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 Ebrahimi-amir (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 11 April 2013 (→‎Number of South Azerbaijani 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

Persian vandalism on wikipedia

this page like many other pages is created by Persian vandals who have targeted the idendity and culture of Azeri turks and are afraid of southern Azerbaijan separatist movements, i know you will delet this comment but wikishits is no effective tool to assimilate a nation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.129.151 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri people are definitely only to a small extend turks. The turks who stayed there, were too few to have an genetical impact on the population of the sessile caucasians and proto-iranians (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14714471), who resided there in this region. The azeris speak the turkish language, but only in response to turkish occupation of azerbaijan, which was brutal by any means. And this was only a small contingent of seljuk turkmen, who went to azerbaijan (read the authorative caucasuslogist Tadeusz Swietochowski rather than the "rants" by the grey wolves of the Nationalist movement party (mhp) and other would be turkish hegemonists). In general the turkish people who live in anatolya are generally a mixture of hettites, medes, greeks, and some georgian caucasians. There was not such a huge turkish migrant population that all these native peoples in anatolya can be called ethnic turks, and there were even fewer settling in the adverse caucasus than in the relatively easily controllable planes of the anatolian highlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.3.10 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming Anatolian Turks as the mixture of other nations is exactly an imaginative product of Persian vandals. According to the academic study of 15 years (1993-2008), the Ottoman census records of Anatolia (from 1453 to 1650) have been translated to the modern Turkish, and these records have displayed that there were more than 41.000 Turkic clans, all the records classify the people of Anatolia into ethnic groups and clans. According to all these written records of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, Turks were the most crowded people in Anatolia. So, based on these records, there are maps of 24 great Oghuz tribes displaying where the clans of Turkic people moved and settled in Anatolia. According to these Ottoman records, not counting the settled Turks, there were 984.377 households of nomadic Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century; and if you count each household as eight people, it shows that nearly 7.875.000 Turkic nomads lived in Anatolia. Turkish tribes and clans had their own villages and cities, and they moved to great cities and outnumbered Armenian and Greek people. Today, there are hundreds of villages and towns called Kayi, Salur, Igdir, Bayindir, Bayat, Yazir etc, which are the names of important Oghuz clans. In later periods, there have been always conflicts between Turks and other ethnic groups of Anatolia such as Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Therefore, Turks lived belligerently with others and didn’t intermingle with them. As a result of these conflicts, in 1914, Armenian people have been forced to migration; Also in 1923, Greek people has been forced to migration to Greece, and the following years, the Turks in Greece and Bulgaria have been forced to migration to Turkey. Today, the Turks in Anatolia are ethnically and racially Oghuz Turks, and they aren’t any mixture of other nations. Oghuz Turks are physically aren’t similar to Mongols and they still maintain their own characteristic features. In this respect, the Turks of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan, Balkans, Gagauz and Turkmenistan are very similar to each others, physically, linguistically and culturally, because they are all Oghuz Turks and they aren’t so slant-eyed like the others such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs, who have been under the influence of Mongols. Also the Salar people in China look like Chinese people as they are intermingled with them. In other words, slant-eyed features are derived from Mongoloid and Chinese races to the Turkic groups. In fact, all the historical records mention that most of the Oghuz Turks moved to Anatolia during the Mongol invasion of Aral and Khwarezmian steppes. As a result of the large migration of Turkic nomads, Turks outnumbered Anatolia, and didn’t intermingled with the Mongoloids. As the Oghuz Turks live nomadically, they escaped from the Mongol invaders and didn’t intermingle with them. Even just the clan of the founder of Ottoman House moved to Anatolia with a population of nearly 100.000 in order to escape the danger of Mongol invasion (the Ottoman historians cite it). According to the Ottoman census records of 15-16th centuries, approximately 7.875.000 Turkic nomads lived in Anatolia, except the settled Turks. If you count and include the settled Turks, there were more than 10.000.000 Turks in Anatolia in the 16th century. On the other hand, about the genetics, let me say, the science of genetics is still developing and nothing is certain about the genes. Nobody knows the genes of Oghuz Turks who lived 1000 years ago. Maybe Persians received their genes from Azerbaijani Turks; or the people of the Middle East borrowed most of their genes from the Turks who invaded all those areas. Genetics hasn’t been a reliable source yet. So, you can’t determine an ethnic group with their genes. You just deceive yourself or fool others. Last, Wikipedia articles are under Persian vandals or desirous boys, who fight for their Pan-Iranism aims. So, all these articles based on Persian ideas (not based on academical studies) are full of shit, and academically nonsense to care about. - 81.213.102.195 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Turks who stayed there were large enough to make a majority, hence the majority of hence Azeris speak a Turkic language and have a Turkic culture (with Iranic and Caucasian influences). Yes, the Turks did mix with Iranians and Caucasians, but only a majority could change the language and culture to Turkic. Wikipedian cliques like to push the insane theory, supported by modern quacks and pop scientists, that a small majority of medieval, mostly illiterate, peoples can become a cultural elite. This is a ridiculous and unlikely theory.

Also this article doesn't take into genetic drift into account. If the genetic studies have been interpreted correctly (which most are not because they are carried out by people who want to prove the theory they then put forward) and the Azeris show mostly Iranian and Caucasian genetics, this is more probably due to genetic drift; recent mixing with neighbours has caused most of the Turkic genetics to be hidden. You cannot see the whole genetic composition of any group in the modern era, and you cannot see the genetics of the originally Turkic ancestors of the Azeri people.

So Azeris might, indeed, descend from Iranians and Caucasians, but they would descent from Turks too. In fact, their Turkic descent would really be larger and more important... especially as they are a Turkic group.

The Turkification stuff on this page is completely unlikely, unsupported nonsense which projects modern teaching methods onto a medieval, nomadic Turkic group. Nonsense. The Mummy (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Language displacement by smaller but militarily and politically dominant minority populations ruling over much larger subordinated ones is not unheard of in history, hence the near extinction of Celtic languages in Europe during the Roman era and the adoption of Arabic in Mesopotamia, the Levant and across North Africa during the Arab-Islamic Caliphate. Languages such as Aramaic, Egyptian/Coptic, Berber etc all gave way to Arabic, despite the numerically superior numbers of native Mesopotamians, Egyptians etc as opposed to the smaller number of incoming Arab invaders and settlers from the Arabian peninsula. اردیبهشت (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it is nonsense. Languages can be displaced but when the groups are nomadic with little in the way of an educational system this happens due to ethnic mixing. The idea that a nomadic group could teach their language to a far larger populace without cross-marriages is an insulting invention of the modern era. Most of the groups you have mentioned (especially Roman) had far stronger educational outreaches, the likes that nomadic Turks didn't have. Even so, the French language is still Gallo-Romance, which is a combination of Celtic and Latin, because the Romans couldn't fully displace the language of the majority. The North African countries also have local non-Arabic languages still spoken (such as Berber) within them and the local variant of Arabic is permeated strongly with native languages. These Arabic groups again also had a better educational system and writers and scholars, unlike the Azeris.

And genetics should never be important here. 1. Azeris speak a Turkic language, 2. Azeris have a Turkic culture and 3. (most importantly) self-identify as Turkic. Even if their genetics are almost completely Iranian (rather than a mix of both, with Azeri being more important culturally) they'd still be a Turkic people and any Iranian genetics would be pretty irrelevant to the article. People should really get out of this modern fin de siecle view of history and the world; population genetics is one of the most pointless sciences and the one that has been most abuse, eventually leading to the Holocaust. Also excluding populations from being part of a larger ethnolinguistic group based on genetics has unfortunate implications; is a man not English, despite speaking English, having English traditions and being a part of the English culture, because his ancestry turns out to be from, say, Kenya? I don't think so. Populations should be thus treated like individual members of a population.

Also it is worth nothing how wikpedeans who push genetic-based identification seem to be unaware of something called genetic drift! The Mummy (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family. In the eleventh century the “Tūrān defeated Ērān” and a broad wave of Oghuz Turks flooded first Khorasan, then all the rest of Iran, and finally Anatolia, which they made a base for vast conquests. The Oghuz have always been the most important and numerous group of the Turks; in Iran they have assimilated many Turks of other origins and even Iranians. source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-viii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.198.10 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

اردیبهشت: You are completely incorrect in terms of your examples. The vast majority of the people in the Levant and Iraq (Mesopotamia) are ethnically Arab. Just like the completely false and unsourced claims that the Azeris are and Iranian people, claims of Iraqis and Levantines being not Arab are for the purpose of furthering Iranian influence and hegemony. Remember that etnivity is not purely based on descent, but also acquired culture and identity. Most Iraqis, Egyptians, Levantines etc... classify themselves as Arabs, thus that is their ethnicity. Also, even in terms of descent, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula are descended themselves mostly from Levantines during the mid-iron age, and everyone in the world is descended from Ethiopians from the neolithic age. The vast majority of Azeris today consider themselves to be Turkic, thus the Azeri people are Turkic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.84.74 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic people or Turkic-speaking people

Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people, as Turkish people, Turkmens, Kyrgyz Turks, Kazakh Turks, Uzbek Turks, Tatars, they are Turkic-speaking people because they are a Turkic people. But Iranian POV that Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speaking people but ethnically iranians (Turkic-speaking iranians) is not scientific and is a chauvinistic propaganda in Iran. Chauvinism is not neutral point of view. Stop nationalistic POV-pushing--Melikov Memmed (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic is a linguistic identification, same as Slavic or Germanic. Turkic people are those who speak a Turkic language, therefore Azerbaijanis are Turkic people. I don't think changing Turkic for Turkic-speaking makes any sense. Any encyclopedia describes Azeris as Turkic people. The argument that Azeris were originally Iranian and Caucasian people who were Turkiphied still does not change the fact that Azeris are Turkic people, because Turkic is a linguistic category. Basically, this is an argument over nothing. Grandmaster 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Azerbaijani people is not azeri people.--Qara khan 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people are Turkic people. This fact. Some users' edits (like Mervzi, Espiral, Khodabandeh14) in the article is persian propaganda. Yes they have the sources for their propaganda, but this is just a fake and sources has nothing to do with reality.--Qara khan 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grandmaster, maybe for you changing Turkic for Turkic-speaking does not make any sense. But for Iranian Azerbaijanis it makes. According to Persian chauvinism Azerbaijanis are ethnically iranians, they are not a Turkic people, they are only Turkic-speaking iranians--Melikov Memmed (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about this point of view, it has been discussed here a lot in the past. But we must realize that Turkic, Slavic, Germanic, Semitic, etc are just linguistic categories, genetics have nothing to do with it. Grandmaster 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Turkic is linguistic category. When the words of “Azerbaijan” were replaced with “Azarbaijan” I thought that such strange behavior is only a POV-pushing, but then It became clear that many official sites of Iran also write “Azarbaijan”. I understand that changing “Azerbaijan” for “Azarbaijan” does not make any sense, but still I think that it is necessary to help such primitive chauvinists to respect other peoples--Melikov Memmed (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Americans or many of the English-speaking people of Africa are not Germanic, Azeris are not Turkic too. Please stop Turkish Fascism Propaganda!--Mervzi (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Melikov , please use proper language in your editing . Using such sentences as it is necessary to help such primitive chauvinists to respect other peoples may cause you punishments in Wikipedia . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, to replace words of “Azerbaijan” with “Azarbaijan” in English language, is not “primitive chauvinism”, it is “super primitive chauvinism”--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer Azerbaijan because this form is more familiar for English language reader . But anyway , your language is not constructive , I mean accusing other editors by using such words may end up in blockage by admins . More than that , the word primitive , is not a word of ordinary use . Please use a type of language that is more Civil (See also WP:ETIQ) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Per Grandmaster below. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani people → Azeri people – remove confusion with the people of the country, which also use the same term "Azerbaijani people" to describe it. "Ethnic Azerbaijani people" should therefore be called "Azeri people". WP:PRECISE also prefers the shorter name. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. Not a valid reason to move. By that logic, Ukrainian people or French people should also be moved to avoid confusion. Grandmaster 05:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment American people is about the citizens of the United States, so obviously, "Azerbaijani people" should be about the people of Azerbaijan. And these people are called the Azeri people, so why not move it to the name they are known by which is also not ambiguous? Clearly Azeri means these people, while "Azerbaijani" does not always mean it, so any use of Azerbaijani will be tainted by multiple associations. I also think it should primarily mean the people of Azerbaijan. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • American is not an ethnicity. Ukrainian is. It is not unusual for ethnicity to coincide with nationality. Azerbaijani is a scholarly term, for instance Britannica uses Azerbaijani, not Azeri. Grandmaster 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move - scientifically Azerbaijani people is much more correct than shortened version Azeris, therefore let's keep Azerbaijani people. This is also how they are called in the country and outside of the country. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Takabeg (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google books:

Azerbaijani people - 3,360 hits

Azeri people - 1,230 hits.

Grandmaster 06:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As "Azerbaijani" also refers to the country, how are you going to remove the ones that refer to the country and not the ethnicity? That will definitely remove some of your hits. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Azerbaijani are a Iranian people

Divot (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2]. 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." [4]. 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 [5] (Qalibaf 16%) and actual Iranian embassy figures were reported to you here before: [6] [7] (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: [8] which is an WP:RS site stating the Iranian census of 2001. [9] 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 [10]. 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" [11]. 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 [12]. Why not quote this offical figure from Iranian embassy which says 20%?[13]. Why not quote Qalibaf which says 16%[14] ? 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. [15]. 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." [16]

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 [17] (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:


[18] --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 [19] (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 [20].--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:


[21]

And translate to farsi (BBC Farsi):


[22]

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 [23], 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." [24]". 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[25]. 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." [26]"". Thanks.--Xodabande14 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Thanks. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:06, 11 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 [27]. 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: [28]. 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 [29]


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 [30]. I have also contacted three adminsUser:Folantin, User:Dougweller and User:EdJohnston Now the controversy. Ebrahimi Amir added the following nationalist map here: [31] Note the map itself has a dispute tag on its page. Here are some Western made maps of Iran's ethnicities: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] and some of these are in Wikipedia: [37] [38] [39]


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: [40] which contradicts his own map! The second source he cites is: [41] which contradicts his own map. The fifth source he cites: [42] 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: [43] 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 [[44]] . 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: [45] [46]

  • 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. [[47]]

  • 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. [48] [49]

  • 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 [50][51]. 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. [53] [54] [55]. 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 ([56]) (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 [57] [58] despite them being mentioned before to you: [59] 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! [60] and [61] . Also the[62]. 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. [63] and [64]. 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). [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. 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 [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (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 [75]. 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 [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. --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 be all Azeri majority. West Azerbaijan is uncertain and remains so. But none of them is detailed as Columbia University [81] (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: [82]. -Xodabande14 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijanis&oldid=549906430"