Talk:Azerbaijanis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Azerbaijani people)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Azerbaijanis 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
May 23, 2012 Featured article review Demoted
Did You Know A 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

Armenian Authors and Sources[edit]

Please, remove all references to armenian sources on the genetics of Azerbaijanis. Armenians are at war with Azerbaijanis, invaded 20% of Azerbaijanis and as such can't be impartial or objective in their research. Therefore, pls, remove these two sources and all references to these armenians sources (Yepiskoposian and Andonian - Armenian authors)in the genetics study of Azerbaijanis.

Yepiskoposian, L. et al. (2011). "The Location of Azaris on the Patrilineal Genetic Landscape of the Middle East (A Preliminary Report)". Iran and the Caucasus 15 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1163/157338411X12870596615395. Andonian l. et al. (2011). "Iranian Azeri's Y-Chromosomal Diversity in the Context of Turkish-Speaking Populations of the Middle East" (PDF). Iranian J Publ Health 40 (1): 119–123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Atropates not Persian[edit]

Atropates was not a Persian man. Medes and Persians quite different. Please remove the Atropat in the article on the Azerbaijanis.

Remove from close ethnic Iranian peoples and the peoples of the Caucasus. Azerbaijani language has nothing to do with Iranian and Caucasian languages. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I was also against to show Atropates as a Persian, but the other side submitted a reference where it was proved. If you have another source saying the opposite, please provide it and we will be glad to enrich the article with different scientific point-of-views.
2. No one says that Azerbaijani language has to do smth with Iranian or Caucasian languages; related people means these people are related to each other by historical, cultural, geographical, ethnogenesis and in some cases, religious ties.
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I do not know much English. Many sources. The sources do not say that he was Persian. Medes Atropatena was not Atropatena Persia.

2) Why in the article about the Iranian people or the Persians did not write what the Turks they are related geographically and culturally religious?...

Atropates satrap of the Medes Medes not Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Chamoux, Francois (2003). Hellenistic Civilization. Blackwell Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 0-631-22241-3: This became evident when Alexander appointed as satrap of the important province of Media the Persian Atropates, who had held the same office under Darius.
2. Not Turkic people related to Persians, but only some sub-groups, e.g. Azerbaijani people, Qashqai, etc, in whose ethnogenesis they took part and with whom they are neighbors. In the case with those articles, they were claiming that Azerbaijani people are not related to the Iranian people, but are on of the Iranian peoples (the claim which deleted by me, based on the references). Please, see the corresponding articles, their talk pages and their edit histories to be sure about that. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Write nonsense. Where is it said that Atropates was ethnic Persian? I gave a source where it says that Atropates not Persian.

Azerbaijanis Turkic origin. This scientific biological fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, use less aggressive tone and sign your comments. Just for politeness. I just provided a source, saying that he is Persian. Azerbaijani people are Turkic not by biology, but linguistically. Please, at least read the article fully. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You cannot define people just under linguistic categories. I have told this before. Many people similar in language, might be much more different in culture, genetics, etc. Turkic people is a case. Think about it. That is confirmed in this and other articles by many sources.-Raayen (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case I agree with the user Az-507: Azerbaijani people are Turkic (OK, with quite complex ethnogenesis, but who is in the World pure Turkic or Iranian nowadays, everyone has a couple of different ethnic groups/tribes in their ancestry), because this classification in Wikipedia is BASED on linguistics. The problem was different case. Now it is solved, not without the help of the administrators. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Does this need a discussion at all ?! Azerbaijani people are a contemporary nation that didn't exist before (This is not to slight you. you have a great history that dates back to many centuries before this. Of course! if you accept it). Look at the image template above the article. There is no famous person older than Nasimi and Nader Shah. As much as you try to make it older, you reach to nearly like to Ismail I, who was an Iranian/Azerbaijani, because, his mother tongue (your racist/linguistic criteria!) was both Persian and Azerbaijani. I repeat! Ismail I mother tongue was Persian too. This fact is not in your racial mind set, because the lessons they have taught your forefathers and fathers at the time of Soviet Union were contrary to this fact. That was because of Russian nationalism and Turkism enforced by Stalin and alike to have republics of one nation-one language in Soviet Union and specially in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and now because of the false lessons continuing in Azerbaijan Republic taught to Azeri children, undermining minorities or maybe majorities who the real connection; the central Asians like Uzbeks, Tajik people and Caucasian lands had and have with Iran. Please try to come into terms with it. Ethnically, the origin of you, Ismail I, was from Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah a Kurd and before that of a significant Sufi order in Gilan, Iran in the first place. The Turkic element is minor, just a language, a tool. That is confirmed by souses. Azerbaijanis are Persian people, Iranian and Caucasian peoples and last but not least a Turkish people, Deal with it. The world has had enough of the mind set you are into taught in Soviet times. We are seeing that again and again like in Euromaidan. Stop it! Your heritage of soviet union doesn't help the world.-Raayen (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd ask you to speak more polite (WP:NPA). You can call me whatever you want, but not racist!!! (Please, at least, have a look at my edit history.) Firstly, Stalinism was against any Turkism and it was a crime then. Secondly, no one refuses about the multicultural past. But the fact is that the Turkic people assimilated the other ethnic groups/tribes and we are a Turkic nation now. It is a scientific fact. If you have another respected and trusted source claiming something different about CONTEMPORARY Azerbaijani people, submit it, please, and we will learn a new scientific approach.
Azerbaijani people are a Turkic ethnic group in whose ethnogenesis Indo-European, Caucasian and Turkic elements took part. But now due to the definition given in the articles they can be neither Iranian, nor Caucasian by means of language. OK, we assimilated Caucasian elements - Lezgins, Tsakurs, Avars, Albanians, muslim Georgians and some other groups that doesn't exist anymore, Indo-European people - different Tat groups (Tat is a name given by ethnic Turks to the other groups living beside them which were linguistically different, but culturally alike), Talyshs people, and a bunch of Turkic tribes.
But if we will have a look in the history of any other nation in World history, we will see the same thing. Turks of Turkey assimilated 2-3 dozens of ethnic groups from various backgrounds and continue to do so; but it doesn't make them non-Turkic people. No one denies the Iranian and Caucasian background/history of the Azeri people. But the keyword here is history. Open any authoritative/prestigious encyclopedia and read about the current classification of the Azerbaijani people. I am not saying that Azerbaijani people are pure Turks, and I am clearly against this unscientific and nationalistic crap.
But making Azerbaijani people part of Iranian people which is defined as an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages? You can not be serious. By culture they are related and that's why Iranian people are in the related group (what I support and you will be sure if you will have a look at my edit history). I am against all type of nationalism (in case, with my compatriots) and/or imperialism (in case, with some Iranian users, which try to include all people who are culturally-impacted by Iranians or have them in their ancestry to some degree).
And yes, the linguistics is not a minor tool, on the contrary, together with the people's self-designation it is the major. Although in Azerbaijan Republic people consider themselves as Azeri, very close related nation to Turks, brothers of them, in Iran they call themselves clearly, Turk and the language Turki, as far I know. So language can not be called a minor issue.
So my offer is if you have a source saying so please, provide it and we will discuss it here. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
All Azeris all kurds all persians all lurs all Baluch all Mazandranian all gilakies and etc are Iranian I'm iranain from azeri descent even my family name has ardebily on it we have relatives from all of this group and if you read history and genetic studies u will find that this is true we are one nation one divers nation with same roots even meds and persians in ancient times had same roots they are now part of all of us.my father speak azeri till he was 5 but he is pro iranian my mother mother speak very rich delicate farsi from hamedan (the capital of meds) my other grandfather speak 5 iranian languages azeri,kurdi,farsi,luri,mazani.

i believe in one nation of Iran as we all should be , Azerbaijan is now a independent country because Russians take it from our mother land kurds are now decided because ottoman empire take iranian lands and after the WW1 western power never gave our land back , pakistani baluchestan is not part of Iran its because british empire take it .Afghanestan was part of iran but because of british involvement they gain independent but they are part of us even Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ,the place today called uzbekistan was made after Stallin move persian language natives from there to further into ussr territory cause he didn't want them to be near persian speaking nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabiz (talkcontribs) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Terekemes[edit]

Could the users interested in Turkish and Azerbaijani people show some interest in Terekeme people also? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

More emphasize on the vast understatement of the amount of Azeris in Iran per the CIA[edit]

There needs to be put even more emphasize on the fact that the CIA's estimation for the amount of Azeris in Iran are an utter underestimation. The amount ranges from 16/18% till 40%.[1][2]

Perhaps adding even more sources that support the 20-30% amount of Azeris in Iran would help. Also Irans population has grown since the time the census has been made, so sincerely asking to update the amounts (27 million needs to get higher etc as the population has also increased)

94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^
    • Shaffer, Brenda (2003). 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."
    • Minahan, James (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 1765. ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3"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..."
  2. ^
    • Ali Gheissari, "Contemporary Iran:Economy, Society, Politics: Economy, Society, Politics", Oxford University Press, 2 April 2009. pg 300Azeri ethnonationalist activist, however, claim that number to be 24 million, hence as high as 35 percent of the Iranian population"
    • Rasmus Christian Elling,Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini , Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Excerpt: "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." [http://books.google.com/books?id=rWEbrv5oD8AC&pg=PT33&
    dq=argue+that+overall+number+is+much+higher,+even+as+much+as+50+percent+azeri&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WVJrUcnJE62g4AO5n4HADw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA]

Requested move 14 February 2015[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. There is clear consensus favoring all moves as proposed. bd2412 T 03:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And many similar articles which, on the same president, I would like moved - as would apply to all demonym based population describing articles in those cases those cases in which the plural form of the demonym differs from the singular form of the word.

As per: Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, List of Bahranis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Lists of Cameroonians and Canadians, ...
As per WP:UCRN as demonstrated in searches in books in that:

Designations that seemingly should remain as "... people" as the demonym retains the same form when indicating either singulars or plurals: Bhutanese people, British people and Chinese people,

I don't currently know what to do with the Bamar people and Khmer people articles but think that the articles mentioned are straightforward cases.

I would also like authorisation for moves of all relevant categories on the basis of similar justification as presented above. I think that the Encyclopaedia should have a common presentation of subject titles between article and category references. GregKaye 14:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Question – are you saying there is a precedent that establishes this as the preferred way to title articles on peoples? Is there a naming conventions page that says so? I don't think WP:UCN is enough on its own to decide these. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I mean, if you want to look at WP:AT, conciseness is good... Red Slash 00:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's not what I asked. Conciseness is often overrated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you want to discuss move on Bangladeshi people, do it on that article's page. Same for all other related articles. One discussion won't cover all. For example, the word Americans sounds perfectly fine as a title but Bangladeshis don't. Wikipedia article titles are often less commonly used but more suitable terms while more commonly used terms redirect to them. – nafSadh did say 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
nafSadh with multiple moves a notification is automatically given on other pages in the listing.
Dicklyon I am saying that the most natural description of peoples such as Colombians is Colombians. This is the designation that is most regularly used in, as far as I have seen, all cases. GregKaye 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that we don't have plural words in Bangla: Bengali grammar#Measure_words. We have words more like: "5-persons", in Bangla pronunciation: "putch-ta manush" (lit. "5-times people", therefore not even "person", but "people") As thus... translations are a bit of a mishmash. I would note to you that it depends on who you trust whether you accept "Bangladeshis" and foriegn journalists might just give up and use "...deshis". The Daily Star news website doesn't have seem to have a single use of it, but Dhaka Tribune and bdnews24.com do. In my experience, I haven't heard "Bangladeshis" used by a Bangla person (when talking in English), most certainly because it's awkward to hear and use. 103.7.250.251 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I see Bangladeshis being used widely in The Daily Star. It's perfectly ok to use the plural term in English. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Ethnic groups that have a singular non-gendered unambiguous name are usually labelled as such. See Hungarians, Swedes, Germans, Americans. Only in cases where such a form doesn't exist, as with French people or Japanese people, is the form "x people" used. Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE, this article should be moved. See others in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, for example. The proposed titles are simply better. The only change I'd suggest is "Azeris" rather than "Azerbaijanis", as "Azeris" is both more traditional, more common, and more WP:CONCISE. However, if others disagree with that, do not let it hold up this very useful request. RGloucester 22:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note of credit to RGloucester , This RM was inspired by content of his earlier RM at Talk:Basques#Requested move 07 October 2014 which I had originally and I now think erroneously opposed. GregKaye 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Support but only as Azerbaijanis, Azeri and not a lot of things can be called anywhere but officially course I should be Azerbaijanis. Nicat49 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that if a later request is made to move Azerbaijanis to Azeri then perhaps this can be made separately. Search results indicate possible relevance as follows:
  • "Azeris" got "About 25,000 results" in Books - so less than for "Azerbaijanis".
GregKaye 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Red Slash 00:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per request. I believe that the mandatory "X people" formula should only be applied to ethnic groups whose names do not form nominalized adjectives that would have plural forms, like the French, the Khmer or the Portuguese. For the groups listed by GregKaye, this is not the case. Parishan (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all per R Gloucester, including for the Azeri ethnic group.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all except for Azeris as Azerbaijanis is more official and common. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Azeris" is more common than this new word "Azerbaijanis" in English. It's not important that they like it or not, the only important factor is the usage in English language. Also, in Iran, Turkey, and even Azerbaijan itself, most people use "Azeri" instead of "Azerbaijani". Iranians call them Azeri, Turks call them Azeri, Azeris call themselves Azeri. If this is not enough, just do a search in different medias (web, books, videos and etc.). Azeris is more popular than Azerbaijani in English language. --89.165.96.162 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Really? Bunch of unsourced claims. First you need to prove your claims. Before saying Azeri is more popular than Azerbaijani do research. See this. It doesn't matter what people in Turkey, Iran call them, it can not be a criteria to name people by that name. How you can claim that Azerbaijanis call themselves Azeri? Have you ever been there? How many Azerbaijanis have you met and what type of research have you done? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Another false claim. This is a Google Book search: [1]. Important books with wide usage of Azeri instead of Azerbaijani. Those Azerbaijani term just raised in 1990-1995 due to make and create a new identity for the people of a new country. Also, you ignored common usage of Azeri in English. And finally, It's not important you like or don't like Persian or Turkish or Arabic version. The words "Azerbaijan", "Azeri", and "Azerbaijani" are Persian words/names. So you should use the common and historical names (both in the main language and En language). Also, Azerbaijani is a demonym too (just like American) not just a ethnic-specific name, but Azeri is a specific ethnic name. The current revision is good and if there should be a change, it should be Azeris, because "Azerbaijani people" is a ethnic group, but "Azerbaijanis" is a demonym/nationality. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only Azerbaijanis, Azeris is more popular than Azerbaijani in persian language not english.--SaməkTalk 03:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense claim. Do a little search in English. Azeri is a common name in English and it has nothing to do with Persian version of this name. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
While we are talking about research - every use should do it before accusing others in "nonsense". Compare Azerbaijanis vs Azeris. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment for page mover/admin. Per WP policies, we can't use a name which has several meaning for just one specific article. According to referenced texts on Azerbaijan article, Azerbaijani is a demonym/nationality for the all people of that country. That country is a multi-ethnicy country . All non-Azeri groups call themselves Azerbaijani in that country. But this move request suggests to use that name for a specific ethnic group. It's wrong. The current name "Azerbaijani people" is here to solve/disambiguate that issue. If you move this to "Azerbaijanis", then it will cause a chaos on many articles and we should fight a bunch of nationalists and ethno-centrist users. Keep this article at this this state (good and accepted revision) or move it to Azeris (a name without issue). Another point: Azerbaijani is used for all inhabitants of Azerbaijan region (in Iran and Caucasus) not just a specific ethnic group. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support all per WP:CONCISE/WP:PRECISION. The Azeri/Azerbaijani issue can be dealt with separately later. —  AjaxSmack  14:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, needs to be consistent and concise, as others have already said. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; and I have some more proposed moves:
Charles Essie (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I support these by the same token as above. As far as the Azeri issue, that can be dealt with at a later date, as I said above. Let's get on with this. RGloucester 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

This infobox' gallery needs a change[edit]

As of currently, there are 23 people listed in the infobox who were either born in the modern day Republic of Azerbaijan, Soviet Azerbaijan, or Azerbaijan when it was controlled by the Russian Empire (and dont have Iranian Azeri roots). On the other hand, only 8 persons from the infobox are Iranian Azerbaijanis or have direct roots from there. This even though the utter vast majority of Azeris live in Iran. I understand there is a favour towards Azeris from Azerbaijan, which comes naturally because it's the nation which has the ethnicity it's name, but definetely some more Azeris from Iran need to be added. Or even better, Azeris from Azerbaijan that have roots in Iranian Azerbaijan, or vice versa (people like Akhundov etc are perfect examples)

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Population estimates need an update badly for Azerbaijan and Iran[edit]

The population estimates for the Azeris both for Iran and Azerbaijan (as well as on the Iranian Azerbaijanis page) need an update. Most estimations are from 2002-2009. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you ask?! Do you really want to know other opinions? You make big changes and then ask us? You've ignored all previous related sections and consensus on talk page archives. Flooding with some random sources/google books, ignoring reliable ones. The final results; 16–35% range (13–28 million) is really interesting and accurate. 15 million gap! It will happen when you ignore WP:WEIGHT and you add everything you find to infobox. Good to confuse readers, and finally will lead to edit warring and disruptive edits in future. It's not a "NPOV" contribution or representing different reliable sources, it's just some kind of blog-like posts. You ignored the weight of sources. For example, The weight of CIA estimate is not equal to personal opinions of some authors who just guess it (some of them are just based on claims by ethno-centrists and ethnic nationalists). If you find some ridiculous claims on google books, will you add them just because they're on google books?! I guess it's not strange if we see 10–50% or 10–60% range next time, cause of your pov. Well, I think this 14% estimate will complete your work. Also, do not forget to update Turkic peoples. Because it's the only related article that you missed. Why I waste my time on talk pages when some editors are only interested to create their own version and ignore everything else? No need to reply, because I wrote my opinions before. If you're interested, browse archives. --Zyma (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical reverting by DeCausa ?[edit]

In this reversion , DeCausa reverted back my edit , but anybody can kindly tell me what is " Iranian region of Azerbaijan in the Caucasus " ?! As I know Iran does not have any portion of land in Caucasus ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to delete Caucusus but "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is clearer in context than "Iranian Azerbaijan". You introduced 2 errors and 1 correct change in your edit. 2 to 1 is not a good ratio. DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the original text was different . The Azeris mainly live in country of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan ( Iranian Azerbaijan ) . The wording have to show this . About being Turkic language or Turkic we can have conversation and the change is not urgent.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And about the choosing between "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" vs "Iranian Azerbaijan " , I think that's clear the title that exists is better than a new wording . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I mean better by WP:NCPLACE.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of NCPLACE. Because we have "the country of Azerbaijan" in the same sentence, I think, to an uninformed reader "Irananian Azerbaijan" is not very clear. I think it's better to use a term that makes it clear it's a region of a different country. In fact "country of Azerbaijan" is a slightly clunky and ambiguous phrase in English (It doesn't necessariky mean an independent state, see Country). I've changed it to "Republic of Azerbaijan". To make you happy, I've taken Caucusus out, in the same edit. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Caucasus is a region, not an entity. It includes parts of contemporary NE turkey and NW Iran, though when people speak about the "Caucasus" they usually mean those states (Georgia, etc) and the Russian republics of the area (Chechnya, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, etc). That said, "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is indeed more appropriate in this case in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkic vs. Turkic-speaking[edit]

DeCausa, the term 'Turkic' is problematic because there is no clear definition as to what that term entails. Every scientific source would give you its own definition of the term 'Turkic people'. If it means 'speaking a Turkic language', then the best way to disambiguate that would be specifying Azeris as a 'Turkic-speaking people' in the lead. In what exactly is my reasoning defective? Parishan (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We should just follow how they are predominantly described in reliable sources - we should not be attempting to come up with our own definition. The vast majority of sources simply describe them as a "Turkic people" and do not try to specify that they are only linguistically Turkic. For example:
  1. Svante E. Cornell (20 May 2015). Azerbaijan Since Independence. Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-317-47621-4. 
  2. Barbara A. West (1 January 2009). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4381-1913-7. 
  3. James Minahan (1 January 2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 1766. ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3. 
  4. Marshall Cavendish (1 September 2006). World and Its Peoples. Marshall Cavendish. p. 760. ISBN 978-0-7614-7571-2. 
  5. Cyril Glassé; Huston Smith (January 2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-7591-0190-6. 
  6. Stephen K. Batalden; Sandra L. Batalden (1997). The Newly Independent States of Eurasia: Handbook of Former Soviet Republics. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-89774-940-4. 
  7. John McGarry; Brendan O'Leary (17 June 2013). The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts. Routledge. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-136-14652-7. 
  8. Anna Matveeva; Minority Rights Group, Great Britain (2002). The South Caucasus: nationalism, conflict and minorities. Minority Rights Group International. 
  9. Tahir Abbas (1 January 2007). Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective. Edinburgh University Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7486-3086-8. 
  10. Dilip Hiro (25 May 2013). A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East. Interlink Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 155. ISBN 978-1-62371-033-0. 
  11. Ebru Erdem (1 September 2010). Modern Muslim Societies. Marshall Cavendish. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-7614-7927-7. 
  12. Nicu Popescu (10 December 2010). EU Foreign Policy and Post-Soviet Conflicts: Stealth Intervention. Taylor & Francis. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-136-85188-9. 
  13. Stuart J. Kaufman (26 May 2015). Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Cornell University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-5017-0199-3. </ref>
  14. Manuel Castells (20 September 2011). The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. John Wiley & Sons. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-4443-5629-8. 
  15. George J. Neimanis (1 January 1997). The Collapse of the Soviet Empire: A View from Riga. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-275-95713-1. 
  16. Brenda Shaffer. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-262-26468-6. 
  17. Barry Rubin (17 March 2015). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. Routledge. p. 524. ISBN 978-1-317-45578-3. 

DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No one questions the reliability of the sources, but the problem is that none of them gives a definition of what Turkic is. The definition of the term is highly ambiguous even in the respective Wikipedia article (does it have to do with language? origin? identity?). I can find as many sources stating that Azeris are rather Turkic-speaking, given the diverse origin of this ethnic group which would render the application of the term 'Turkic' problematic.
  1. Babak Rezvani (15 March 2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan. Amsterdam University Press. p. 359. ISBN 9048519284. 
  2. Youssef Courbage, Emmanuel Todd (7 October 2014). A Convergence of Civilizations: The Transformation of Muslim Societies Around the World. Columbia University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0231150032. 
  3. Stephen Shennan (2009). Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution. University of California Press. p. 108. ISBN 0520255992. 
  4. John W. Parker (1 September 2011). Persian Dreams: Moscow and Tehran Since the Fall of the Shah. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 91. ISBN 1597976466. 
  5. M. Wesley Shoemaker (7 August 2014). Russia and The Commonwealth of Independent States 2014. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 219. ISBN 1475812264. 
  6. Soviet Geography. Scripta Publishing Company. 1980. p. 478. 
etc. Parishan (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No one's denying that they speak a Turkic language so you'll undoubtedly have some sources describing them that way, particularly when the focus of the source is linguistic rather than ethnic, as some if the above are. And 6 sources is no where near 17. The fact is the vast majority of sources, when they are defining Azeris ethnicity define them as simply Turkic. Take for example Britannica here. And you'll notice that source no. 8 discusss the issue of how they are described and says that the "prevailing view is that they are a Turkic people". It would therefore fail WP:NPOV to not describe them as simply "Turkic". We don't have to worry about what Turkic actually means, all we need to know is that is how they arebpredomjnantly described. In fact, in Wikipedia , it's genrrally accepted that ethnicity isn't about any one thing. There are a whole range of potential characteristics, but mianly it's about self-identification. Your argument would suggest that no "people" article should state an ethnicity. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups[edit]

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The correct section where the discussion is taking place is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Everybody is invited to comment thereDkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ramorue: gallery per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES.--SaməkTalk 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Population Problem[edit]

There's a numbing problem with the total # of Azerbaijanis throughout the world, and the # of Azerbaijanis located in Iran. The numbers are bloated and inflated, and do not match the sources provided for Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuormak (talkcontribs) 01:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ancient Azerbaijani tribes[edit]

This article is quite short on sources. I do not see what benefit having a separate article has considering Azerbaijanis exists, is a well-written and detailed article with history sections going back to the ancient periods. Any missing info not currently in that article should be added there in my opinion. Pinging User:AimlessGenius, creator of the article for their opinion too. Rayman60 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support merge. Poorly cited, stub article, could easily be merged into this one. The fact that almost half a year has gone by with not a single comment on this proposal shows how little that standalone article is used. Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group[edit]

First line, Turkic ethnic group. It doesn't say they are a Turkic and Persian (Iranian) group nor does it say they are a hybrid resulting from prolonged mixing. Assimilation by individuals into a community doesn't generate common ancestry, it just means that some community members have intermarried and had children, or adopted the other's identity. The fact is that Iranians and Azeris are two ethnicities independent of one another. --OJ (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't wanna get involved in this, but Azerbaijanis are basically Turkic-speaking Iranians. They're closer in both culture and ethnicity to the Iranians than Turks of Turkey, which I am quite sure is even stated (and supported by reliable sources) in this article and several others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some form of response. I've been busy of late so I haven't had time to log in and edit. You say they are Turkic-speaking Iranians, in other words, they are Iranians (according to description). What one is culturally has no relevance to what he is ethnically, and how he is ethnically neither makes him a close or a distant relation of another ethnicity. Other factors come into play here. If indeed your statement of Azeris being Turkic language Iranians is correct then one is right to restore Iranians as an ethnic affiliate. However, it would be wrong in such a scenario to link them ethnically with Turks since these would be Iranic people who happen to speak a Turkic tongue and nothing more. As such, the opening line is wrong, calling them a Turkic people and nothing more. Now if I take a common sense approach - and one has to differentiate between common sense and original research - then it is clear that such a claim is not plausible. Here is why: without me claiming to be an expert, I assume the name Azeri is Iranian in origin and that the proto-Azeri people (unaffected by Turkic contact) would have been an Iranian nation. Linguistic assimilation is a process that can either be voluntary (where a pressured nation realises it is better to belong to the other more powerful group than to face discrimination) or by force (when the more powerful nation imposes its will). Either way, what follows is identity change and suddenly within a generation two once distinct nations are no longer distinguishable without one person divulging his background. What we have with Azerbaijan resembles what we have with Bulgarians and Macedonians who are Slavic people but do not bear Slavic demonyms. Mixing occurred causing the people of a region to adopt the Turkic identity and language over the option consistent with the demonym. As such, the Azerbaijani vs Turkish question today depends largely on the region - particularly as the two languages are part of a dialect continuum. Rather bizarrely, it appears that Azeris are claimed to be Iranians speaking a Turkic language but somehow the less populous local Kurds and Talysh people who are both Iranic somehow escaped the fate of the Azeris. They remain Iranic and totally surrounded by supposedly Iranic Azeris but the bigger group lost its language. We need to remember that the article is about the modern-day people to declare Azerbaijani ethnicity and not about the proto-namesakes. Azeris live in Turkey just as some declare Turkish in Azerbaijan. Where these two are concerned, it is just a question of how one chooses to identify, even if it is different from his parents or siblings. If known mixed marriage makes two unrelated nations suddenly "related" then Turks would also be related to (and indeed partly descended from) Iranians since Turks and Azeris are a single people within a specific area. There is no such thing as a "hybrid nation" and to imply that there can only suggest that someone believes two nations are pure and a third one has come to exist purely on account of the subjects being definitely mixed. In fact, when considering Iranic languages have long been spoken on Azerbaijani territory while the majority Azeris use their own form of a Turkish language (separate from Turkish) while going by a name separate from Iranians, there is no guarantee whatsoever that an orindary Azerbaijani person must defintitely have Iranian heritage. It is possible that he found himself Azerbaijani with nothing other than Turkic ancestry. However, had there still been Azeris purely of Iranic descent then the language would not have been lost - which is why Talysh remains spoken. So yes these people are Shia, and yes there is a stong Iranic seed in production across Azerbaijan but the opening line is correct that they are Turkic, and Turkic and Iranian people are not related as ethnic groups. As for the Iranic ancestry, this is just just as likely to be found in the Lezgins but they are no said to be related. --OJ (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Apart from the clear WP:FORUM-like, self-interpreted word salad posted above by user "Oranges Juicy", without providing any sources obviously, there's clearly more going on. Just take a look at how many times he has tried to remove this sourced info by ungrounded means;

That's four removals right there. After this "first spree", he waited a few weeks, and then just went at it again. Why? Because why not!;

Ostensibly, this guy is wasting our time here. He's apparently unable to post a single counter source that'd back up his claims (against the material at Origin of the Azerbaijanis, f.e.), yet is able to WP:WAR over and over, and remove warnings in the blink of an eye from his talk page as well. Textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS, and clearly walking a very thin rope. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No self-interpretation, just read ethnic group and familiarise yourself with the definition. Asides this, I am unable to find a single thing in your post to prove incorrect my statements or anything that addresses the issue, such as the fantasy that Turks and Iranians have a common ancestor. --OJ (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. With regards Origin of the Azerbaijanis and other related articles, these simply point to a shady genetic study which show that there is likely to be Iranian ancestry among the samples they have taken. No source shows that every Azerbaijani has Iranian ancestry and no source shows that non-Azerbaijanis within the environment are "Caucaisan- or Iranian-free". Even so, making out that this makes two unrelated people suddenly "related" is 100% WP:SYNTH. --OJ (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article[edit]

Currently, here is what the article says and I have not made a single edit to influence this display:

  • Modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian[115][116] and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification.

"Believed to be" is not the same as "are". --OJ (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars."
Actually, you can template "regulars" when said "regular" reinitiates an edit war.
  • "Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done."
Which is why you arrived, after Sebebineydiki was blocked for edit warring, and continued the same edit war???
Have you read the article, Azerbaijanis?
Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."
Even something more interesting is stated on the Origin of the Azerbaijanis article.
  • "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".
So, do you have source(s) that refute these academic sources??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Those points attack the straw man, therefore the assertion is 100% WP:SYNTH. I have known for 40 years everything listed (since childhood in Yugoslavia), which predates those sources. Now if you want sources for what I am about to tell you, just say. Until then, let's just apply some common sense. The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity. It is not a question of whether his parents were Azerbaijani, and in any case, it would only have meant that they identified as such. A person does not have to trace his roots before deciding whether he is Azerbaijani or not, it is his decision. Now going back in time, let's look at what your own source says (pasted):

  • from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan

Did you think this means that Turks forced a group of people to speak Turkish while that same group of people otherwise retained their roots by adopting a new name Azeri to distinguish from Turk? If so you're wrong. A population cannot change language and then maintain its identity indefinitely whilst living among its true ethnic affiliates who have maintained their language (e.g. Azeris living among Iranians in Iran) and nowhere in history has this happened. Either this type of Turkification would have affected all members of the Iranian nations within the region (as well as all non-Iranians, i.e. everybody), or it wouldn't have happened at all. As it happens, the Turkification of local Iranians is no different to the Slavicisation of Bulgarians, and the Romanisation of Franks (i.e. French). For language assimilation to occur in the first place, the nation to give up its identity needs to be living among members of the new language - otherwise it is not going to happen. Then, if identity is to remain after this has happened, this will be noticeable by the parallel long-term continuity of two nations living cheek by jowl in the same lands (e.g. Albanian-speaking Ashkali in Kosovo, this Roma community only speaks Albanian and as such is shrinking and will in time be extinct in that future generations will become Albanian as has been the recorded case these past decades/centuries). So Azerbaijanis today are no longer a split community of people aware that they are Turkic Azerbaijani or Iranian Azerbaijani and by the same token, you don't have people identifying as "Turk" across the entire lands where Azeris live (which might have accounted for the population not to be Turkified, for being Turkish in the first place). But we don't have this. Apart from the usual gray area on both sides of the Azerbaijani (Nahcivan)-Turkish border where people may be one of either from within the same family, Azeris are for the large part one nation. Now given Iranic people assimilated, they gave up their identity to become a Turkic group whilst Turks did not depend on assimilated Iranians for the existence of the Azeri ethnicity. Other interesting factors are that a certain percentage of Azeris are Sunni, and some Turks are also Shia. Knowing this, you cannot apply Iranians to be related to Azeris. Given what we know about Azeris and Turks in the borderland means we cannot remove Turks from the picture, whilst Turks were known to marry outside during the centuries of Ottoman rule (as well as more recently imposing Turkish identity on Iranic Kurds). On balance, I'd be surprised if a single pure race in this world existed even in remote parts of Africa, Australia or South America. As for the other statement (pasted) "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region.". Yes we know about these, but they are not Azerbaijanis, they are Iranian. Even the Azerbaijanis inside Iran speak the Turkic tongue, so those people are no more to the neighbouring Azerbaijanis than Albanians are to Serbs in Kosovo. --OJ (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Both sources state Azerbaijani origins include Iranian populations and these populations were Turkised. No WP:Synth involved. However;
  • "The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity. It is not a question of whether his parents were Azerbaijani, and in any case, it would only have meant that they identified as such. A person does not have to trace his roots before deciding whether he is Azerbaijani or not, it is his decision."
This is a straw man fallacy.
  • "let's look at what your own source says.."
Actually these are not my sources, these are sources already used in the articles, you have just decided to ignore what they say.
I still see no sources to support your opinion.
Oh, and FYI, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, is an essay not a policy, so you can quit beating that dead horse. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
With regards the "essay" of not templating regulars, the page clearly states that it can be construed as uncivil. You're welcome to try it but prepare for rollback on every occasion, and of course if they persist, you'll get an opportunity to test your opinion.
OK, looks like you don't know what attacking the straw man is. So, let me use simpler language this time. Your sources demonstrate that "Azerbaijani origins include Iranian populations and these populations were Turkised". Sorry but when did I deny this? Read the following line and repeat it to yourself until it sinks: Yes there are Azerbaijani people in 2017 who have Iranian ancestry. Got that? There are also a vast Turkish population with Kurdish, Albanian, Bosnian and Pomak ancestry; it doesn't mean that Turks and the four listed are related, it means that members of the four listed (and more) ethnicities assimilated, and I can find you scores of reliable sources to demonstrate this. By your definition, this makes the listed nations related. Interestingly, no source confines the Turkification to just local Azerbaijanis, and nor does any source confirm that Turkification of Iranians happened throughout the entire lands of modern Azerbiajnai citizen. On the other hand, Turkic people stretch from Europe to the far east. Azeris form part of both an ethnic and dialect continuum with Turkic populations directly east, and there is no way you can create a chain from Turkish to Khalaj on the basis of an intermediate population being non-Turkic (and before you start throwing your toys out the pram, I am not accusing you of saying Azeris are not Turkic). The simple point is the Azerbaijani race is not dependent on having had Iranian members, they could have flourished (albeit in smaller numbers) without them. With this, the Iranians to assimilate are only as relevant to Azerbaijani identity as Swedes are to Ukrainians (historically Swedes settled in Ukraine and eventually became absorbed into the Ukrainian identity). So citing a historical truth of a nation's history and using it to claim that today's members are related to nations whose members did not assimilate is totally fallacious. Those Iranians surrendered their identity as Kurds have been doing in Turkey since at least the 1920s, get over it. As for my description of ethnicity being a "straw man fallacy", not so. When we write about Azerbaijanis we are specifically writing an article about the modern-day populace to identify as Azerbaijani. We are not writing an article about non-Azerjbaijanis whose ancestors might have succumbed to the "Iranian assimilated by Turk" experience many centuries ago. This means that when we write about Azerbaijanis in Belarus, we refer strictly to the people who have declared Azeri as an ethnicity irrespective of whether some of these people speak Azeri, or really have any links to West Asia. So, the attack is on the dreamer's theory and not the straw man. As for still seeing no sources, I did say I wouldn't add any at this point. You just tell me which part of my "opinion" you wish to see a source for, and I will provide them. And given I am for the time being keeping off the article and refuting every single point you have made, whilst you are hiding behind a "you haven't provided sources" whimper, I can safely say that you are the one that didn't hear. --OJ (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You have removed Iranian, et.al. from the infobox of this article.<--This is the issue.
I have provided sources that clearly state the Azerbaijanis are descended from Iranian, Turkic, et.al elements.
You continue to ignore these sources, oddly whining about, "The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity.", which is not the issue. That makes your so-called argument a straw man fallacy.
Your removal of Iranian, et.al, from the infobox[2], which you label as a "factual error", is in fact, incorrect. When the part labeled "related=" has Turkic & Oghuz Turks, how are the Azerbaijanis not related to , "Iranian peoples (specifically Persians and Tats), Caucasian peoples", when two sources presented state exactly that?
  • Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."
  • "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".
  • "So, the attack is on the dreamer's theory and not the straw man."
Facts stated in published sources by academics. Compared to your personal opinion(s)? What every you say Alice.
  • "And given I am for the time being keeping off the article and refusing every single point you have made.."
There is only one point, and you have ignored it and the academic sources that support it.
  • "whilst you are hiding behind a "you haven't provided sources" whimper, I can safely say that you are the one that didn't hear."
Since you are a "regular", you should know that Wikipedia is written using published reliable sources, not your personal opinion(s) or your ignoring academic sources. Guess you did not read that either. AND, since you still have failed to provide sources to support your opinion(s), we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you're done definitely, I mean your arguments are a non-starter in the first place.

  • Ethnicity is how people identify, end of. That is not a straw man fallacy, it is the only issue and nothing else dictates a person's national group.
  • Backgrounds of assimilating individuals do not count, period.
  • The criterion for an Azerbaijani from Iran, Azerbaijan itself or Belarus to meet the definition of Azerbaijani is that he declare himself that nation regardless of whether his ancestors came from China, Scotland or South America, he will still be recorded as an Azerbaijani, period.
  • The Tat language is spoken by the ethnic Tats who are citizens of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia (less diaspora), NOT the Azerbaijanis. Azerbaijanis live across a handful of countries and speak a Turkic tongue, whether you like it or not.
  • Ethnic Tats are Iranic and are NOT a subgroup of Azerbaijanis, Period.
  • Azerbainjanis and the article states in the infobox that their only language is the one Turkic tongue.
  • "from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan" - Turkification has happened to dozens of national groups this past millennium but that neither makes Turks related to those ethnicities, nor the ethnicities in question related to Turks. Furthermore, Turkification means precisely that the victim population became Turkic to the point that you could no longer distinguish two separate national groups. That's what the sources on the article say, and what is meant by your source which you refuse to accept. If all these Iranian people did was adopt Turkic properties such as language then they wouldn't be a Turkic group as the opening line says, they would be an Iranic nation that happened to speak Turkish. So it appears you are arguing with your own self since you cannot make up your mind what these people are.

So on this note, it is easy to see how shallow and fallacious your arguing is: you have conveniently ignored the universally accepted definition of ethnicity (as sourced throughout the article) to apply your own narrative, and you have extended this narrative to include Tats within your own fantasy vision of "Azerbaijani" which is no different to claiming that Basques are ethnically Spanish because they live in Spain. Additionally, you conveniently "misinterpret" a batch of reliable sources to pretend you don't know the difference between a population that is assimilated by another and a population that keeps its identity while adopting the properties of another. If I were to assume good faith on your part, I can only suggest you go and read WP:CIR because you are evidently lacking here. --OJ (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)