azerbaijani . And about the languages that Azerbaijanis use , it is undeniable that the writing language of Iranian Azerbaijanis is Persian , and using the Azeri script is not so common in Iranian Azerbaijan , so adding that language to the information box seems to be reasonable . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Undoing the changes , without discussion is disruptive ! Please write down your point of view . Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Alborz (yet again!) Ali Khamenei and Farah Pahlavi are ethnically are Azeris. However I believe we should also make a note within the article as to how much they themselves see themselves as Azeri. Regards,Tugrul Irmak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

I think if they don't want to be identified as Azeris , their feeling should be mentioned in their own article , and not in this topic . Anyway , I do know that Khamenei in several concussions has used Azeri Turkish in his speech and it can be found easily in web . My information about Farah Pahlavi is not complete and don't know she knows Azeri Turkish or not , but I don't think that is so determining at all ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Persian language , second language ? what does it means ?

In this edit :[10] , user Orartu changed the languages in use in Iranian Azerbaijan as Persian language , second language written in small font . The oral language in use is sure Azeri Turkish , but Persian as the written language has a great dominance . I think changing it to the new edit , needs a reliable source , and previous version was more correct .Terms such as Second language , first language , is not clear : first language in talk or in writing ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In Iran Persian-speaking Azerbaijanis(assimilated Azerbaijanis) are considered as Persian ethnics in statistics, then they are Fars not Azerbaijanis(according to Iranian sources)[11], [12], [13].This article is about Iranian Azerbaijanis not assimilated Azerbaijanis, if you want, you can create an article about this disaster.In addition,was there any referendum, when forcibly farsi language was determined as only official language of Iran?Do Azerbaijani people of Iran have any right to use their language freely?[14]More than half of Azerbaijani speakers are monolingual. The social situation of

the varieties of Azerbaijani spoken in Iran is quite different. There the languages have not been promoted; on the contrary, their use has been discouraged [15]. Despite their large numbers, the Iranian government has retained a ban on the use of Azerbaijani in official venues, such as schools, courts, government offices and the military as part of a policy of cultural assimilation that stems back to the rise of the early days of the Pahlavi Dynasty. Azerbaijanis believe that Tehran’s emphasis on Persian culture and language comes at their expense and is designed to subjugate them,... The central government in Tehran associates Azerbaijani calls for greater cultural and linguistic rights with separatist or nationalist aspirations...Azerbaijanis and Turkic speakers in northern Iran have been the subject of ridicule from native Persian speakers for their limited Persian language skills and easily distinguishable accent... [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21] --Orartu (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the above statement is irrelevant to our topic of discussion. Persian is (and has been) the dominant language of writing in Iranian Azerbaijan :That's all.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is cmpletely related.Because of mentioned issues,it must be written in small font.Orartu (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think both languages should be mentioned with no differences in font, since both languages do not have sources. And, no, this[22] "source" does not state Iranian Azeribaijanis selectively speak Turkic over Persian/Farsi. Your attempt to "cherry pick" information is rather tedious, Azerbaijan:ethnicity and the struggle for power in Iran, by Touraj Atabaki, p141; "The province of Azerbaijan always was and still is an inseparable part of Iran and the Turkish language has never been more than a local language. Whatever exists in the way of culture and literature in Azerbaijan, from olden times until now, has been in the Persian language. In Azerbaijan poets, men of letters, all administrations and books, have recognized Persian as their mother tongue." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another one, Small nations and great powers, by Svante E. Cornell, p22; "South of the Araxes, the Persian language occupies much the same position as Russian in the north. However in terms of culture and identity, it seems clear that the Iranian impact has been stronger in south Azerbaijan than has the Russian impact in the north." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All of these sources show Azerbaijani people of Iran despite prohibition of Azerbaijani language by Persian government of Iran and propogandas in favor of Farsi language in Iran, like their mother tongue :Iran's political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities By Keith Crane, Rollie Lal, Jeffrey Martini,Page 54; "The demands of Iran's Azeri community remain relatively modest, focusing on the expansion of cultural freedoms, such as local control over Azeri-language broadcasting, greater say in local government, and the promotion of the Azeri..."Orartu (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 15,"The Turkic dialects in Iran, of which the Azerbaijani dialect is best known, remain today as the mother tongue of most of the people of Khurasan and Azerbaijan as well as of the Qashqai tribes in the south".--Orartu (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East: L to ZBy Jamie Stokes,Page 81;"To the present day the Azeri language is banned from use in Iranian schools,courts, government organizations, and the armed forces..."Orartu (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Official report of debates, Volumes 1-2,Page 307,"According to US State Department data, Azerbaijani Turks living in Iran are an ethnic majority there.Their number varies between 30 and 35 million.Therefore 30 to 35 million Iranian citizens are deprived of fundamental education in their mother tongue and consequently to develop it.Pupils speaking Turkish at schools are severely punished and intimidated"--Orartu (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Encyclopedia of Modern Asia: Abacus to China by David Levinson, Karen Christensen,"The language spoken by the Azerbaijanis and that spoken in Turkey are mutually intelligible..."Orartu (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about Azeris living in Iran, which makes this "source" meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:The Linguistic reporter, Volumes 1-7,"...the term Turkish is thus reserved for the name of a single language branch); Azerbaijani (Azeri), which besides being the language of one of the Soviet Republics is also mother tongue of nearly half the population of Iran."--Orartu (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Iran in the twentieth century: a political history," It is high time the government admitted that Azerbaijanis are not and have never been Persian speakers.....--Orartu (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Iran by Gareth Stevens ,"The The Persians, whose mother tongue is Persian, or Farsi, represent only a slight majority in Iran...The largest Turkic-speaking group is the Azerbaijanis, a people who occupy northwestern Iran..."--Orartu (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Linguistic authority, language ideology, and metaphor: the Czech orthographyBy Neil Bermel,Page 15;" In essence, the Iranian policy of promoting Farsi as the only national written language actually weakened calls for the North Azeris to return to the Arabic script..."--Orartu (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Iran in the 21st century: politics, economics and conflict,Page6;"Iran's largest non-persian speaking communities,the Azerbaijanis and the kurds."--Orartu (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Iran, the culture By Joanne Richter,Page 27;"....In Iran,Turkmen is only spoken,and not written.Speakers of Azari live mainly in the Azerbaijan region of northwestern Iran.They write their language using the Perso- Arabic alphabet... "Orartu (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". Odd when I search Iran, the culture, I get ZERO results for Turkmen! --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your problem not me.Probably your search had problem, this time search carefully, because it is necessary to judge neutrally:[23]But here[24]:Iran, the culture By Joanne Richter,Page 27;"....Turkic languages: The mother tongue of more than twenty million Iranians is one of several Turkic languages.Northern and northeastern Iran are home to the Turkmen people, whose language is also called Turkmen".--Orartu (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source:Iran and its place among nations ,Azerbaijani language is mentioned as the mother tongue of Azerbaijani people of iran,"Among Iran's population of 70 million, whose official state language is Persian, over one third, close to 25 million people, speak Azeri-Turkish as a mother tongue. Similarly, though in lesser numbers, Kurdish, Baluchi, and Arabic,..."--Orartu (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Azeri, is the mother tongue of the Azeris residing in Iran and any proposal as to other wise is an indication of a blind folded man. Persian is the official language but has by no means the same position as Azeri.This fact should be noted down within the article. The fact that Azeris are bilingual does not mean both Persian and Turkish have the same status. One (Azeri) is the mother language where as the other is the official language of the Islamic Republic. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you remove your blindfold. No where have I stated that Azeri is not the mother tongue of Iranian Azerbaijanis. The sources that Orartu stated, "All of these sources show Azerbaijani people of Iran despite prohibition of Azerbaijani language by Persian government of Iran and propogandas in favor of Farsi language in Iran, like their mother tongue..., which none of the sources stated that, was what I was responding to. Also your blindfold missed this[25], where I stated both languages should be in the template, compared to Orartu's removal[26] of Persian which contradicts his little speech about "neutrality". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kansas I called those who do not see Azeri the mother tounge of Azeris, in no instance was my comment aimed at you. I also agree with your proposal, the reader should be informed about the place which these two languages occupy in the lives of Azeris in Iran. Your proposal is a perfect way in which we can do this. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose, Azerbaijani(mother tongue)*line break*Persian(official). Thoughts?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What is second langugage? If Persian is the official language of Iran and Iranian powers had retained a ban on the use of Azerbaijani langugage, it's only Human rights violations, but this doesn't mean that the second langugage of Iranian Azerbaijanis is Persian--Melikov Memmed (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I utter such words? I said Persian was the official language ( I did not say second) which the Azeris are forced to adopt in their everyday lives. Their mother tongue is Azeri, and like I said, it should be noted as so in the article.Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about Human rights here . With or without the force and pressure , the Persian language is overwhelmingly the language of writing . That is so obvious that is almost impossible to find a grocery store in whole Iranian Azerbaijan to write down it's account in Azeri : then what's all these argument about ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

So shall we move forward with:

Azerbaijani(mother tongue)*line break*Persian(official)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Farsi must be written in small font, and there must be emphasized that Farsi is the official language of Iran and Azerbaijanis have to learn and use it, and currently their use of Farsi language is not optional.--Orartu (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Farsi must be written in small font", No it does not. Besides, we already have 4 editors that have agreed on Alborz's version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Except User:adamrce mobile, three other users (including you) are not neutral, then the admins must judge, I completely disagree with his proposal.--Orartu (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is article's talkpage not user talk page .I shortly refer to your group's enemity against me, and Azerbaijani people.Obviously, you and agreeing users with you want to make wikipedia battleground and a site for spreading ethnic hatred.You and your group's edits resemble WP:BATTLE. You have vendetta and enemity against me and Azerbaijani people.Your offensive statements here [27],User:Xooon and your one-sided tryings to introduce my account as sockpuppet[28], [29],[30]. User:Khodabandeh14's hatred and unfounded claims against Azerbaijanis and his tryings to prevent my activities[31],[32]--Orartu (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• How about this version :

Azerbaijani , Persian and a large part of the population is bilingual

References

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Alborz Fallah. Xashaiar (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me (while putting the official first), within my limited knowledge of the topic. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 07:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have problem with your proposal, because it is not neutral and don't show the coercion of Azerbaijanis in using Farsi and don't reflect the discriminations against Azerbaijani language.Also,the source you provided, said neither about bilingualism of large Azerbaijanis nor about official language of Azerbaijanis in Iran.Farsi must be mentioned as the official language of Iran not Azerbaijanis. --Orartu (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• • This version:

Azerbaijani
Persian as official language of Iran

--Orartu (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi everybody. First of all, I have a very limited knowledge on this topic.

Second, the topic in question (Iranian Azerbaijanis) appears to be about a proud people with a rich history and prominent individuals with noteworthy achievements. If this is the case, then Alborz Fallah's Azebaijani (mother tongue), Persian (official) with the same fonts but with line breaks would be neutral and appropriate. I personally prefer this because this is consistent with the Wikipedia format for many similar topics like in the case of countries that are members of the United Nations such as Malaysia or Turkey.

On the other hand, perhaps user Orartu should create a separate section describing the issues she raised about the language. As long as such claims are properly referenced with inline citations sourced from independent and reliable third party sources and written with a neutral point of view, then this article will be a very good one. Thank you. Pmresource (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this page due to the ongoing content dispute which has today resulted in an editor getting blocked. It is time we looked into this issue to try to resolve the dispute. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. Modifications can be proposed on this talkpage, and after discussion an administrator can make any changes that reflect consensus. Admins can also make minor, uncontroversial edits, such as basic copy-editing. Placing the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.

There are various comments on my talkpage from editors of this article regarding the behaviour of other editors. I am not looking into past behaviour. What is past is past. What is important is how people behave from this point forward. I am offering my time and my patience in order to help resolve this issue both for the editors concerned, and so Wikipedia can have an accurate and unbiased article which takes into account various significant viewpoints. In order for this dispute resolution to work, it is important that people comment only on the article and the issues. I am only interested in improving this article, I am not interested in complaints about behaviour. This talkpage is only for discussing the article. Comments on other editors will derail this content discussion, so will not be tolerated. I will remove any personal comments, and warn that editor. If necessary I will block any editor who is engaging in persistent or serious personal attacks. If anyone has concerns about the behaviour of another editor, then use Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, do not bring complaints to me.

My understanding is that the dispute is regarding national identity, and the language used to describe people - such as Azeri or Azerbaijani, and such as the use of "Southern Azeris" and "Southern Azerbaijan". I am willing to take this discussion in any order, and any content items can be brought up at any time, though please separate out each point so it can be discussed. You can use bullet points such as:

• Persian language. I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]

Or list headings such as:

Persian language

I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]

Or level three sub-headings:

===Persian language=== I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]

Or you can number your points. Whatever you prefer. But make each distinct point separately and clearly.

As the last edit was regarding the language(s) used by Iranian Azerbaijanis, we can start with that point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What languages do Iranian Azerbaijanis use?

Sources say they use Azerbaijani language. Do they use other languages, and if so, which languages? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Languages in Iranian Azerbaijan

Thank you for your concern . Languages in Iranian Azerbaijan can be divided into two groups of very common (Major) and less common (Minor) languages .

1 Major : The vast majority use the Azerbaijani Turkish as their mother tongue in daily conversations. The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian language. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, is in this language and script Article 15 of Iranian Constitution. For variety of reasons , Azeri literature (writing in Azeri , in contrast of talking in Azeri) in Iran has had a limited development. Many Azeri writers are better known for their contributions to Persian literature than to Azeri [33]. A large part of the population is bilingual [34] . Turcophone populations in Iran that are relatively isolated in the midst of the majority language , Persian , are affected directly via their mostly illiterate bilingual speakers, thus in ways somewhat different from the literary languages [35].

2 Minor : Minority languages include : A - Azari language (Iranian) , Despite its continued decline over the centuries, Azari has not died out and its descendants are found as modern dialects, mostly called Tati, sharing a wide range of phonological and grammatical features. Proceeding from north to south, these are: (A-1) The dialect of Kalasūr and khoynarūd, two villages of the Ḥasanow (Ḥasanabad) district of Ahar; (A-2) the dialect of Karingan, a village of eastern Dizmar in the Varzaqan district (bakhsh) of Ahar sub-province (shahrestan); (A-3) the dialect of Galinqaya, a village of the Harzand rural area (dehestan) in the district of Zonuz, Marand sub-province; (A-4) the khalkhali dialects spoken in the chief villages of the shahrūd bakhsh (i.e., Askestan, Asbū, Derow, Kolūr, shal, Diz, Karin, Lerd, Kehel, Taharom, Gelūzan, Gilavan, and Gandomabad), in Karnaq, in the khoresh-e Rostam bakhsh, and in Kajal in the Kaḡaḏkonan bakhsh of khalkhal; (A-5) the Tati dialects of the Upper Tarom (principally in the villages of Nowkian, Siavarūd, Kalasar, Hazarrūd, Jamabad, Baklūr, Čarza, and Jeyshabad); (A-6) the Tati dialects of Ramand and Zahra, southwest and south of Qazvin (i.e., the dialects of Takestan, Čal, Esfarvarin, khiaraj, khᵛoznin, Danesfan, Ebrahimabad, and Sagzabad) which are close to the Tati of khalkhal and Tarom; (A-7) the dialects of Talesh, from Allahbakhsh Maḥalla and shandermin on the border of Gilan in the south to the Soviet Talesh in the north, including the dialect of ʿAnbaran in the Namin district of Ardabil; all connected with the Tati dialects of shahrūd. This list does not necessarily exhaust the Azari-speaking villages of Azerbaijan, and there may exist villages which the writer has not been able to visit, and where Tati is still understood [36] .B - Kurdish , Kurdish, however, spoken in Mahabad in southwestern Azerbaijan and scattered in several other areas in the region, which some have supposed to be a descendant of Median, does not belong to this group (old Azari) and exhibits some clear differences with it.[37] .Kurdish speakers are mainly found in the border districts of western Azerbaijan. Iranian Tati (Tati) dialects are still spoken in small communities south of Jolfa, east of Miana, and in Qaradagh [38].

Functional Summary : The mother tongue of Iranian Azerbaijan is Azeri Turkish . The official language is Persian . The prevalent language of writing is Persian . Azeri Turkish is used , but not frequent . A large portion of population is bilingual (Turkish-Persian) . Kurdish and Tati are used in special places by a minority.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment : iranica doesn't say they are Kurdish speaker, it says they are turki speakers.Harzani, kolur,Galinqaya's dialects are related to talysh language, and belonged to talysh people who were migrated to Azerbaijan, but now Galinqaya and Harzani dialects are extinct, and because they are cpmletely mixed with Azerbaijani-ethnic people, they identify themselves as Turk not Talysh.iranica doesn't say Azerbaijanis are bilingual, it says the works they have produced are bilingual, because of prohibition of Azerbaijani in Iran .This article's aim is Iranian Azerbaijanis not Iranian tats, iranian kurds, iranian talyshs, these minorities are not Azerbaijani-ethnics,and their mother tongue cannot be considered as Azerbaijani-ethnics mother tongue, then speaking about these minorities is completely irrevelant to article, and does not prove Azerbaijani-ethnics language is other than Azerbaijani. --Orartu (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah has produced a lucid and informative statement well supported by citation to Encyclopædia Iranica, a reliable and respected source. I have checked out the statements, and they appear to match the source. It appears to me as an outsider that the statement could usefully be used in its entirety in the article. However, Orartu has concerns that the source is not being read carefully enough, and there is a potential drift of meaning. I would like to investigate Orartu's concerns to see where they arise, and to determine if they are justified or can be allayed by explanation. It would help me if these questions could be answered: The source, Encyclopædia Iranica, talks about the people of Azerbaijan and their language. 1) Is the source talking about Azerbaijani people or Iranian Azerbaijanis? 2) Are Iranian Azerbaijanis a sub-set of Azerbaijani people, or at least in some way a distinct group? 3) If so, does the source distinguish between Azerbaijani people and Iranian Azerbaijanis? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah has shown different languages which are spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan,not about different languages of Azerbaijani ethnics, which is our topic.Iranica speaks about different ethnics which live in Iranian Azerbaijan.It speaks about languages of all ethnics which exist in Iranian Azerbaijan region.There are some minorities in Azerbaijan of Iran, and iranica speaks about the languages of these minorities too, but it doesn't say they are Azerbaijani-ethnics.In Iranian Azerbaijan, in addition to Azerbaijani-ethnics, some other ethnics also live:Talysh,Kurds,Tats,Armenians,Assyrians,Jews,...but they are not called Azerbaijani-ehnics, and their mother tongues are not considered as Azerbaijani Turks languages.Iranian Azerbaijanis are sub-set of Azerbaijani people, there is no doubt about it.In iranica's article Azerbaijani people means all ethnics who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, not specifically Azerbaijani-ethnics.For example in Iraqi Kurdistan,in addition to kurds, other ethnics also live like,Turkmens,Shabaks,Sarlis,Feylis,Assyrians,Arabs,...and these ethnics have their own mother tongue but their mother tongues are not considered as mother tongues of Iraqi kurds.The aim of wikipedia's article Iranian Azerbaijanis is introducing Azerbaijani Turks, as one of the ethnics of Iran, but iranica's article aim "Azerbaijani people and their language" is introducing all ethnics who are living in Iranian Azerbaijan, and their languages.One of these ethnics are Azerbaijani Turks who are speaking Azerbaijani language.In other words the word Azerbaijani in iranica's article doesn't refer to specific ethnic, it is geographical adj.Other example."Russian languages and people" can be refered to diferent languages and different ethnics in Russia, it doesn't refer to different mother tongues of Russian-ethnic people.The aim of Iranica's article is completely different from wikipedia's --Orartu (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose changing title to "Azerbaijani ethnic people of Iran" or "Azerbaijani Turks of Iran" to avoid confusing.--Orartu (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm getting there. This article is about Azerbaijani people who live in Iran rather than Azerbaijan, and this region of Iran is termed Iranian Azerbaijan. Orartu is concerned that the article is not dealing closely or accurately enough with the Azerbaijani people who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, and that the article is mixing Azerbaijanis with other ethnic peoples who live in that region. I can understand that concern because this is a complex subject, and there are varied names for the same people. From my reading of Iranica, it does appear to be dealing with Azerbaijanis as all those people who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, which would include all ethnic groups, though it does at the same time deal with separate ethnic groups: "Nonetheless Azerbaijanis, despite their insistence on their Iranian identity, generally call themselves, and are called, “Türk,” by contrast with “Kürt” (speakers of Kurdish), and “Fārs/Pārs” (Persian-speakers), the major ethnic groups with whom they have most contact.".

I note that other articles on this topic follow the naming convention of Foo in Foo, as in Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. Why is this article named differently? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the ethnic group that their mother tongue is Azerbaijani Turkish and is not a geographical article . An Iranian Azerbaijani ( by geographical point of view ) can be of minority ethnic of that region that are of indigenous population , but does not speak in Azerbaijani Turkish ( like Kurds and etc ) . But what about the Iranian Azerbaijanis ( by ethnic view ) whose mother tongue is Azeri Turkish ? The sources show that they are also largely bilingual : that means they talk in Azeri Turkish , but largely write in Persian . Also when encountering a person of other language group , they use Persian as lingua franca. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This title is politically motivated, and reflects and defends Pan-Iranist views. I as an Azerbaijani-ethnic use English as lingua franca with other persians.Azerbaijani in Iranian Azerbaijan is also lingua franca and second language of minorities.This article is about Iranian Azerbaijanis and all subjects related to to them (including Azerbaijanis' Human rights violations in Iran;language, ethnic, cultural, racial discriminations against Azerbaijani people, massacare of Azerbaijani people in Iran) can be written.I don't deny mandatory usage of farsi by Azerbaijanis, I say it must be written in small font, and coercion of Azerbaijanis in using farsi must be mentioned in article.--Orartu (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about a citing in Information box . Do you want to include all of this in info box ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No,writing farsi as forced official language of iran with small font is enough,but before mentioning farsi in infobox, there must be a part in main body about language and cultural discriminations against Azerbaijani people in Iran especially coercion of Azerbaijanis in using farsi.--Orartu (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well , that means the whole argument around so-called coercion is not related to our topic of info box sentence . But why should we use the official and literary language and lingua franca (Persian) with small font ? What is it's sin?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the sin of Azerbaijani language?What is the sin of Azerbaijani people?Why Azerbaijanis are exposed to many discriminations in Iran and forced using farsi?Arguments about minorities languages in Azerbaijan were irrelevaant, and their aim was confusing other users and wasting their time.Because farsi is mandatory language of Azerbaijanis, it must be written in small font.

Azerbaijani
Farsi as official language of Iran and imposed language to minorities

In Farsi article also must be a part about forcing minorities to use farsi in iran, before mentioning these discriminations in related articles, writing farsi in infobox is not neutral. --Orartu (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion

This article is about Azerbaijani ethnics(not about kurds, tats, farses,lurs, baluchs,talyshs ,...) and Azerbaijani ethnics language must be mentioned not others.Azerbaijani ethnics language is Azerbaijani, and official language of Iran is farsi, and because of prohibition of Azerbaijani language in Iran, and existing penalty(even death sentence) for using this language,(it can be considered as a a separatist activity)(as I mentioned)), they have to use farsi.The other minorities languages don't relate to Azerbaijani-ethnic people of Iran,these minorities are not Azerbaijani-ethnics,and their mother tongue cannot be considered as Azerbaijani-ethnics mother tongue, then speaking about these minorities is completely irrevelant to article, and does not prove Azerbaijani-ethnics language is other than Azerbaijani. Orartu (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What is going on there is not our business, and I realize it's pretty tricky editing an ethnic article and not a region. I understand your point, but we can't avoid reality no-matter what the cause is. Likewise, Spain currently has a Catholic/Christian majority even tho it was an Islamic land sometime back in history. Most Muslims were murdered and got defeated, so it erased their ethnics.

Similarly here, "mother tong" is what we're clarifying. I think that Alborz Fallah's proposal is the most neutral for the current situation for the infobox. Although, details can be mentioned in the article with reliable sources). Cheers ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 04:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alborz's proposal is the most neutral. Furthermore, I have yet to see any real reason/argument not to have:

• Azerbaijani(mother tongue)<line break>Persian(official) placed in the template. All relevant information; restrictions, punishments, etc, regarding the Azerbaijani language can be written into the article(with the appropriate reliable sources). --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a Pan Iranist blog or propaganda site of Iran's government to reflect only their points of view about Azerbaijani and Iranian related articles.--Orartu (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We are here to present a neutral article about this ethnic group, not complain of the wrongs imposed upon them. The template is used to indicate what languages are spoken by an ethnic group(ex.Hispanic and Latino Americans), not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To user Orartu : death sentence ?!!! are you sure ?! any reliable sources to prove it ? In fact 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using Azerbaijani language and culture(and other minorities except farses') can be considered as separatist activity and penalty for accusations like being separatist in iran is death, if you are interested you can find these cases in reports about human rights violations in iran.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus what you are doing in here is wrong. stop it, please. In fact 12:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit [39] is vandalism, here is not farsi wikipedia, titles can also be written in romanized form in addition to common alphabet.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are pushing is not right. 1- There is no death penalty for such cases in Iran. (prove it if you have reliable sources ) 2- Qozlu, Ardabil is in Iran. In Iran the official language is Persian. In the Iranian Azerbaijan, people speak in Azerbaijani, and write it using Persian/Arabic Alphabet. Please read the link in that article's talk page. In fact 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is talk page of Qozlu, Ardabil? In English wikipedia the name's romanized form can be written, this does not relate to iran's alphabet.Azerbaijanis don't use farsi alphabet, they use arabic alphabet's Azerbaijani version(Azerbaijani/Arabic alphabet), some use latin alphabet too--Orartu (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In Iran using Azerbaijani language is not forbidden. You can even publish books in Azerbaijani language (Persian/Arabic Alphabets). In fact 12:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

if you read this page carefully you can find suitable sources in this case.Yes you are right, they can use but after using is important, because they will be accused as a separatist.This article will help you:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.Look at these too:[40], [41]--Orartu (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A childrens bed time story was written in Azeri and had to await years for confirmation from the central government in Tehran. When it was published the demand for it was so high the puclishers wanted to publish more. This was refused by the Iranian government. This speaks for itself. Tugrul Irmak (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Human rights

I have tried to numerous number of times to include various human rights reports within the boy of the article. These reports were conducted by well recognized bodies, such as Amenesty International and United nations Human Right watchdog; ALL of which were DENIED the use of. I have discussed these sources in the reliable sources noticeboard and all of the 3rd parties there agreed on their use... Tugrul Irmak (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it appropriate to discuss any aspect of the content of the article, and of the sources used. If there are sources which are dealing with human rights issues, it would be worthwhile looking at the material and the sources. Would you please present the material and the sources here for discussion.

Please note that there is no need to mention previous actions regarding the article on this talkpage - such discussion is not helpful, and can lead to arguments and side-discussions (such as this one). If there are legitimate concerns about the behaviour of a user or users, please raise that in the appropriate venues - not here. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article only. I will be strict on removing or amending all potentially disruptive non-essential comments. Please follow the conventions outlined in WP:TALK. An example of a less potentially disruptive way of presenting the above statement: Various human rights reports were conducted by well recognized bodies, such as Amenesty International and United nations Human Right watchdog. I have discussed these sources in the reliable sources noticeboard and all of the 3rd parties there agreed on their use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

X in Y

Article title to remain as Iranian Azerbaijanis

I note that other articles on this topic follow the naming convention of Foo in Foo, as in Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. Why is this article named differently?.The brief explanation is that the ethnogenesis of Azeri ethnicity has occurred in Iran , and the population of Iranian Azeris is at least two times the whole population of Azerbaijan Republic , so as an indigenous population they may not be mentioned as X in Y . I can explain more if you think that is necessary . Thank you so much --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to add to what Alborz Fallah has said, that the real Azerbaijan so to speak, is the one in Iran, the country called Azerbaijan today, actually borrowed the name from the Iranian region, just a few decades ago. If you're interested in the topic, here is a collection of various academic sources [42], discussing the issue of how Azerbaijan (ie Republic of Azerbaijan) came to be known by that name. This is almost an identical situation as Macedonia naming dispute if you're familiar with that topic. For example, the Azeri-Amercian historian and scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory." In short, Iran is an indigenous homeland of Azerbaijanis, and has twice as many Azerbaijanis as the Republic of Azerbaijan, which makes the issue different from Azerbaijanis in Russia, Turkey, and Georgia, who have small non-indigenous minorities. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) And the whole naming issue was already discussed in details on the talk page, and agreed upon by the consensus of all the editors involved. It's based on the most common usage in Google books/scholars and academic sources in general, which is what the standard procedure for naming is, on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Russia,... are indigenous population too, because they live in historical lands of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijanis who live out of middleeast and Caucasus are Azerbaijani diaspora.Then real iran and persia is fars province of iran,the other people's lands added to persia after conquest of kings then calling other parts iran and persia is mistake too.So according to you kurds in Turkey and syria are not indigenous population, Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Syria--Orartu (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Are they indigenous in Russia and Georgia ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Azerbaijanis in Georgia and Caucasian part of Russia are native.Which principle of wikipedia confirms your justification about formulas(x in y=non-idigenous ethnics in mentined country;yx=indigenous ethnics)?--Orartu (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Please look at : North Caucasus to find the Azeri part of Russia .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC) You can find Azerbaijanis here:Dagestan--Orartu (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Yep.That is true about that 3% !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) More or less,they are native in Caucasian parts..Derbent was an Azerbaijani city(now belongs to Russia), and Azerbaijanis of this city are native--Orartu (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Please read the article about the term ethnogenesis --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Why?--Orartu (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Azerbaijanis in Iran I take the points raised above that the Azerbaijani people are indigenous to northern Iran, or Iranian Azerbaijan and so form the main contingent of the Azerbaijani people. My query now is if this article is about the main people, what is the Azerbaijani people article about? The Azerbaijani people article has sections on Azeris in The Republic of Azerbaijan and Azeris in Iran, the second one links to this article, and indicates that this article is not to be about the ethnic group of Azerbaijanis (or Azerbaijani people), but about that ethnic group living in a particular region. If this article is about an ethnic group, then it is potentially a POV fork of Azerbaijani people. If it is about an ethnic group living in a particular region, then it should follow naming convention and be Azerbaijanis in Iran, which appears to be significantly used in sources.[43][44][45] Azeris in Iran and Iranian Azerbaijanis are also used, though counting web, scholars and books, less in total than Azerbaijanis in Iran, and "Iranian Azerbaijanis" does not follow our naming convention for ethnic group in a particular region (Foo in Foo or X in Y). SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I support the notion. There are many articles such as Kurds in Turkey and so and so forth. This article seems like a POV fork. I would not have such an attitude if my attempts to balance both sides were not met by blind denial even in the light of reliable sources. This article is indeed about the ethnic group called Azeris residing in Iran therefore, as you have rightly said, it should be changed to Azeris in Iran. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Opposed: The naming issue was previously discussed in details on the talk page, and agreed upon by the consensus of all the editors involved. In Wikipedia, naming is determined by the most common usage, that means the most common usage in Google books/scholars and academic sources in general. "X living in Y" format is not a universal rule or policy, nor does it override Wikipedia naming policy which says "most common usage". By SilkTork's flawed rational that this page should be moved to Azerbaijanis in Iran, then Italian American, and Irish American should also be moved to Italians in America or Irish in America, and so on and so forth. Also, if SilkTork or anyone else wish to move the page, they should follow proper procedure and request a formal request for move to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. For the record, I do not consider SilkTork to be an "uninvolved administrator" on this topic, as he's clearly taken sides here and he is now a party to the dispute. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Opposed: I think the confusion has a linguistic base . In the new world , the ethnic populations are mostly defined by Lingual-Racial characters , like the Pakistanis in England or etc . The countries are new , the native sedentary population (who forms the nation state) is clearly defined on lingual and racial items and history is not determining . but in the old world , the nations are not nation states and their existence is more Historical-Cultural rather than Lingual-Racial . So you can see the Jews , as an old nation , does not have lingual or racial determinants , but they have historical and cultural characters (See American Jews and not Jews in America. In the case of Iran , as an old world entity , the borders of language or race are not so important in grouping the population , and that means using the formula of Azerbaijanis in Iran is degrading for this group of Iranians and is something like Germans in Germany , Britons in England , Turks in Turkey or Azeris in Azerbaijan . About the POV fork of Azerbaijani people , I think the mother article about the population with Azerbaijani language , can have - without being a fork - two daughter articles (expansions) of Azeris in Iran (Iranian Azerbaijanis) and Azeris in Azerbaijan (Azerbaijanis#Azeris_in_The_Republic_of_Azerbaijan) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I find the rationale given here quite compelling, both for keeping the current name, and for the article being a legitimate child of Azerbaijan_people. Other views are still welcomed, though I think we might be able to move on from the isue of the title. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Exactly the same problem in naming convetion , same answer I think the naming convention of Macedonia is the guide in this article . Same problem , same result . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis or Azeris

At risk of opening a can of worms. I note that there is inconsistent use of Azerbaijanis and Azeris. The article names seem to use Azerbaijanis, while some section names are Azeris. If both names are used for this group of people, then it is appropriate and important to mention both names, though once having identified the alternative names, the main name (as indicated by the article title) should be used throughout the article, unless the section or paragraph is dealing with a particular use of the alternative name - such as historical usage. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If Azerbaijanis has been decided as the appropriate common name, then after mentioning Azeris in the lead as an alternative name (and/or in a section dedicated to alternative name usage), then Azerbaijanis should be used throughout the content, including section headings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC

Based on scholarly references "Iranian Azeris" is (109 results) more common than "Iranian Azerbaijanis" (73 results) having in mind that "Iranian Azerbaijanis" could also mean something like "Iranians in the Republic of Azerbaijn"(like Greek Macedonians who could be Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia and which are not Greeks who are in Macedonian region of Greece). I think we could 1. move the article [to] "Iranian Azeris" or "Iranian Azaris" (which is rarely used) and 2. People can make a move request and discuss properly. Xashaiar (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have again removed comments on past behaviours. Bringing up past behaviour is potentially disruptive to this discussion. If you have an issue with someone's past behaviour, please take it elsewhere.

I am not considering altering this article to use Azeris in the title as almost all articles on Wikipedia which deal with Azerbaijani people use Azerbaijanis in the title, and looking at web, scholar and book sources, the use of Azerbaijanis is significant, and generally higher than Azeris. My point is that there needs to be some consistency, as indicated by the appropriate guideline. If the situation was that all articles on Wikipedia used Azeris in the title and content, then I would suggest that the difference in usage in sources between Azerbaijanis and Azeris would not be enough to justify a destabilising change to use Azerbaijanis. As it is the articles use Azerbaijanis, so that is what we would be using for all articles, and for all content within those articles, apart from when it would be appropriate to directly mention Azeris, as in discussing alternative names or any historical usage.

What I am looking for here is consensus to change usage in this and related articles from Azeris to Azerbaijanis. If there is any objection, please give a reason that relates to Wikipedia guidelines, and/or reliable sources. Personal preference for one form or another will carry little influence unless supported by reasoned argument. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

About choosing between Azeris and Azerbaijanis , I think both terms are very alike and a selection between them is not so practical . Anyway , the word Azerbaijani is more geographical compared to Azeri that is more ethnical . Not all of the Azerbaijanis are of the Azeri ethnicity . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What is an "Azerbaijani" compared to an "Azeri"? If an Azerbaijani is an Azeri living in or originating from a certain geographical location, do we have a source for that, as that might be useful information to include in this and the Azerbaijani people article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No personal comments

A reminder to everyone not to make personal comments, nor to rehash old disputes on this talkpage. Please keep discussion here limited to the article, and how to move forward with this topic. I have removed all comments that were personal and/or were potentially disruptive. I want to remind people that I am NOT concerned with editor behaviourthat has happened in the past. I am concerned with how we move forward now on the topic. If anyone has ideas, links, sources, information, etc, that is relevant to this discussion, please present it. But do not say "I tried to present this before, but was reverted", because that is not relevant. This is a fresh, clean discussion on a fresh, clean blackboard. I am giving no weight to past behaviour activity, as that has no bearing on the topic; I am looking purely at logical arguments and reliable sources that relate to this topic. If anyone has personal issues, please take them elsewhere. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)