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 188.245.108.195 (talk) at 11:43, 21 July 2013 (→Azerbaijani Turkic speaking/people). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleAzerbaijanis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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
May 23, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article

Number of South Azerbaijani people

This topic has been discussed previously:

Sources mentioned in the article are valid and It has no connection to the claims of ethnic groups.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It mentions Azeri student groups (Shaffer). The other source mentions nationalist group (Gheissari). And all the other sources were discussed here Side note. The actual population has been discussed and Folantin (a neutral user) had weighed in [5]. So Ebrahimi Amir's disregard of Folantin (citing the high figures as nationalist figure) is a disregard for consensus. --Xodabande14 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z Approximately (2002e) 18,500,000 Southern Azeris in Iran, concentrated in the northwestern provinces of East and West Azerbaijan. It is difficult to determine the exact number of Southern Azeris in Iran, as official statistics are not published detailing Iran's ethnic structure. Estimates of the Southern Azeri population range from as low as 12 million up to 40% of the population of Iran - that is, nearly 27 million.
  • Nationalism & ethnic politics, Volume 8, Issues 1-4 Authors Nederlands Instituut te Rome, Netherlands. Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk, Taylor & Francis, Publisher Frank Cass, 2002, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Jul 19, 2010
  • According to Ahmed KASRAVI (November 1922):


Source: THE TURKISH LANGUAGE IN IRAN By Ahmed KASRAVI,latimeria: Prof. Dr. Evan Siegal, Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 1998, Vol. 1, No 2, [6] , Khazar University Press , ISSN 1027-387

  • According to Alireza Asgharzadeh (2007):


Source: Iran and the challenge of diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles, Author Alireza Asgharzadeh Edition illustrated, Publisher Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 1403980802, 9781403980809, Length 249 pages, P 18.

official document

Source: Language, Colonization and Decolonization: Examples from Iran Alireza Asgharzadeh.

Iranian officials, said that 40 percent of the population of Iran are Turks. Whether they are national groups?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, random websites, random non-specialized books which the authors do not have even a Ph.D., such as www.pensouthazerbaijan and quote from Kasravi from 1930 and citing Azeri nationalists like Asgharzadeh (who quotes an outdated version of ethnologue which has been correct (despite the protect of Asgharzadei) now shows only 15 million Azeris in Iran) are not WP:RS. You should know WP:RS by now. This is sufficient. Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16 percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris." [7]. This is a specialized book on the topic and shows your numbers are inflated. That is even the 23 million is inflated let alone the 30 million you keep citing from random websites and random non-specialized books (some written from the same ethnic group). Also Shaffer even said the numbers you put are inflated as does Gheissari. So you cannot delete the term "nationalist figures" as three quotes are there which state that figures such as 30% or more inflated nationalistic figures. Random websites, and quote from Kasravi from 1930 (where he admits he is not sure), or non-specialized dribble from Google books (random non-specialized authors) cannot counter this when there are specialized sources specifically stating inflated numbers are ethnicist/nationalist and wrong figures. As per Salehi's quote, that is not WP:RS, see for example Qalibf [8] (Qalibaf 16%) and actual Iranian embassy figures were reported to you here before: [9] [10] (20% Azeri) and you ignored them. Salehi is not WP:RS source or scholarly source and he never talks about "mother tongue" (that is a misquote). Only scholarly sources can cite and sift through the various random Iranian official figures, like this one: [11] which is an WP:RS site stating the Iranian census of 2001. [12] Embassy has more weight and even then, only scholars quoting official figures from Iran are WP:RS We only cite WP:RS in wikipedia. As per the quote about "bilingual" this is again not WP:RS since bilingual could mean bilingual in English, Arabic, Kurdish, Azeri or even the numerous Persian dialects (say Kazeruni, Larestani, even Yazdi etc.). So that is WP:OR again on your part and again we cite scholars who have sifted what are the official figures (not random quotes but official figures) from Iran. Else the Embassy report which you ignore takes paramount importance as it is an official institution. Also you have been reported to Arbcomm for revert warring with regards to the map which has no basis..since you cannot quote random non-RS texts and draw a map. --Xodabande14 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Just look at one of your sources: "in Ankara, Johragani denounced 'Persian' chauvanism and their violation of human rights against the '30 million Azeri of Iran". Chehregani is not a scholar but a Turkish separatist [13]. Yet you cite him as a reliable figure! And note the '30 million' is in quotes! This just demonstrates POV pushing. You quote a book who is citing a nationalist author and yet you remove "nationalist figures". --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's your personal opinion. Please avoid WP:PRIMARY.Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi: "near 40 percent of Iranian are Turks" [14]. I ask again: Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi is Turk nationalist?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not my person opinion. You have mistranslated Salehi. Firstly Salehi is just an offical but not the only one. Second he does not say 40% of Iranians are Turks. He says 40% of Iranians know Turkish (which despite being untrue, could also mean many Kurds (which is true) and Persians know some level of Turkish..Turkish tv is also popular in Iran.). Whatever it is, it is your own WP:OR interpretation to claim he is citing 40% of Iran Turkish. Also Salehi is not a scholar. He said this in Turke and is trying to get some ease from sanctions from Turks who under Ataturk Turkey are very nationalist! So that is the context for that information which has no evidence. He is not an WP:RS source. Why not quote this offical figure from 2001 that says only 13% of Iranians speak Azeri [15]. Why not quote this offical figure from Iranian embassy which says 20%?[16]. Why not quote Qalibaf which says 16%[17] ? You see, you cannot randomly choose the official on a non-scholarly diplomatic mission to Turkey to gain favors in order to mess up Wikipedia and argue against WP:RS. Only scholarly figures and sources can discuss official figures like this one from Columbia university. [18]. And no it is not my random opinion. A random diplomat from Iran (which you cherry pick) has no weight against scholarly books discussing the topic.

  • Ali Gheissari, "Contemporary Iran:Economy, Society, Politics: Economy, Society, Politics", Oxford University Press, Apr 2, 2009. pg 300:"Azeri ethnonationalist activist, however, claim that number to be 24 million, hence as high as 35 percent of the Iranian population"
  • Shaffer, Brenda (2003) (this is pro-Azerbaijani source see Brenda Shaffer). Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press. pp. 221–225. ISBN 0-262-19477-5. "There is considerable lack of consensus regarding the number of Azerbaijanis in Iran ...Most conventional estimates of the Azerbaijani population range between one-fifth to one-third of the general population of Iran, the majority claiming one-fourth Azerbaijani student groups in Iran claim that there are 27 million Azerbaijanis residing in Iran."
  • Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16 percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris." [19]

So these scholarly sources state that even above 30% is unrealistic. Let alone your figure for 30 million. So that is why "nationalist estimate" was there as clearly these scholarly sources have stated such numbers as nationalist estimates. It doesn't matter if Qalibaf (an Iranian official) has 16% in his website and Salehi says 40% (speak Turkish)(he is not even saying they are Turkish). As Qalibaf and Salehi are not scholarly figures. Similarly even Iranian embassy [20] (which is more official since it is not some interview but actually an official site stating number and states 20%), is not WP:RS compared to Gheissari and Elling books above. --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According WP:RS: WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG are RS sources for article. I'll mention only one case each:


[21] --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are not necessarily WP:RS. Read WP:RS. "Scholarship" takes precedence over "News organizations". On news sources WP:RS,it says: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Your author is not a specialist. On scholarship it states: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves". So books and monographs by scholars take precedence. Plus the sources I stated already indicate why some Western sources have picked up the inflated number. You would need sources that counter these scholarship sources and claim the numbers are "not inflated". Else one can also quote this from BBC [22] (see their ethnic map). Again there are scholarly sources that state even 23 million is unrealistic and criticize nationalist figures. Do you have sources that dispute these scholarly sources directly (that is criticize them directly)? --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) If BBC is reliable in your opinion than use this [23].--Xodabande14 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) As per Alex Vatanka, the guy does not even have a Ph.D.. it says: "A native of Iran, he holds a BA in Political Science (Sheffield University), and an MA in International Relations (Essex University), and is fluent in Farsi and Danish.". He can be a popular writer. But the sources I brought clearly state such numbers are inflated. So we cannot remove at least some connotation with nationalistic statements about them. --Xodabande14 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is clear about the resources WP:RS and users personal opinion is not important WP:ORIGINAL. In Iran, some people are trying to distort the number of Azerbaijani Turks. They are also available in Wikipedia. It's one example for trying duplication South Azerbaijani people in outside of wikipedia:

BBC (English): 21 February 2012 Last updated at 05:01 ET -Iran nuclear tensions put Caucasus on alert By Damien McGuinness, BBC News, Tbilisi:


[24]

And translate to farsi (BBC Farsi):


[25]

In translation "20 to 30 million people" changed to "about 20 million people"!!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.. News Sources should not be taken over scholarship peer-reviewed sources. Also random sources where the author is not an expert should definitely be discouraged. So www.books.google.com isnot enough. One needs to look at the author. For example this map from BBC [26], all of Western Azerbaijan is shown as Kurdish. You for example would not agree with that. Anyhow, the figures 12-18 million are conventional. However, based on the three sources above, we should mention this: "Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16 percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris." [27]". I think a book "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini" is relavent to the topic. I would suggest putting above 20 million as "Controversial" or at least writing "controversial" for the whole thing.. I --Xodabande14 ([[User talk:Xodabande14|talk]]) 20:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a discussion with Folantin and it was considered 1/3 was the ceiling[28]. This is what Shaffer suggets too and she is pro-Azeri source with the conventional being 1/4. I think 12-18 million as "conventional", and then putting 20-30 million and writing "controversial" is a good idea. Since I have stated three sources mentioning it is controversial. Controversial does not meet it is true or not, but that it is controversial which it is. My personal calculations agrees with the current CIA factbook estimate and that source is mentioned.--Xodabande14 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's population of 75 million. 1/4 -1/3= 18.750.000-25.000.000 So I suggest 12-25 million as "conventional", and then putting 25-30 million and writing "controversial". It's same your idea, only the percent has been modified by 75 million.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That works..since figures from 1/6 (CIA factbook, Iranica, Library of Congress, Columbia ) to 1/3 has been given. Under controversial please add: "Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16 percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris." [29]"". Thanks.--Xodabande14 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Thanks. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Recently Mashai said: " «آذربایجان غربی، ایلام و کرمانشاه متعلق به کردستان است و این قوم از برترین قوم‌های ایرانی است.»،" ("West Azerbaijan belongs to Kurdistan") http://www.aviny.com/Occasion/Siasi/Mashaei/Vijename.aspx][30][31](google this statement for other sites). So none of the Iranian officials have any WP:RS quality as they go to different places try to gain favor by exaggerating and no serious Western academic scholar has endorsed any of them. So if one were to make WP:OR maps based on Salehi (not a scholar but trying to gain favors in Turkey and there is difference between knowing and being) or Mashai (not a scholar but trying gain favors in front of Kurds and probably not even aware of the complicated ethno-map of Western Azerbaijan).. or etc.. who have no data when they makeup stuff, then there would be 100s of maps. Then there is the Iranian embassy which has a more official written statement [32], but again we cannot create maps based on these or even put statistics based on this. Else you know for example Urmia city or Khoy city is not majority Kurdish, but Mashai has made Western Azerbaijan like Kurdistan. And Wikipedia is not a debate club to take the faviorate official statement (I believe the embassy is correct) and then makeup WP:OR maps or statistics out of it that have not been endorsed by wide scholarly, academic or information-credible institutions. --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user Ebrahimi-amir changes

In this edit , user Ebrahimi-amir changed the population that was based on the text , and put an image in the article that he himself has invented it . We need a map with sources , not a self-made map without any proper reference (without pages , without reliability and without graphic source ) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Self-made map by Ebrahimi Amir

Side note. The actual population has been discussed and Folantin (a neutral user) had weighed in [33]. So Ebrahimi Amir's disregard of Folantin (citing the high figures as nationalist figure) is a disregard for consensus.

User Ebrahimi Amir has been warned of Arbcomm sanctions and has been mandated to discuss and get a consensus for his controversial edits: [34]. He was actually banned until he was given a second chance per the condition that he discusses his controversial edits and gets a concensus. Here is the admins statement: Slow motion edit warring is still considered edit warring. I'm advising you now to seriously re-examine your pattern of behavior at this encyclopedia, or you will be subject to editing sanctions. Any potentially controversial changes that are disputed by other editors need to be discussed, and you must cite your sources. Thank you [35]


I have reported Ebrahimi Amir to Arbcomm. But if Arbcomm does not do anything, then other users should pursue it incase he tries to force his self-made map in the page. Here is the Arbcomm [36]. I have also contacted three adminsUser:Folantin, User:Dougweller and User:EdJohnston Now the controversy. Ebrahimi Amir added the following nationalist map here: [37] Note the map itself has a dispute tag on its page. Here are some Western made maps of Iran's ethnicities: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and some of these are in Wikipedia: [43] [44] [45]


These are Western made maps from University of Columbia and University of Texas. They are made by specialists.


However, So what is wrong with Ebrahimi Amir's map? a) Lets start from his "5" sources. None of them have the map he has made up! Interestingly enough Ebrahimi Amir cites his source as this: [46] which contradicts his own map! The second source he cites is: [47] which contradicts his own map. The fifth source he cites: [48] is not a map. It says some Azeris live in Saveh and around Qom, and Tehran,..but it does not say they are majority. Infact Azerbaijani Turks are not majority in Arak, Qom, or Tehran. Let alone Kurdistan..etc. b) There is absolutely no contiguous Azerbaijani Turkish area in Iraq that is illustrated in that map. It is a nationalistic nonsense. Infdeed the Iraq map Ebrahimi Amir cites contradicts him. Please note his reference for Iraq map: [49] which absolutely contradicts the map of Ebrahimi Amir. b) He has shown large parts of Georgia az Azerbaijani Turkish and blocking off Armenia. Is it correct? I doubt it. c) He has shown all of the republic of Azerbaijani including the disputed Nagorno-Karabagh region and surrounding areas (14-20% of the map in republic of Azerbaijan which is under ethnic Armenian forces) as Azerbaijani Turkish. Whatever one thinks, that is not reality as the ethnic warfare resulted that basically no Azeris remain in this area and basically no Armenians in say Baku, Sumgait and territory of republic of Azerbaijan. So that part is fake. d) Talysh and Lezgin areas ignored in the republic of Azerbaijan. e) Now to Iran.

  • The territory of Western Azerbaijan is hotly disputed but the Kurdish area is minimized. Where as University map shows it much bigger [[50]] . Furthermore, the border with Turkey, no matter how wide or narrow the slice, is mainly Kurdish (well known fact).
  • He has shown half of Kurdistan provice as Azerbaijani Turkish whereas Azerbaijani Turkish is minority in all of Kurdistan province. The Bijar

and Garous area are majority Bijari Kurds and not Azerbaijani Turkish. Contradicts professional maps: [51] [52]

  • He has shown large chunks of Talysh territory of Gilan as Azerbaijani Turkish. For example up to Hashtpar and Bandar Anzali where-as Azerbaijani Turkish

is minority in these areas. [[53]]

  • His map of Hamadan is fake, as in Hamadan city/province, Malayer, Towiskaran and Nahavand and most of Asad abaad,.. most of the population is not

Azerbaijani Turkish. [54] [55]

  • His map also put Qom, Arak province, most of Tehran, and even what appears to be part of Kermanshah as Azeri-Turkish (note Sonqori Turkish is minority

not only in Sonqor city (it was maybe predominant 40 years ago but now Kurdish is definitely predominant but also Kurds make up majority of Sonqor-Kolyai province).

So user Ebrahimi Amir, whose map is disputed (in the picture page), is violating his arbcomm terms about getting a consensus for controversial edits. If the current Arbcomm does nothing to him, and he restores his map without input from other users (such as Alborz Fallah, Iroony and etc.), then he should be reported again [56][57]. Wikipedia is not a place where one can create imaginary ethnic-cleansing of other groups (which is essentially what the map of Ebrahimi Amir is).

So self made map by the user who sources even do not support his map are totally unacceptable. Specially it is obvious such users would exaggerate their own ethnic kin. Only maps from reliable Western universities should be inserted in order to make sure there is no conflict. If the Western university maps are not acceptable, then that is not a good argument as they meet WP:RS. Where-as self-made maps are not WP:RS and one cannot cite dubious sources (or local nationalist papers) to substantiate them. --Xodabande14 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reported him to Arbcomm but the above notes are for any other users that try to put self-made maps contradicting basic science and Western maps. Self-made maps about ethnic groups are controversial. Specially when they are made from a user with the same ethnic background and clear nationalistic tendencies (see user page).--Xodabande14 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

default
We talk about this map. The map is drawn based on other maps. In addition, the written information is used to draw the map.

Again you are engaging WP:OR. The ethnologue map does not support your map. Look at it. There is no contiguous Azeri area like that in Iraqi Kurdistan. You have erased all Armenians from Nagorno-Karabagh. UNHCR does not have a map and it is your own OR interpretation. IF we take UNHCR (which does not have a map) and what it says, it says "Zanjan to Qazvin". That means full stop in Qazvin. It also says a "a group of Azeri people lived in Hamadan", it does not say Hamadan is majority Azeri as you have color. It says a "group of Azeris" live in Tehran, it does not say all of Tehran is Azeri as you have shown. It says a group of Azeris live in Qom and Saveh (not even all of Arak), and yet you have colored all of Qom and Arak as Azeri. Yes a group of Kurds also live in Tabriz, but it does not make Tabriz Kurdish. A group of Turks live in Germany but Germany is not Turkish. Two of your other sources are Turkish nationalist websites and not scholarly WP:RS. And you cannot quote Wikipedia (specially OR maps you have made) to make it as a source. Finally, do you know what WP:RS means? There is a University of Texas and University of Columbia map. They completely reject your self-created map. [59] [60] [61]. So all of your map is wrong interpretation of non-WP:RS sources (almost all of them not having a map). Why do you keep insisting on using nationalistic sources when there is a University of Texas and Columbia map that meet WP:RS. Sites such as ([62]) (new Turkey) are not WP:RS and there is no scholarly qualification for such nationalist Turkish writes who have a habit of inflating their numbers in Iraq, Iran etc. Also ethnologue that you quote states: "East and West Azerbaijan provinces, Ardebil, Zanjan, and part of Markazi provinces; Tehran districts". Where does it say all of Markazi province or even majority of it? It says Tehran districts (which means minority) , but you have basically colored all of Tehran. It says nothing about Qazvin.. Note Ethologue on Persian: "Dialects: Abadani, Araki, Bandari, Basseri, Esfahani, Kashani, Kermani, Ketabi, Mahalhamadani, Mashadi (Meshed), Old Shirazi, Qazvini, Sedehi, Shahrudi Kazeruni, Shirazi, Shirazjahromi, ".. But you have colored all of Qazvin, Arak...Qom etc. And ethnologue by the way has not made an ethnic map, so you are using WP:OR interpretation. Also ethnologue has mentioned 800,000 Talysh and 300,000 Lezgins in the republic of Azerbaijan, which you have erased. So you have taken random non-scholarly sources (even ethnologue is a third rate source but your map contradicts ethnologue) and your map is not faithful to anyone of them (except the Turkish news site that is written by a nationalist author trying to claim Irans Azerbaijan should separate). You have created a self-style WP:OR map. You have completely disregarded scholarly maps [63] [64] despite them being mentioned before to you: [65] in 2012. --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) And this precisely why I have also mentioned you in the AE board. No one is going to take a WP:OR map created by a user who has been blocked several times over a University of Texas and University of Columbia map. You do not read previous discussions, and you reverted to your self-style map (which is not faithful to its random non-specialized sources). You need to discuss the content of your behavior (revert warring to your map) there. The discussions are too late now, and actually help prove the point that you are creating self-exaggerated maps and use random websites to as YeniTurkiye to push nationalistic POV in Wikipedia. --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All maps have been published in Iran and Iranian show that this map is wrong (This map has been prepared under the Nationalists claim map):

According to sources, the map is clearly wrong.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are saying. You did not respond to my question and instead brought other maps that are again not WP:RS and virtually most of them created by yourself in Wiki Commons. Just because a map has been "published in Iran" by some Azeri-nationalists ( specifically number 2 and 3), it does not make it WP:RS! Just like a Kurdish nationalist map from Iran is not WP:RS either. Do you understand this point? You quote: "Geography and population of Turkish people in Iran" Alireza Sarrafi, Journal "Dilmaj""... Dilmaj is not an academic journal and its author Alireza Sarrafi is an Azerbaijani nationalistic figure living in Canada and talking about Sumerians being Turks. Your second map: " “Güney Azerbaycan'da Türk Lehçeleri” RESULOĞLU Büyük, Yeni Türkiye, Sayı 43, (381-386)" is again from a nationalistic Azerbaijani in a non-scholarly journal from a person with no real academic credentials. The Hafeznia map (first one which can be claimed scholarly since the author is a university professor) clearly contradicts the map you have been trying to push here (it shows Azeris as minority even in parts of Zanjan..and also it shows no Azeris in Qom, Hamadan and Arak..where as you have colored them all Azeri in your map). So why did you not choose that? Alireza Saffari and ResulOglu Buyuk have no scholarly journals or qualifications (www.scholar.google.com) and have not published a single reliable cited book by mainstream academics. Yet there are scholarly WP:RS maps from University of Texas and Columbia used all over the world which you conveniently have ignored for the third time now! [66] and [67] . Also the[68]. Also the map you pushed here, besides Iran, has erased all Armenians, Talysh, Lezgins from the republic of Azerbaijan (despite now at least 14% being controlled by ethnic Armenians). Also no support for the Iraq map. We are discussing the map you reverted to, and not other maps. I believe you have not read WP:RS despite being warned about it multiple times. So I am going to let AE board decide on your behavior. --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict--Map (Map that I have drawn) showing location of Azerbaijan Turks and not claim that only Azeri Turks who live in these areas. It is evident that other minorities live in Tabriz and Baku and etc.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single Azeri in Nagorno-Karabagh right now. And to color Tabriz as the same color as Qom is ridiculous. You have no proof for Iraq either. Also Azeris live in say Mash-had, but why not color them. There is a Turk in every single part of Germany, so why not color all of Germany as Turkish? Your map is misleading trying to claim with one color that all these areas are Azeri majority. They are not. Qom , Arak, Qazvin/Hamadan cities and Kordestan province are not majority Azeri. And there are Armenians in Nagorno-Karbaagh not Azeri. So your map is a major WP:OR. But you reverted to it. --Xodabande14 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note the ethnicity of West Azarbaijan. Distortion of the province's population shown obvious sources. Western sources have been clearly wrong in this case. Iranian sources are very credible as a proffessor Hafeznia, also articles that are extracted from the doctoral theses.)) In this case, there is no consensus. This debate is a sign of lack of consensus on this issue.Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The headline of this map are clear. The map shows areas where the majority of Azeri Turks (majority or significant minority) lives.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again. There is not a single Azeri in Nagorno-Karabagh under ethnic Armenian control..even in Soviet days though that region had a majority Armenian population. So why erase the Armenians that inhabit it now?(I am not here to discuss the conflict, but facts need to be presented accurately on maps). And your claim of "significant minority" is misleading. And also "significant" minority is your own interpretation and can be anything from 1% to 49%. You have no source for Iraq to make such a region. And even for Iran, the population of say Azeris in Khomein or Ashtiyan or etc is not even probably 5%. Or in Toviskaran.. In Garous ..Bijar it is below 30% for sure and in Arak it is below 20%. So the information on your map is wrong. Furthermore you cherry picked sources. You quote nationalistic sources for Qom, Arak, Hamadan (Malayer or Toviskaran or the city..) etc.. and then combine them with Hafeznia on Western Azerbaijan (because unlike the Western maps he shows more Azeris than Kurds in Western Azerbaijan)! This is clear violation of both WP:RS and WP:synthesis. Also the headline of the map is not clear. It simply says: "Azerbaijani people in the Middle East". Anyone looking at the map will believe these areas (including Nagorno-Karabagh (zero percent), Talysh, Lezgin regions, Arak, Qom, Kordestan province etc...) are Turkish-speaking while Turkish speakers are minority (in some places almost zero percent like Ashtiyan or Khomein) in these areas. It is like color all of Germany as Turkish because there are Turkish speakers there.

As per the University maps of Texas and Columbia, even if you claim they are "biased" (they are not biased..even if 5% of it conflicts with another map, it doesn't mean it is biased), they meet WP:RS. Also your methodology is wrong. If in some city or province in Germany there are 10% Turkish, no one is going to make map color of Germany showing the area as Turkish and not German. You have done the same with Qom, Arak, Markazi, Kordestan, Tehran etc. However your nationalistic figures such as Dilmaj and Rasul BeyOglu are not WP:RS as they have no scholarly credential. Hafeznia could be WP:RS but his map totally contradicts the map you have been pushing in this article that you created and since he is from Iran, he is not as WP:RS as Columbia or University of Texas. However, your map contradicts Hafeznia as well. Anyhow you know combining some nationalist map with Hafeznia, and then erasing all Armenians, Talysh, lezgins and coloring Tabriz the same color as say Arak and Qom is wrong. You know it is against basic rules of Wikipedia. When there are WP:RS maps from University of Texas and Columbia, why make a ridiculous map showing Qom or Arak (which are definitely not Azeri provinces and Azeris are minorities in these) as the same color as Baku and Tabriz? Basically, you cherry pick. You have combined nationalists sources with one WP:RS map (that contradicts Western sources on a small portion of your map), to create an exaggerated map. Finally, you should not push POV and push your own map in the article. We have Western sources for maps (University of Columbia and Texas) which meet WP:RS. You on the other hand cannot claim to be WP:RS as you do not have the same academic credentials. [69] and [70]. So it is your map vs University of Columbia/Texas. Which is one is WP:RS?


Also per your block log, you were supposed to discuss (and get feedback) controversial edits before reverting. That is twice you were told to do so. Not after three-four days when there is an AE case open. But the discussion in my opinion clearly shows you disregard WP:RS.. you quote random websites, combine nationalist sources with one cherry pick RS source (which contradicts most of your map), and erase the Armenians that inhabit Nagorno-Karabagh or Lezgins/Talysh. Then you color Qom, Arak (all at most 1/4 Azeri but probably 10%), Tehran, Kordestan (maybe 20% at most), etc. as the same as Eastern Azerbaijan provice (90% Azeri) You very well know your map that you reverted to is nationalist map and not WP:RS. And conviently ignored the University of Texas/Columbia maps that has been mentioned 4+ to you. I seriously hope AE board takes a look here. --Xodabande14 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only link to the policy is not enough, must act in accordance with accepted policies. This is the first sentence of WP:RS:


You are bound by WP:NPV? It is written in the WP:RS:


Western sources reveal, is inconsistent with Iranian sources. Due to the multitude of WP:RS Which have been published in Iran Western maps disposal should be in this article. This action is in accordance with WP:NPV.))) It was also the consensus, unfortunately you do not know the meaning of the consensus.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting policies which you are not following. Western sources meet WP:RS. The only Iranian WP:RS (and that is semi-RS) you showed was Hafeznia which contradicts your self-style made map. So you do not have a single WP:RS source. Your nationalist sources (like Beyoglu from a Turkish magazine) has no scholarly weight. Hafeznia does not color Arak, Qom ..etc. as Azerbaijani Turkish. Your self-style map does. So you have not followed WP:RS. No source colors the 14-20% Nagorno-Karabagh region under Armenian control as Azerbaijani. Not a single WP:RS source matches your map on Iraq. Furthermore, read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You cannot dispose Western maps because you found one Iranian sources (only one WP:RS which is Hafeznia) that contradicts them only in 5%. The Iranian map of Hafeznia contradicts your self-style map. The map you reverted to (your map) is not WP:RS. You cannot claim it to be WP:RS because you are not a scholar with credentials to put your map (the one you reverted to) above University of Texas, Columbia or even Hafeznia! If there are two , or three sources that meet WP:RS, you cannot disregard the Western ones and just chose one Iranian one. And even the Iranian one you claim to be WP:RS (Hafeznia) is about 50% different than your map. There is no Tehran, Qom, Arak, half of Kordestan province in his map. So University of Texas and Columbia are RS. But your self-style map is not. They are also Wikipedia:Verifiability which means you cannot disregard them. lso per your block log, you were supposed to discuss (and get feedback) controversial edits before reverting. That is twice you were told to do so. Not after three-four days when there is an AE case open. --Xodabande14 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn maps based on multiple sources. But what is the source of this map? that used in the article? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijanilanguage.png

This map is not a WP:RS. This is another example of the link to policy and do not it.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "multiple sources" are not true. You combined nationalist sources with one Hafeznia (and ignore Columbia/Texas). That is not really WP:RS. I am not sure if the map you are pointing to now is WP:RS or not, but you cannot and should not replace something that you feel is not WP:RS with your own map that is not WP:RS. Also your "multiple sources" do not support say your map on Iraq or Karabagh or Arak/Qom ..etc. I am not sure about the other map you mentioned, but one cannot replace a map that may or maybe WP:RS with a map that is self-made and not WP:RS for sure (your map). You could have requested removal of the map without replacing it with your map (which is not WP:RS). --Xodabande14 (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're Gaming the system. Without considering the WP:NPV and achieve consensus. I'll repeat my question:

what is the source of this map? that used in the article? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijanilanguage.png

This map is not a WP:RS.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how am I Gaming the system!? I said you cannot claim one map which I have nothing to do with is not RS (and you never did until now) and replace it with your own non WP:RS map. I did not draw that map. If you have a problem with another map, you can discuss it in the talkpage and seek consensus for its removal. But you cannot replace them with your own self-made map. The only maps I stated were RS are University of Texas and Columbia (which you have rejected multiple times even though they are WP:RS). [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Maps should basically match these sources. What is clearly not RS is the self-styled map you reverted to. We cannot change the discussion to something else. There are other RS and non-RS maps in Wikipedia. I am not responsible for any of them.--Xodabande14 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking about improving Wikipedia, why do you have different behaviors in two different maps? Why in front of a map without any source are completely indifferent? Why are a critical resource map?))) What is the relationship between maps (that you show) and this discussion? You mentioned several times the WP:RS But do not adhere to it in practice. I suggest to find a suitable map, both maps are removed from the article.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This map should also be removed from other articels.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a different behaviour and that is a wrong accusation. I simply cannot say the other map (which I did not create or even defend) is WP:RS or not, but it is closer to the WP:RS maps I bring than the map you have created.. All I know is that your map was not WP:RS and you should not defend it. These maps that I bring are WP:RS [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] (Columbia or Texas) are WP:RS. The reason I mention them is that any map should basically reflect these maps (you might want to just have West Azerbaijan or Qazvin as a mixed region as it is not sure what is 50% here..). Anything below 50% should have a different color including Qazvin city, Eastern Qazvin province, Hamadan city and Toviskaran, Asabad..most of Arak, definitely Qom, Kordestan province..etc. For example Eastern Azerbaijan is not the same color as say Tehran (where Azeris are minority) or Qom.. The other map you mention, I do not know but it is close to the University of Texas and Columbia maps. That is it is not far off (maybe except parts of Western Azerbaijan which is majority Azeri like Urmiye). Your map though is very far off from these RS sources! But you have inserted your own self-style maps all over Azeri wikipedia (judging by where it is linked).. You know that is the wrong thing to do. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Apparently you're wrong I'm writing. Just to reach consensus was that they wrote. If you insist on your opinion it is better to wait for other users to make comments. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that the Texas and Columbia maps meet WP:RS? Because they meet WP:RS. What is your WP:RS source? Either way, hopefully you will not revert to your self-made map. But making nationalist maps is not a good thing. I simply suggest the Columbia map for Iran (with possibly Western Azerbaijan shown as Azeri-Kurd region), remove the Nagorno-Karabagh, Talysh, Lezgin areas for republic of Azerbaijan and remove that unsupported area in Iraq. I have not studied Turkey. As per the current map, it is close to the University of Texas map http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg] or Columbia map [81]. Someone should just edit it for Western Azerbaijan to show it as a mixed region. Other than that, it is basically correct since it matches the Utexas map. Therere won't be a 100% correct map, but I do know that the map you created and inserted is nationalistic. It is not fair to say people of Arak just like a map showing all of Western Azerbaijan as Kurdish (BBC) is not fair to the people of Urmia. You should either delete your map or remove it from other Wikipedias as it is not truthful and not WP:RS. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I also suggest some one with artistic background brings these to Wikipedia [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez-nia is not too bad either..except that Eastern half of Qazvin province, and Takestan and Qazvin city is not majority Azeri, and on the other hand, Zanjan should basically be all Azeri majority. West Azerbaijan is uncertain and remains so. But none of them is detailed as Columbia University [87] (which might be at worst 2-5% off from reality). The current map here (with the exception of West Azerbaijan) is almost the same as Columbia University. So I suggest Western Azerbaijan be fixed on the current map (based on some mixed formula) as the current map is close to the other RS sources I mentioned. Other than that, I do not have any other suggestions. Still you should not have reverted to your own self-style made map..I really suggest you remove your map from the Azeri Wikipedia as well. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest Western Azerbaijan be fixed on the current map (based on some mixed formula)". Exactly how?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
West Azerbaijan is complicated and no one can be sure. Perhaps something close to this: [88]. -Xodabande14 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map is taken from a doctoral thesis. I think it is the fairest map for West Azerbaijan province.)) You can get the maps?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I do think that is a good map for Western Azerbaijan as it is very specialized research on just the province. I probably cannot get that actual map this week or next probably. Plus I do not really draw maps. But you do. Lets rather resolve this now. If you can, just take the controversial map you have drawn, modify it to match the current map of the article (the existing one) and then add colors from here [89]. Then we are done..Thanks. For your sources mention Columbia (link above), University of Texas (link above), and this: [90]. And we are in agreement. Chox Mamnoon ve Eybi Yokhdur. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically edit your map like this: [91] and then correct Western Azerbaijan [92]. And also I think it is fair we cite u-texas, columbia and this [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Azerbaijanilanguage.png, since they will now be off by 2-5%.. Thanks. -arguments made​​-Xodabande14 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The next few days I'm trying to do another map. Thank you.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I still have kept my complaint though because you have made a series of nationalist maps in Wiki commons without any sources (discussed above). And you did not disagree that they were not RS. Infact I am surprised that you quoted what you know are flimsy non WP:RS nationalist sources. These maps kept being inserted by different nationalist POV pushers. One should only make WP:RS maps. I am sure Alborz and others will look at any new maps. But you need remove the nationalistic maps from Wikipedia, Wikipedia commons and other Wiki projects that are using it as they violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They simply waste the time of the community.--Xodabande14 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days, a new map, based on the discussion, will replace the previous map and automatically map will change in others Wikipedias.)) If we are talking here about the other Wikipedias, the Farsi Wikipedia may also be included in this discussion. We can continue this talk in the user talk pages. Thanks.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map by Ebrahimi Amir is bogus. I am from Arak, and I can tell you Azeri Turkish is a minority in this area. Same in Qom, Southern half of Hamadan, East of Qazvin and the city..Iroony (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New map

File:AzerbaijanTurks.jpg
default

I've drawn a new map. If the map is wrong, write to be resolved.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in gilan and west of west azarbaijan province turks living with other people like talish and kurds.Iroony (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map is much better than the nationalist map. But:

  • It is much better but..even though Astara city is majority Azeri speaking Hashtpar is mostly Talysh (per the maps).. I would put the whole Gilan area you have highlighted as a mixed area like this one [93] except possibly the city of Astara.. There are parts is right now not 100% sure (except Astara)..but we must follow other RS maps (Utxas, Columbia..etc).
  • The Qazvin (the city itself ) and East of it all the way to Tehran including Tehran area is mixed but Persian is majority in this area per WP:RS maps (Columbia, Utexas).

See also Sedaa o Simaa [94]. So the red mark should stop right before Qazvin city and Takestan. Note this boundary hasn't changed much since 100+ years ago. Edward Brown-A YEAR AMONGST THE PERSIANS - IMPRESSIONS AS TO THE LIFE, CHARACTER, & THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA - Received during Twelve Months' Residence in that Country in the Year 1887-1888. "It is not till Kazvin is reached, and only four or five stages separate the traveler from Tehran, that the Persian distinctly predominates over the Turkish excerpt 2: The bazaars were much like those which we had already seen at Khuy, Tabriz, and Zanjan; but as regards the people, the advantage was decidedly in favor of Kazvinis who are more pleasing in countenance, more gentle in manners and rather darker in complex than the Azerbaijanis. Persian is spoken by them "..So Persian has been the predominant language of Qazvin and East of it..since Qajar times and right now too..

I was combined Hafeznia maps [95] with the previous map. Areas marked in red, has been used of the previously map (Without any change in the East). With this explanation, I will draw a new map.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AzerbaijanTurks2.jpg
New version

This is new version of the map. Is it good?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost there. One more change should be made. Based on this : [96] and Utexas maps, Malayer, Toviskaran and Asabad and Nahavand, Azeri is either minority or not existent (for example Nahavand is 99% Lur without any exaggeration). Malayer has Azeri speaking villages, but amongst a population of 300,000 in the county, it is less than 10% , so it should not be in the map (per Utexas and Columbia). In Hamadan county (not province), Azeri is minority but that is okay to have mixed, since although the city is overwhelmingly Persian speaking, the villagers speak Azeri. The rest looks okay. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for example, urmiya province has at least 10% Kurd but it is majority Azeri..so it is not shown as a mixed area..same should hold for Malayer, Toviskaran, Asabad and Nahavand..I would put the threshold for a mixed area at 30%..Those areas of Hamadan where Azeri is less than 30% for sure (Asadabad, Toviskaran, Malayer, and Nahavand) should not be there..But actually Bahar, Razan and Kabudar-ahang should be in red (as Azeri is majority)..and then Hamadan country should be mixed (Majority is Persian city but most villages speak Azeri). On Tehran, although Azeris are minority, the population is set to be as high as one third..well at least 3+ million plus probably. But the majority of them speak Tehrani Persian..Either way mixed area for Tehran is fine in my opinion. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss city to city is a complex task. For example, what is the duty of Qom province? I'm was drawn the map on a limited number of sources. Map of West Azerbaijan was ready and I was ready to work on a map.Can you apply the changes yourself? So let's talk about it later. Thanks--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 58.9% of people in the Hamadan province are Azerbaijani Turk.Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all of the province. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000. So it is WP:OR and WP:synthesis to make a predication of minority/majority based on that. For example, it could have taken more samples from say Bahar, Razan than Nahavand. We do not simply do know which cities and villages were chosen. For example the Lur area was missed, because Lurs of Toviskaran, Malayar, Nahavand..make up at least 15-20% of Hamadan. That is one needs sources stating "majority" directly without any interpretation. Here is an actual claim on Hamadan (official): [97]. There is two official reports on Hamadan: [98] [99] and this one from Sedaa o Simaa:[100].

Anyhow, I know Hamadan well enough but this is an actual source on each county: [101]. University of Texas and Columbia maps are almost correct, but Turkish speaking area is bigger (while the population is mainly concentrated in on-Turkish area counties). Here are the suggested final changes[102]:

  • Bahar, Razan, Kabudar Ahang are majority Azeri (over 90%) so it should be red. (that makes around 50% or more of the territory actually).
  • Hamadan county yellow (most villagers are Azeri but city is majority Persian and this make the province majority Persian speaking..)..so yellow is good.
  • Toviskaran, Nahavand, Malayer, Asad Abad white. Azeris are below 20%. For example in Nahavand it is at most 1-3%..that is not significant enough to put it as "mixed".
  • Tehran being mixed is fine although 63% according to one census identify as Persian and 98% understand Persian[103]. This would mean Azerbaijani is between 1/3 to 1/6..(no one knows). But all of the province of Tehran as mixed is fine..
  • Overall, I think we should agree if an area is less than 20-30%, it is not really "mixed". Else for example Urmiya county, Khoy, Maku..etc. would be mixed too since Kurds are 10%... Also there is probably some sort of Turkish villages or tribe in everywhere in iran except say Sistan/Baluchistan, Yazd... But we don't put mixed because of some villages.. Else For example then Tati in East Azerbaijan would make it mixed.. So usually there is some threshold and I think 20-30% is a good one for mixed. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these suggestions which match the University of Texas and Columbia maps (as well as the Ostandari site), I think the new map is okay (Tehran should also just be mixed as mentioned). But you should not have made the original map in the first place. Since I think we both wasted enough of time (specially me trying to explain why it is not WP:RS)..no map is 100% perfect but the original map based on nationalistic sources were not good. You should not defend it, but rather say: "I worked towards a consensus for a new map". If you defend the old map which was not RS, I cannot withdraw my AE request or not request permanent sanctions.. And personally I do not hold any grudge. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some days that we worked towards a consensus for a new map. Both maps have objections that must be overcome. Look at the statistics:

About 30.3 percent population of Tehran province, 36.1 percent population of Alborz province (Alborz Province was formed by division of Tehran Province into two provinces - 2010), 25.8 percent population of Qom province and 20.8 percent population of population of Markazi province are Azerbaijani Turks.

Based on these facts and statistics about the Hamadan province I will draw the map again.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AzerbaijanTurks3.jpg
New version2

Is it good?--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

final edit suggestion with recommend changes

What you are referring to is are not census and you are committing WP:OR again. The map should match University of Texas and Columbia (the red). What you keep referencing is not a census (1390). That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all aspect of each of the provinces. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000". 288/1200 and 1400/60000 does not cover all of it. Neither is 18000 people (since we do not know if there was uniform sampling). It does not say which Sharestans and cities were chosen. The yellow part should say "linguistic minority" not mixed area. Else all of Western Azerbaijan should be mixed. Qazvin city and Hamadan cities are not majority Azerbaijani. So you are committing WP:OR based on a 1390 sample that is not a census. That is making the 1390 study a census is WP:OR. It is not because it does not mention which Shahrestans, villages and counties were chosen. Where-as Hamadan has an actual census from provincial officials: [104] which takes into account every Shahrestan (county) --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So to make it brief (and final edits):

  • the 1390 is not a census for Iran. It is limited to less 1/5 of Iran's cities and 1/40 th or so of Iran's villages! But assuming this is a census, the number of Azeris in Iran by this census (based on provincial statistics) would be at most 16 million.
  • Change 1)
  • On Hamadan, you will need an actual source stating "majority is this" (e.g. [105])and not an interpretation of incomplete statistics. I have actual sources on this (specially the Iranica one is specialized and breaks it down by county):
    • Parviz Aḏkāʾi and EIr, HAMADĀN i. GEOGRAPHY in Encyclopaedia Iranica[106]:"Languages spoken. Hamadān has been a crossroads of civilizations for millennia and a mosaic of cultures and dialects live there side by side. The main language spoken, especially in the provincial capital and its surroundings, is Persian, which is also the lingua franca in other regions. In the northern parts of the province, however, the language mostly spoken is Azeri Turkish, while in the northwest and west, near the provinces of Kurdistan and Kermānšāhān, people mostly speak Kurdish, while in some other cities such as Malāyer, Nehāvand, and Sāmen most people speak Lori and Lak (Faraji, p. 1296).
    • 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..."
    • Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source.
    • Note on Hamadan, there is an exact breakup of each Shahristan from complete official study [107]. That is it covers the whole province where-as your reference has no details (which cities, villages and what weight). Anyhow the Hamadan map should be close to Utexas and Columbia map. Conclusion: Bahar, Razan and Kaburarahang should be red. Hamadan city (hence county) should be yellow, and Nahavand, Toviskaran, Malayer, Asad abad should not be there.
  • Change 2
  • Qazvin city and east of it should not be yellow (both Utexas and Columbia map) and the sources given about on Qazvin[108][109]
  • Change 3
  • The rest of the yellow is fine but the yellow in Iran should be "linguistic minority". That is clear, that in Tehran, Alborz, Arak ..etc. There are Azeris in around Saveh and Komijan but not say Khomein, Tafresh, Ashtiyan and at least the Southern and Middle parts of Arak is very smaller minority or not existent. Either way if the yellow says "linguistic minority" on Arak and Qom..then it is fine. So The yellow should say Linguistic minority).
  • Side comment:
  • On Iraq or Turkey, you can have "mixed "(okay fine..I do not know too much about Iraq although I have not seen any map supporting such an area), but in Iran those places are not mixed, but Azeris are clear minority and the yellow should say "linguistic minority"(Tehran, Qom, Arak, areas of Hamadan we discussed except Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang..) not "mixed". Else, if we use your formula, all of Western Azerbaijan is "mixed" because Kurds make about 10-30% of many areas you have red. So to be consistent, we need to have "linguistic minority" for the yellow in Iran (Arak, Tehran, Qom..etc.) (which matches the RS maps whether Iranian (Hafeznia) or Utexas/Columbia). Also please no copy & pasting again of 1920s sources as the population of Central and Northern Iran has grown tremendously..plus the only statistics on 1920 that I am aware of is by one Ervand Abrahamian (Azeris are put around 20% I believe and Persian 50%..) ..but 1920s doesn't matter as there are now 21th century and late 20th century sources...and things are relatively clear by provincial weights --Xodabande14 (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population

How you calculated this one? Iran: 11.2 to 25 million (conventional). Changed from 18 to 25. No new sources are added to that section or no changes to the current sources. Same sources from previous revision(s). Which of them represents this new change/update? Zheek (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the cited sources. I did not find anything in cited Iranica's article. Can you show me the specific section? Library of Congress and CIA World Factbook say 16% of total population and Izady says 13%. So if we consider CIA data about Iran's population (79,853,900 (July 2013 est.)). The correct and matched range is "10,381,007 to 12,776,624" NOT 11.2 to 18 million OR 11.2 to 25 million. Zheek (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 18 or 25 million are high end figures from some what I would consider unreliable books (like Brenda Shaffer who ranges it from 1/5 to 1/3 (25 million) or some random book). Note this source who actually discusses the statistics: Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris.". So this is a specialized book written by a Western author on minorities in Iran. So the 23 million (or round up to 25 million) is mentioned by some "Western scholars", but this is a bogus figure. Anyway I left it because it is mentioned by some "Western authors". Perhaps another formula would be 11-18 million (conventional), 23-30 million (controversial). However, even in this 1390 census (which is not a full census but only takes into 1/5 of cities and 1/40th villages), the number of Azeris would be around 14-15 million... These high end figures given by nationalists are not authoritative. For now 11-25 million (even if the 25 million is nonsense) is supported by some "Western sources" even if in my opinion they are bogus (and they are). I am going to remove the Johregani quote as Chehregani is not WP:RS by any imagination. The problem is Iranian government says something in its embassy page, another in official statics, then carry favor with Turkey its foreign minister says another things.., but the recent CIA factbook estimate (coming from 25% to 16%) is accurate in my opinion. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24% is the old CIA Factbook data. Now It's updated to 16% like the other source (Library of Congress). So the max is not 18 million but 12.7 million (based on CIA Factbook data). You can verify it. I think that book is not good for conventional section. Anyway, my suggestion is:
1. Change conventional section info. If you consider Izady's info, the min is 10.3 million (or rounded to 10.4). If CIA and LoC is your min, the min is 12.7 million (or rounded to 12.8). And if you want to use 30% from that book, max is almost 24 million. So conventional should be like one of these suggestions:
1.1. 10.4–12.8 million (Izady + CIA and LoC)
1.2. 10.4–24 million (Izady + CIA and LoC + that book)
1.3. 12.8–24 million (CIA and LoC + that book)
If you don't want to cite Izady's data, so it should be removed.
2. Separate cited sources for conventional and controversial sections. Formatting:
  • ... (conventional) (cited sources, e.g. Izady, CIA, LoC, and that book) ... (controversial) (cited sources).
I will do the formatting.
3. No need to cite bunch of similar sources for the controversial section. All of them support similar claims, so they are redundant, unnecessary and unhelpful. Zheek (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks..the problem with this section has been ongoing. Partly because some users did not care if they are citing specialist in the area, but they try to find random teriatary sources or non-specialist sources without Ph.D. (Mihanan) to quote something.
  • I agree with different sections having different sources. Here is what I suggest.
  • I would suggest something like you said with the exception:
  • 10.4-15 million (CIA Factbook+LoC+Izady+Knüppel+Swietchowski)
  • 15-25 million (Shaffer+Mafinezam)
  • 25-30 million (controversial)(Alieva) (e.g. of sources viewing it as controversial are Gheisarri+Elling)
  • Do you know how to separate the sections? I will add references for all three. Can you attemp to make the edit the way you want? I will fix it up to add what I mentioned (supplement it).
  • I should say I will make a new map based on just majority areas. There is no way all of Arak, Qom or etc..are mixed. I will mention though sizable and/or notable minority populations in Tehran, Eastern Kordestan province, Arak, Qom, etc. The areas of Hamadan and Qazvin where Azeri is majority is given by Iranica and government state sites.. The 30,000 in Sonqor among 150,000 Kurds of Sonqor-Koliyai and 2 million or so Kermanshahs is not notable. --Xodabande14 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this: Template:Infobox ethnic group. The example is good (Uzbekistan's field). I think that example is enough and will help you. Zheek (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I tried to fix it up by condensing similar sources into one..and putting the criticism into one source. Getting rid of a tertiary source. Also Iranica like CIA factbook basically puts 1/6 as the number of Turkic speakers..This includes Qashqais, Turkmens, Khalajs as well as Azerbaijani-Turkish. But since 90% of Turkic-speakers in Iran are Azeris, I have just put it as is. Please see if you can cleanup the formatting to match that Uzbekistan template you just showed..I do not think the current format is bad and it is basically the same as three days ago except cleaned up. There are sources that criticize 23, and 24 million as nationalistic..but then there are sources that mention them..so I thought we need to keep both. --Xodabande14 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better than previous revisions, because it matches with sources and it's more specific. But maybe "conventional" and "controversial" form is better for the future edits. As I said before, another important thing is exact min and max values. You should check all of them. Is there any official census/statistics by government of Iran about ethnic groups and languages? Zheek (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a census in around 1986 about how many Iranians know Persian (it was 83% then) and how many speak only Persian (do not know any other languages) (86.2% of those). This would mean 71% of Iranians only know Persian[110]. Note this was complete survey (not a limited number). I believe Izady is referring to the same census. I am not sure if the Iranian government made a new one of that in 2001. But other than that, there has never been a full census as far as I am aware. A recent one referenced by Ebrahimi Amir shows Azeris around 15 million, but the survey only consists of 18000 people across about 200 cities and 1400 villages. Where-as Iran has 1200+ cities and 60000 villages, and plus, 70-80 million people. And then the sample for each province and county is also unknown and there is no proof it was uniform. However, each province has an official page and with a trip to these provinces, one can get a good rough estimate that might differ by about 2-4%. The Izady map is fairly accurate and I would say it would differ from reality about 5%. So the estimates you see from CIA factbook etc.. fairly match the provincial population and the composition of each province is fairly known and one can upper bounds for say Tehran and get a very accurate figure.. That is why the CIA factbook figure has been revised as the old figures where from 1970s. --Xodabande14 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked about that because if we have verifiable official sources, we can put official statistics in the infobox section and move other sources to the other parts of article and related section(s). For example see Russians. A clean and well-formatted ethnic group article. Zheek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Shaffer states 1/5 to 1/3,..we can't necessarily ascribe 1/3 to her as we can't do 1/5. She quotes Javad Heyat (Azeri-Turkish nationalist editor of Varligh) that 1/3 of Iran is of "Turkic origin". I would say since Heyat is nationalistic, this is the high end she is quoting. I put her in the references but did not mention her name among the high ones. Even Mihanan is giving a range (and he is not really a scholar or specialist on the rea).
  • On what you asked. There has been only one complete study [111] but it is old. According to this book the population of Iran in 1335 (1950s or so) was 14 million. From this 14 million, 2451061 people lived in a mono-lingual Turkish setting, 877627 lived in a bilingual Persian-Turkish setting and 187464 lived in a place where Persian/Turkish/Kurdish was spoken. Thus the range of Turkish (not all Azeris as the book uses Turkish (Torki) I believe) speakers is from 17.5% to 25.1% according to this actual statistics that was done. Anyhow, unfortunately there has not been a complete census other than the 1986 which I just mentioned above. There was a census in around 1986 about how many Iranians know Persian (it was 83% then) and how many speak only Persian (do not know any other languages) (86.2% of those). This would mean 71% of Iranians only know Persian[112]. Note this was an actual census and not guess work. Most Azeris (except those possibly in Tehran) speak Azeri as a first language. So based on guesswork, I assume 65% of Iranians speaks Persian (close to Izady or CIA factbook) and 35% is divided between Persian dialects/Iranian languages (e.g. Gilaki, Tabari, Baluchi, Luri, Kurdish), Turkic languages (e.g. Azeri, Qashqai, Khalaj..), Arabic and then smaller minorities (e.g. Assyrian, Armenian). --Xodabande14 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

map suggestion

About the map..now that we do not have to worry about nationalist POV pushing shoving maps that show all of Qom, Tehran, Arak, Karabagh as 100% Azerbaijani-speaking, I suggest the following.

  • Map of Azeris based on HAFEZNIA M.R.,GHASRI M.,AHMADI HAMID,HOSSEINI H RACIAL AND ORGANIZING .ATMOSPHERE POLITICAL: CASE STUDY: WEST AND NORTH- WEST OF IRAN [2]
    Map of Azeris based on HAFEZNIA M.R.,GHASRI M.,AHMADI HAMID,HOSSEINI H RACIAL AND ORGANIZING .ATMOSPHERE POLITICAL: CASE STUDY: WEST AND NORTH- WEST OF IRAN [2]
  • Map of Azeris based on "Political Geography of Iran", DR. MOHAMMAD REZA HAFEZ NIA, SMT, Tehran, 2002. (in Persian).
    Map of Azeris based on "Political Geography of Iran", DR. MOHAMMAD REZA HAFEZ NIA, SMT, Tehran, 2002. (in Persian).
  • Approximate map of majority Azerbaijani speaking regions. See notes in the map for details on Iran.
    Approximate map of majority Azerbaijani speaking regions. See notes in the map for details on Iran.
  • Approximate map of Azerbaijanis showing also former Azerbaijani speaking regions in the Caucasus
    Approximate map of Azerbaijanis showing also former Azerbaijani speaking regions in the Caucasus
  • Iran ethno-religious distribution 2004 based on University of Texas map Collection[3][4]
    Iran ethno-religious distribution 2004 based on University of Texas map Collection[3][4]
  • I think the best idea is to simply have a gallery of 5 WP:RS maps or 2-3 maps.
  • Making a 100% real accurate map would take at least a year (if not more) with some fieldwork although a POV nationalistic map can be spotted in a second (as it was done in the previous discussion and brought to AE).
  • I made the third map by modifying some files.
  • The information for Hamadan is taken from their relative provincial statistics as well as Iranica. a) On Hamadan, there actual source stating "majority is this" (e.g. [113])and not an interpretation of incomplete statistics. Parviz Aḏkāʾi and EIr, HAMADĀN i. GEOGRAPHY in Encyclopaedia Iranica[114]:"Languages spoken. Hamadān has been a crossroads of civilizations for millennia and a mosaic of cultures and dialects live there side by side. The main language spoken, especially in the provincial capital and its surroundings, is Persian, which is also the lingua franca in other regions. In the northern parts of the province, however, the language mostly spoken is Azeri Turkish, while in the northwest and west, near the provinces of Kurdistan and Kermānšāhān, people mostly speak Kurdish, while in some other cities such as Malāyer, Nehāvand, and Sāmen most people speak Lori and Lak (Faraji, p. 1296). b) 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..."

c) Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source. d) Provincial statistics from the Ostaandaari (Provincial Governor) [115] e) IRIB of Hamadan [116]. All this makes it clear that Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang are majority Azerbaijani speakings but the rest of the counties are not. It doesn't make sense to put the whole province as linguistically mixed when the population of Azeris in say Nahavand or Toviskaran hovers aound 1%. Or when Bahar is over 90%+ Azeri speaking. Some user mentioned a 1390 study of Iran where 18000 people, 288 city and 1400 villages were selected. But that study does not have any maps. Also Iran has about 1200+ cities[117] and 60000 villages[118]. Also one is unsure if that particular census was done uniformly (from one cities, and counties) were chosen. So there is no information on each separate county and that incomplete source is useless for making a map (for example Lurs in Nahavand, Toviskaran and Malayer can easily make 15-20% of the province but they are listed as 5% in that questioner which shows it was not done uniformly. Also the information contradicts Iranica and other sources I brought).

  • On Qazvin, I used information from IRIB [119] and source b of Hamadan above. Also Columbia and Texas maps. And also this [120]. Note Takestan county is Tati speaking and Qazvin city is Persian speaking (and areas to the East of it too).
  • The only 100% WP:RS map is really the university of Texas map but it has some issues. Unfortunately, I am not sure if the Izady map is copy righted and allowed in Wikipedia [121].
  • The information on Arak (except possibly the very small and low populated Komijan which I think is Azerbaijnai speaking but I have heard younger generations do not speak it), Qom, Tehran, Alborz, Kordestan (Bijar and Garus where an Azerbaijani minority exists amongst majority Bijari Kurds)..was not available or hard to pinpoint and then draw on the map. These provinces should not be put as "mixed" since Azerbaijani-Turkish is clear minority in all of these provinces. So putting it as "linguistically mixed" gives the wrong picture. Also most areas in say Kordestan or Qom are not "linguistically mixed" and even say in Bijar, Bijari Kurds are majority, so writing "linguistically mixed" is like having Urmiya province as "linguistically mixed". Where there is an area (possibly say Komijan) that seems to be an Azerbaijani majority, then the map might possible be modified by future users.
  • On Western Azerbaijan..no one knows and there is varying conflicting reports. I took this PDF which might be accurate: [122] but the Columbia map shows something else [123]. [124]

[125]. Well as I said, we do not have 100% accurate map but all the above maps are basically the same within a very reasonable degree.

  • Here is my final suggestion on this: If it is good with Alborz, Zheek or Iroony, or anyone else that participated, then we should put all 5 maps. If not, the current map in the article is fine (although it has some mistakes on Western Azerbaijan). I do believe map 3 (which I made with a test account since I never uploaded in wiki commons) with regards to Iran is even more accurate than University of Texas map and the currently the most accurate in Wikipedia, but University of Texas meets WP:RS where-as 4 of the other 5 maps might not be 100% (as they are not Western made although Hafeznia can be argued to meet WP:RS). I will let Alborz and others handle it from here as I wasted enough time on this issue arguing while POV map that is not supported by its own sources is to be rejected..and most of it unfortunately going to the AE board explaining why some maps were nationalist POV. So showing at least 2 if not all 5 maps might be a good solution.. I'll let others weigh in as I am not going to suggest or edit this page, as the AE has taken care of nationalists POV pushers and other can suggest improvement for the article. Thanks. --Xodabande14 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This case (map) needs editors who are involved in ethnic group/linguistic articles editing. Xodabande14, I think you should ask them about that. My suggestion is using the reliable maps like the University of Texas map or a version of it which is focused on Azerbaijani ethnicity. Your maps (you and Ebrahimi-amir) are like WP:OR (and maybe biased and POV) and still need additional works. Must be verified by the other editors. Take them to the proper noticeboards for verification. New maps (specially self-made ones) need consensus. Zheek (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Izady's map

Mehrdad Izady is a PhD at the department of Middle Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Columbia University . This map at Columbia University Gulf/2000 Project seems to be a RS . What's the opinion of other editors ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alborz and Zheek. Just four short statements

  • Izady map is part of Columbia University so it meets WP:RS and WP:Verifability. However, I hope you or Zheek or someone can contact Izady (see below or your userpage) or Columbia Gulf Project 2000 to make it available in Wikipedia commons. Or possibly it might be free to use for scientific purposes.
  • My last statement on this (I know the previous was my last..but I want to make sure this stays here for the record). I agree with either Zheek and Alborz that we need to have an WP:RS map as user made maps are controversial and do not meet WP:Verifability. The map I suggested was simply a backup, but in reality we must follow the rules in Wikipedia as it is not a debate club. There is no 100% perfect map and it would take years to do 100% precise fieldwork and make maps. Also Iranian officials make dumb statements. Recently Esfandyar Rahim Mashai (right now chief of staff, former vice president and other official positions) said: " «آذربایجان غربی، ایلام و کرمانشاه متعلق به کردستان است و این قوم از برترین قوم‌های ایرانی است.»،" ("West Azerbaijan belongs to Kurdistan") [126][127]" (google this statement for other sites). So none of the Iranian officials have any WP:RS quality as they go to different places try to gain favor by exaggerating (see above as well with my discussion with Ebrahimi Amir). So if one were to make WP:OR maps based on Salehi (not a scholar) or Mashai (not a scholar).. or etc.. who have no data when they makeup stuff, then there would be 100s of maps. Then there is the Iranian embassy which has a more official written statement [128] (this official data seems correct), but again we cannot create maps based on these as that would be WP:OR. In fact scholarly institutions, organizations and widely cited scholars in academic journals are the only ones that should make maps or are put statistics. Any map would need be detailed based on provincial data of each county, and then made a by respectable academic organization. So we only can use already made maps as, anything else is just speculation and WP:OR.
  • The Texas map is online. Perhaps someone can contact Izady (I believe his email is active but I have not made my email active) [129] to get him to upload his map to Wiki Commons. He has been working on his map for a long time and even if it is not 100% perfect (no map is), it meets both WP:RS (Columbia University) and WP:Verifability. Something we can't say about any self-made map. The Hafeznia maps in opinion might be okay..so having all three with attribution would be okay (instead of arguing which map is correct). Something like Distribution of Azeris (Uuniversity of Texas, Columbia Gulf Project, etc..)). That is Columbia, Texas and another WP:RS (and not self-made by users) map (e.g. Hafeznia) next to each other. Anything else that users make, should probably be not in Wikipedia as the issue is controversial and not a place to debate about in Wikipedia. Of course that is a suggestion and I know the active participants here follow the law and they will hopefully have a good formula.
  • Overall I hope Zheek, Alborz and others can work out it. --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point . please read this : Izady : My maps are stolen and posted here on Wiki--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Turkic speaking/people

I have noticed that some people are changing the first description of Azerbaijani people, from 'Turkic-speaking people' to just 'Turkic people'. In the Wikipedia article itself it is state that Azerbaijani are culturally [130] and ethnically [131] mixed, therefore you can't say that they are Turkic people, regardless if other websites used the term 'Turkic people' or not. You don't call Flemish people Netherlanders either even though they speak Dutch. Linguistically Azerbaijani do speak a language that is Turkic, so saying that they are Turkic-speaking people (the original term used in this article) is correct. Verdia25 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Britannica Refrences say [132]:Azerbaijani people, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. OK??? AZEBAIJANI PEOPLE IS A TURKIC PEOPLE OK?? OKEY!--Saməkبحث‍ 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of, don't act so immature. In regards to your argument, it is true that many references use 'Turkic people', this is also stated in this wikipedia article itself under the paragraph 'origins', in which ALSO is explained that their origin isn't believed to be Turkic. However the language is, so they're Turkic-speaking people. Using the term 'Turkic people' instead could be confusing for some people as it may suggests that rather their origin is Turkic, which again isn't believed to be case. There was nothing wrong with the former term 'Turkic-speaking people, so why change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdia25 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MR: Encyclopædia Britannica Refrences say [133]:Azerbaijani people, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. Have Strong refrences.--THE END--SaməkTalk 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, If you want in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring can complain.SaməkTalk 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you gave the same reaction (that reference again) and didn't go against my arguments, I undone the change and used the original description.Verdia25 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, please Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Complain me.SaməkTalk 12:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just edit that bit of content again without giving a counterargument against my arguments that I used.Verdia25 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edit by Valid Source say: Encyclopædia Britannica→ [134]--SaməkTalk 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my counterargument to the source you're referring to. Verdia25 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oll of the sources, say Azeris is a turkic people.[135] and see other sources this article.[1][2][3][4]--188.245.108.195 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Azerbaijanis". Looklex Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 2013-07-04.
  2. ^ "Azerbaijani (people)" Encyclopædia Britannica
  3. ^ An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992), ISBN 3-447-03274-X. Retrieved 8 June 2006.
  4. ^ »Turkic Peoples", Encyclopedia Americana, volume 27, page 276. Grolier Inc. , New York (1998) ISBN 0-7172-0130-9. Retrieved 8 June 2006.

and User:verdis. please ending vandalism and Sabotage.188.245.108.195 (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijanis&oldid=565177532"