Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

History

Right now the article has three headlines (20th century; Pahlavi era;Islamic republic era and today). These should be put under the headline "history". Its logical and would make it easier for reader to navigate this article. Neftchi (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, currently the article is in a mess we need a clear body where relevent topics are linked and a title of History would be a start. It would make it easier to navigate.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier if the protection on this page was lifted. I believe we can all discuss things before making edits?Neftchi (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for Persian Azeri terminology being correct

http://books.google.com/books?id=RSxt-JB-PDkC&pg=PA21&dq=persian+azeri&hl=en&ei=28LATYT0KeTo0QGQ_Om2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CHcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=persian%20azeri&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zu5GpDby9H0C&pg=PA1768&dq=Persian+Azeri&hl=en&ei=7sHATe38H-rq0gGa1aS3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAY#v=onepage&q=Persian%20Azeri&f=false

etc.

Also inclusion of data from sources (even if they are not seen or even if you "cant afford" it, which is a ridiculous excuse for not reading it is irrelevant.) I believe that Tugrulirmak needs to yet familiarize himself with some of the foundation Wikipedia rules particularly WP:NPOV. I propose to remove the locks on this article and to write it using the credential articles by personages such as Dr. Frye and other existing sources. Locking it down and turning it into a nationalistic battle is of no good to any reader. Thank you. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Persi I welcome you to the article and I hope we can discuss changes that are to be made on a stable foundations reached and accepted by all alike. Thank you for the caution on NPOV but I insure you I do indeed have a nuetral point of view. Me correcting POV in the article does not warrant the fact that I have a POV it proves that I am a follower of Wikipedias rules and "laws" if we may say. Now we have put that slight side note behind us I would like to touch upon the sources you have provided me. I, myself have presented sources produced by James Minahan himself but other editors have denied it due to him not being an "expert". I have also read the sources you have provided and none of them actualy say "Persian Azeri" they read "Azeri" instead. They do however feature the word "Persian Azerbiajan" however this is not a link to ethnicity due to the fact that Persian Azerbiajan is a geographic location known now as Northern Iran or to some as South Azerbiajan. To add to this the term was used before the Pahlavi era, in 1909 if the book provided is correct. This is where the term Persian was in use and the term Iranian was not or not so widely used. So thank you for joining but yet again I see no part of the book which take Azeris as Perisan Azeris. Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. I dont see why we can not just work around these terminologies. I do not get however why there is a whole page where you and other editors are warring over stuff that should not even be here. This is not a forum, this is a page for discussion relevant to topics of the article. I believe we should 1) unlock the article 2)pool all the sources 3)check credentials of the authors, 4)create a false page where we can discuss various versions 5)agree on one, and 6)publish it and remove all the unnecessary tags. I appreciate your income, and I like to ask you a sincere question and I will hold on to your response as the truth and would not dispute it. I looked at your page and there is a lot of Pan-Turk icons. Are you, by your own admission, free of any pro-Turkish point of view? If you say you are, then lets work together and move past this hurdle. Otherwise, we need to work that out. Thank you for your response! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the points you have mentioned, we do need to sanbox another article to which all parties can reach a consensus about. I do not however agree that pages of sources debated by both parties were a part of a war, on the contarary they were a step to improve the article. I, or they state sources and we discuss them. This is exactly what we did in releations to the HUman Rights Watch Dogs on the reliable sources noticeboard and all the nuetral parties agreed to their use but I was still blocked in adding them in. We will discuss this later. Refering to your comment on Pan-Turk icons. The icons in my user page are indeed not Pan-Turk, they are just a show of my Turkish nationality and if you look I am a supporter of the party CHP which is indeed a left wing party so I would not call myself a pan-Turkish at all. Again I thank you for your offer about creating a fresh article to which all parties can agree to. Take care, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more links

Just wanted to suggest adding links to various things in the contested areas - allowing people to look for more information across wikipedia allowing people who know almost nothing about this subject (like myself) a chance to form an opinion. Here are the things I would have added links to if the article was not protected

• Xavier de Planhol
• Turkish language
• Oghuz
• Turkic
• Olivier Roy
• Amu Darya
• Iranian plateau
• Anatolia
• Ottomans
• Sunni
• Turkmens
• Shiite
• Alevi
• Rybakov
• Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Masudi
• Christianity and Islam

EdwardLane (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The article is currently protected indefinitely. I wonder if we could try lowering the protection level to see if it works? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I too belive it is a good idea.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I have lowered the protection. I would be grateful if editors here could add the article to their watchlists and help combat vandalism and biased edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Azari to Azeri

I changed the usage of Azari to Azeri. We had agreed on this in earlier talks. Neftchi (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Watchdogs

I think we should decide on how to incorparate the Human Rights reports to the article. The reports I stated before, the ones we discussed in a very long and circular maner. If everyone agrees I shall write a draft and we will go from there. Regrads, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)