Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

New map


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

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

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

  • It is much better but..even though Astara city is majority Azeri speaking Hashtpar is mostly Talysh (per the maps).. I would put the whole Gilan area you have highlighted as a mixed area like this one [4] except possibly the city of Astara.. There are parts is right now not 100% sure (except Astara)..but we must follow other RS maps (Utxas, Columbia..etc).
  • The Qazvin (the city itself ) and East of it all the way to Tehran including Tehran area is mixed but Persian is majority in this area per WP:RS maps (Columbia, Utexas).

See also Sedaa o Simaa [5]. So the red mark should stop right before Qazvin city and Takestan. Note this boundary hasn't changed much since 100+ years ago. Edward Brown-A YEAR AMONGST THE PERSIANS - IMPRESSIONS AS TO THE LIFE, CHARACTER, & THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA - Received during Twelve Months' Residence in that Country in the Year 1887-1888. "It is not till Kazvin is reached, and only four or five stages separate the traveler from Tehran, that the Persian distinctly predominates over the Turkish excerpt 2: The bazaars were much like those which we had already seen at Khuy, Tabriz, and Zanjan; but as regards the people, the advantage was decidedly in favor of Kazvinis who are more pleasing in countenance, more gentle in manners and rather darker in complex than the Azerbaijanis. Persian is spoken by them "..So Persian has been the predominant language of Qazvin and East of it..since Qajar times and right now too..

  • Other than that, the map is close enough to Columbia and Texas University maps. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I was combined Hafeznia maps [6] with the previous map. Areas marked in red, has been used of the previously map (Without any change in the East). With this explanation, I will draw a new map.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

New version

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

It is almost there. One more change should be made. Based on this : [7] and Utexas maps, Malayer, Toviskaran and Asabad and Nahavand, Azeri is either minority or not existent (for example Nahavand is 99% Lur without any exaggeration). Malayer has Azeri speaking villages, but amongst a population of 300,000 in the county, it is less than 10% , so it should not be in the map (per Utexas and Columbia). In Hamadan county (not province), Azeri is minority but that is okay to have mixed, since although the city is overwhelmingly Persian speaking, the villagers speak Azeri. The rest looks okay. --Xodabande14 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all of the province. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000. So it is WP:OR and WP:synthesis to make a predication of minority/majority based on that. For example, it could have taken more samples from say Bahar, Razan than Nahavand. We do not simply do know which cities and villages were chosen. For example the Lur area was missed, because Lurs of Toviskaran, Malayar, Nahavand..make up at least 15-20% of Hamadan. That is one needs sources stating "majority" directly without any interpretation. Here is an actual claim on Hamadan (official): [8]. There is two official reports on Hamadan: [9] [10] and this one from Sedaa o Simaa:[11].

Anyhow, I know Hamadan well enough but this is an actual source on each county: [12]. University of Texas and Columbia maps are almost correct, but Turkish speaking area is bigger (while the population is mainly concentrated in on-Turkish area counties). Here are the suggested final changes[13]:

  • Bahar, Razan, Kabudar Ahang are majority Azeri (over 90%) so it should be red. (that makes around 50% or more of the territory actually).
  • Hamadan county yellow (most villagers are Azeri but city is majority Persian and this make the province majority Persian speaking..) yellow is good.
  • Toviskaran, Nahavand, Malayer, Asad Abad white. Azeris are below 20%. For example in Nahavand it is at most 1-3%..that is not significant enough to put it as "mixed".
  • Tehran being mixed is fine although 63% according to one census identify as Persian and 98% understand Persian[14]. This would mean Azerbaijani is between 1/3 to 1/6..(no one knows). But all of the province of Tehran as mixed is fine..
  • Overall, I think we should agree if an area is less than 20-30%, it is not really "mixed". Else for example Urmiya county, Khoy, Maku..etc. would be mixed too since Kurds are 10%... Also there is probably some sort of Turkish villages or tribe in everywhere in iran except say Sistan/Baluchistan, Yazd... But we don't put mixed because of some villages.. Else For example then Tati in East Azerbaijan would make it mixed.. So usually there is some threshold and I think 20-30% is a good one for mixed. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than these suggestions which match the University of Texas and Columbia maps (as well as the Ostandari site), I think the new map is okay (Tehran should also just be mixed as mentioned). But you should not have made the original map in the first place. Since I think we both wasted enough of time (specially me trying to explain why it is not WP:RS) map is 100% perfect but the original map based on nationalistic sources were not good. You should not defend it, but rather say: "I worked towards a consensus for a new map". If you defend the old map which was not RS, I cannot withdraw my AE request or not request permanent sanctions.. And personally I do not hold any grudge. --Xodabande14 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

New version2

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

final edit suggestion with recommend changes

What you are referring to is are not census and you are committing WP:OR again. The map should match University of Texas and Columbia (the red). What you keep referencing is not a census (1390). That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all aspect of each of the provinces. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000". 288/1200 and 1400/60000 does not cover all of it. Neither is 18000 people (since we do not know if there was uniform sampling). It does not say which Sharestans and cities were chosen. The yellow part should say "linguistic minority" not mixed area. Else all of Western Azerbaijan should be mixed. Qazvin city and Hamadan cities are not majority Azerbaijani. So you are committing WP:OR based on a 1390 sample that is not a census. That is making the 1390 study a census is WP:OR. It is not because it does not mention which Shahrestans, villages and counties were chosen. Where-as Hamadan has an actual census from provincial officials: [15] which takes into account every Shahrestan (county) --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So to make it brief (and final edits):

  • the 1390 is not a census for Iran. It is limited to less 1/5 of Iran's cities and 1/40 th or so of Iran's villages! But assuming this is a census, the number of Azeris in Iran by this census (based on provincial statistics) would be at most 16 million.
  • Change 1)
  • On Hamadan, you will need an actual source stating "majority is this" (e.g. [16])and not an interpretation of incomplete statistics. I have actual sources on this (specially the Iranica one is specialized and breaks it down by county):
    • Parviz Aḏkāʾi and EIr, HAMADĀN i. GEOGRAPHY in Encyclopaedia Iranica[17]:"Languages spoken. Hamadān has been a crossroads of civilizations for millennia and a mosaic of cultures and dialects live there side by side. The main language spoken, especially in the provincial capital and its surroundings, is Persian, which is also the lingua franca in other regions. In the northern parts of the province, however, the language mostly spoken is Azeri Turkish, while in the northwest and west, near the provinces of Kurdistan and Kermānšāhān, people mostly speak Kurdish, while in some other cities such as Malāyer, Nehāvand, and Sāmen most people speak Lori and Lak (Faraji, p. 1296).
    • Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Peter McDonald, Meimanat Hosseini-Chavoshi, "The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction", Springer, 2009. pp 100-101: "The first category is 'Central' where the majority of people are Persian speaking ethnic Fars (provinces of Fars, Hamedan, Isfahan, Markazi, Qazvin, Qom, Semnan, Yazd and Tehran..."
    • Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source.
    • Note on Hamadan, there is an exact breakup of each Shahristan from complete official study [18]. That is it covers the whole province where-as your reference has no details (which cities, villages and what weight). Anyhow the Hamadan map should be close to Utexas and Columbia map. Conclusion: Bahar, Razan and Kaburarahang should be red. Hamadan city (hence county) should be yellow, and Nahavand, Toviskaran, Malayer, Asad abad should not be there.
  • Change 2
  • Qazvin city and east of it should not be yellow (both Utexas and Columbia map) and the sources given about on Qazvin[19][20]
  • Change 3
  • The rest of the yellow is fine but the yellow in Iran should be "linguistic minority". That is clear, that in Tehran, Alborz, Arak ..etc. There are Azeris in around Saveh and Komijan but not say Khomein, Tafresh, Ashtiyan and at least the Southern and Middle parts of Arak is very smaller minority or not existent. Either way if the yellow says "linguistic minority" on Arak and Qom..then it is fine. So The yellow should say Linguistic minority).
  • Side comment:
  • On Iraq or Turkey, you can have "mixed "(okay fine..I do not know too much about Iraq although I have not seen any map supporting such an area), but in Iran those places are not mixed, but Azeris are clear minority and the yellow should say "linguistic minority"(Tehran, Qom, Arak, areas of Hamadan we discussed except Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang..) not "mixed". Else, if we use your formula, all of Western Azerbaijan is "mixed" because Kurds make about 10-30% of many areas you have red. So to be consistent, we need to have "linguistic minority" for the yellow in Iran (Arak, Tehran, Qom..etc.) (which matches the RS maps whether Iranian (Hafeznia) or Utexas/Columbia). Also please no copy & pasting again of 1920s sources as the population of Central and Northern Iran has grown the only statistics on 1920 that I am aware of is by one Ervand Abrahamian (Azeris are put around 20% I believe and Persian 50%..) ..but 1920s doesn't matter as there are now 21th century and late 20th century sources...and things are relatively clear by provincial weights --Xodabande14 (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

24% is the old CIA Factbook data. Now It's updated to 16% like the other source (Library of Congress). So the max is not 18 million but 12.7 million (based on CIA Factbook data). You can verify it. I think that book is not good for conventional section. Anyway, my suggestion is:
1. Change conventional section info. If you consider Izady's info, the min is 10.3 million (or rounded to 10.4). If CIA and LoC is your min, the min is 12.7 million (or rounded to 12.8). And if you want to use 30% from that book, max is almost 24 million. So conventional should be like one of these suggestions:
1.1. 10.4–12.8 million (Izady + CIA and LoC)
1.2. 10.4–24 million (Izady + CIA and LoC + that book)
1.3. 12.8–24 million (CIA and LoC + that book)
If you don't want to cite Izady's data, so it should be removed.
2. Separate cited sources for conventional and controversial sections. Formatting:
  • ... (conventional) (cited sources, e.g. Izady, CIA, LoC, and that book) ... (controversial) (cited sources).
I will do the formatting.
3. No need to cite bunch of similar sources for the controversial section. All of them support similar claims, so they are redundant, unnecessary and unhelpful. Zheek (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks..the problem with this section has been ongoing. Partly because some users did not care if they are citing specialist in the area, but they try to find random teriatary sources or non-specialist sources without Ph.D. (Mihanan) to quote something.
  • I agree with different sections having different sources. Here is what I suggest.
  • I would suggest something like you said with the exception:
  • 10.4-15 million (CIA Factbook+LoC+Izady+Knüppel+Swietchowski)
  • 15-25 million (Shaffer+Mafinezam)
  • 25-30 million (controversial)(Alieva) (e.g. of sources viewing it as controversial are Gheisarri+Elling)
  • Do you know how to separate the sections? I will add references for all three. Can you attemp to make the edit the way you want? I will fix it up to add what I mentioned (supplement it).
  • I should say I will make a new map based on just majority areas. There is no way all of Arak, Qom or etc..are mixed. I will mention though sizable and/or notable minority populations in Tehran, Eastern Kordestan province, Arak, Qom, etc. The areas of Hamadan and Qazvin where Azeri is majority is given by Iranica and government state sites.. The 30,000 in Sonqor among 150,000 Kurds of Sonqor-Koliyai and 2 million or so Kermanshahs is not notable. --Xodabande14 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
See this: Template:Infobox ethnic group. The example is good (Uzbekistan's field). I think that example is enough and will help you. Zheek (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay I tried to fix it up by condensing similar sources into one..and putting the criticism into one source. Getting rid of a tertiary source. Also Iranica like CIA factbook basically puts 1/6 as the number of Turkic speakers..This includes Qashqais, Turkmens, Khalajs as well as Azerbaijani-Turkish. But since 90% of Turkic-speakers in Iran are Azeris, I have just put it as is. Please see if you can cleanup the formatting to match that Uzbekistan template you just showed..I do not think the current format is bad and it is basically the same as three days ago except cleaned up. There are sources that criticize 23, and 24 million as nationalistic..but then there are sources that mention I thought we need to keep both. --Xodabande14 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better than previous revisions, because it matches with sources and it's more specific. But maybe "conventional" and "controversial" form is better for the future edits. As I said before, another important thing is exact min and max values. You should check all of them. Is there any official census/statistics by government of Iran about ethnic groups and languages? Zheek (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a census in around 1986 about how many Iranians know Persian (it was 83% then) and how many speak only Persian (do not know any other languages) (86.2% of those). This would mean 71% of Iranians only know Persian[21]. Note this was complete survey (not a limited number). I believe Izady is referring to the same census. I am not sure if the Iranian government made a new one of that in 2001. But other than that, there has never been a full census as far as I am aware. A recent one referenced by Ebrahimi Amir shows Azeris around 15 million, but the survey only consists of 18000 people across about 200 cities and 1400 villages. Where-as Iran has 1200+ cities and 60000 villages, and plus, 70-80 million people. And then the sample for each province and county is also unknown and there is no proof it was uniform. However, each province has an official page and with a trip to these provinces, one can get a good rough estimate that might differ by about 2-4%. The Izady map is fairly accurate and I would say it would differ from reality about 5%. So the estimates you see from CIA factbook etc.. fairly match the provincial population and the composition of each province is fairly known and one can upper bounds for say Tehran and get a very accurate figure.. That is why the CIA factbook figure has been revised as the old figures where from 1970s. --Xodabande14 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I've asked about that because if we have verifiable official sources, we can put official statistics in the infobox section and move other sources to the other parts of article and related section(s). For example see Russians. A clean and well-formatted ethnic group article. Zheek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Since Shaffer states 1/5 to 1/3,..we can't necessarily ascribe 1/3 to her as we can't do 1/5. She quotes Javad Heyat (Azeri-Turkish nationalist editor of Varligh) that 1/3 of Iran is of "Turkic origin". I would say since Heyat is nationalistic, this is the high end she is quoting. I put her in the references but did not mention her name among the high ones. Even Mihanan is giving a range (and he is not really a scholar or specialist on the rea).
  • On what you asked. There has been only one complete study [22] but it is old. According to this book the population of Iran in 1335 (1950s or so) was 14 million. From this 14 million, 2451061 people lived in a mono-lingual Turkish setting, 877627 lived in a bilingual Persian-Turkish setting and 187464 lived in a place where Persian/Turkish/Kurdish was spoken. Thus the range of Turkish (not all Azeris as the book uses Turkish (Torki) I believe) speakers is from 17.5% to 25.1% according to this actual statistics that was done. Anyhow, unfortunately there has not been a complete census other than the 1986 which I just mentioned above. There was a census in around 1986 about how many Iranians know Persian (it was 83% then) and how many speak only Persian (do not know any other languages) (86.2% of those). This would mean 71% of Iranians only know Persian[23]. Note this was an actual census and not guess work. Most Azeris (except those possibly in Tehran) speak Azeri as a first language. So based on guesswork, I assume 65% of Iranians speaks Persian (close to Izady or CIA factbook) and 35% is divided between Persian dialects/Iranian languages (e.g. Gilaki, Tabari, Baluchi, Luri, Kurdish), Turkic languages (e.g. Azeri, Qashqai, Khalaj..), Arabic and then smaller minorities (e.g. Assyrian, Armenian). --Xodabande14 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

map suggestion

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

  • I think the best idea is to simply have a gallery of 5 WP:RS maps or 2-3 maps.
  • Making a 100% real accurate map would take at least a year (if not more) with some fieldwork although a POV nationalistic map can be spotted in a second (as it was done in the previous discussion and brought to AE).
  • I made the third map by modifying some files.
  • The information for Hamadan is taken from their relative provincial statistics as well as Iranica. a) On Hamadan, there actual source stating "majority is this" (e.g. [24])and not an interpretation of incomplete statistics. Parviz Aḏkāʾi and EIr, HAMADĀN i. GEOGRAPHY in Encyclopaedia Iranica[25]:"Languages spoken. Hamadān has been a crossroads of civilizations for millennia and a mosaic of cultures and dialects live there side by side. The main language spoken, especially in the provincial capital and its surroundings, is Persian, which is also the lingua franca in other regions. In the northern parts of the province, however, the language mostly spoken is Azeri Turkish, while in the northwest and west, near the provinces of Kurdistan and Kermānšāhān, people mostly speak Kurdish, while in some other cities such as Malāyer, Nehāvand, and Sāmen most people speak Lori and Lak (Faraji, p. 1296). b) Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, Peter McDonald, Meimanat Hosseini-Chavoshi, "The Fertility Transition in Iran: Revolution and Reproduction", Springer, 2009. pp 100-101: "The first category is 'Central' where the majority of people are Persian speaking ethnic Fars (provinces of Fars, Hamedan, Isfahan, Markazi, Qazvin, Qom, Semnan, Yazd and Tehran..."

c) Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source. d) Provincial statistics from the Ostaandaari (Provincial Governor) [26] e) IRIB of Hamadan [27]. All this makes it clear that Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang are majority Azerbaijani speakings but the rest of the counties are not. It doesn't make sense to put the whole province as linguistically mixed when the population of Azeris in say Nahavand or Toviskaran hovers aound 1%. Or when Bahar is over 90%+ Azeri speaking. Some user mentioned a 1390 study of Iran where 18000 people, 288 city and 1400 villages were selected. But that study does not have any maps. Also Iran has about 1200+ cities[28] and 60000 villages[29]. Also one is unsure if that particular census was done uniformly (from one cities, and counties) were chosen. So there is no information on each separate county and that incomplete source is useless for making a map (for example Lurs in Nahavand, Toviskaran and Malayer can easily make 15-20% of the province but they are listed as 5% in that questioner which shows it was not done uniformly. Also the information contradicts Iranica and other sources I brought).

  • On Qazvin, I used information from IRIB [30] and source b of Hamadan above. Also Columbia and Texas maps. And also this [31]. Note Takestan county is Tati speaking and Qazvin city is Persian speaking (and areas to the East of it too).
  • The only 100% WP:RS map is really the university of Texas map but it has some issues. Unfortunately, I am not sure if the Izady map is copy righted and allowed in Wikipedia [32].
  • The information on Arak (except possibly the very small and low populated Komijan which I think is Azerbaijnai speaking but I have heard younger generations do not speak it), Qom, Tehran, Alborz, Kordestan (Bijar and Garus where an Azerbaijani minority exists amongst majority Bijari Kurds)..was not available or hard to pinpoint and then draw on the map. These provinces should not be put as "mixed" since Azerbaijani-Turkish is clear minority in all of these provinces. So putting it as "linguistically mixed" gives the wrong picture. Also most areas in say Kordestan or Qom are not "linguistically mixed" and even say in Bijar, Bijari Kurds are majority, so writing "linguistically mixed" is like having Urmiya province as "linguistically mixed". Where there is an area (possibly say Komijan) that seems to be an Azerbaijani majority, then the map might possible be modified by future users.
  • On Western one knows and there is varying conflicting reports. I took this PDF which might be accurate: [33] but the Columbia map shows something else [34]. [35]

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

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

Izady's map

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

Thanks Alborz and Zheek. Just four short statements

  • Izady map is part of Columbia University so it meets WP:RS and WP:Verifability. However, I hope you or Zheek or someone can contact Izady (see below or your userpage) or Columbia Gulf Project 2000 to make it available in Wikipedia commons. Or possibly it might be free to use for scientific purposes.
  • My last statement on this (I know the previous was my last..but I want to make sure this stays here for the record). I agree with either Zheek and Alborz that we need to have an WP:RS map as user made maps are controversial and do not meet WP:Verifability. The map I suggested was simply a backup, but in reality we must follow the rules in Wikipedia as it is not a debate club. There is no 100% perfect map and it would take years to do 100% precise fieldwork and make maps. Also Iranian officials make dumb statements. Recently Esfandyar Rahim Mashai (right now chief of staff, former vice president and other official positions) said: " «آذربایجان غربی، ایلام و کرمانشاه متعلق به کردستان است و این قوم از برترین قوم‌های ایرانی است.»،" ("West Azerbaijan belongs to Kurdistan") [37][38]" (google this statement for other sites). So none of the Iranian officials have any WP:RS quality as they go to different places try to gain favor by exaggerating (see above as well with my discussion with Ebrahimi Amir). So if one were to make WP:OR maps based on Salehi (not a scholar) or Mashai (not a scholar).. or etc.. who have no data when they makeup stuff, then there would be 100s of maps. Then there is the Iranian embassy which has a more official written statement [39] (this official data seems correct), but again we cannot create maps based on these as that would be WP:OR. In fact scholarly institutions, organizations and widely cited scholars in academic journals are the only ones that should make maps or are put statistics. Any map would need be detailed based on provincial data of each county, and then made a by respectable academic organization. So we only can use already made maps as, anything else is just speculation and WP:OR.
  • The Texas map is online. Perhaps someone can contact Izady (I believe his email is active but I have not made my email active) [40] to get him to upload his map to Wiki Commons. He has been working on his map for a long time and even if it is not 100% perfect (no map is), it meets both WP:RS (Columbia University) and WP:Verifability. Something we can't say about any self-made map. The Hafeznia maps in opinion might be having all three with attribution would be okay (instead of arguing which map is correct). Something like Distribution of Azeris (Uuniversity of Texas, Columbia Gulf Project, etc..)). That is Columbia, Texas and another WP:RS (and not self-made by users) map (e.g. Hafeznia) next to each other. Anything else that users make, should probably be not in Wikipedia as the issue is controversial and not a place to debate about in Wikipedia. Of course that is a suggestion and I know the active participants here follow the law and they will hopefully have a good formula.
  • Overall I hope Zheek, Alborz and others can work out it. --Xodabande14 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point . please read this : Izady : My maps are stolen and posted here on Wiki--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not enough Azerbaijanis of Iran

There are not enough Azerbaijanis of Iran in the image array template above. Azerbaijanis of Iran have more population than Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan republic and have had more contributions as you know.-Raayen (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Azerbaijani Turkic speaking/people

I have noticed that some people are changing the first description of Azerbaijani people, from 'Turkic-speaking people' to just 'Turkic people'. In the Wikipedia article itself it is state that Azerbaijani are culturally [41] and ethnically [42] mixed, therefore you can't say that they are Turkic people, regardless if other websites used the term 'Turkic people' or not. You don't call Flemish people Netherlanders either even though they speak Dutch. Linguistically Azerbaijani do speak a language that is Turkic, so saying that they are Turkic-speaking people (the original term used in this article) is correct. Verdia25 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica Refrences say [43]:Azerbaijani people, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. OK??? AZEBAIJANI PEOPLE IS A TURKIC PEOPLE OK?? OKEY!--Saməkبحث‍ 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I edit by Valid Source say: Encyclopædia Britannica[45]--SaməkTalk 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

oll of the sources, say Azeris is a turkic people.[46] and see other sources this article.[1][2][3][4]-- (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Azerbaijanis". Looklex Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 2013-07-04. 
  2. ^ "Azerbaijani (people)" Encyclopædia Britannica
  3. ^ An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992), ISBN 3-447-03274-X. Retrieved 8 June 2006.
  4. ^ »Turkic Peoples", Encyclopedia Americana, volume 27, page 276. Grolier Inc. , New York (1998) ISBN 0-7172-0130-9. Retrieved 8 June 2006.

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

As I already stated multiple times on my reverts on the history page, there are also sources that say Azeris are a "turkic speaking people', here a few examples:
  1. [47]
  2. [48]

Both 'Turkic people' and 'Turkic speaking people' are used in sources. Please go against my arguments and counterarguments that I used on the talk page to state why it should be 'Turkic people' instead of 'Turkic speaking people'. My actions are also no vandalism and 'sabotage'; the other party is the one who reverts edits while not going against my arguments. Verdia25 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the original description, Turkic speaking people, is better. I think the problem with the new one 'Turkic people' is that it could be confusing to some people as if the origin and culture of the Azerbaijani is Turkic, while it's actually mixed as stated in the article. It is the language of the Azerbaijani that is Turkic and belongs to the Turkic language family branch. The former description 'Turkic speaking people' gets therefore my choice. There may be websites and books that use 'Turkic people', but there are also websites and books that use 'Turkic speaking people'. Verdia25 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

in the past, origin of the Azerbaijanis may be Anything. example egypt people, Turkish People→(Genetic history of the Turkish people) today Azerbaijanis Because → Turkification of the population can be dated from the region’s conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century and the continued influx of Turkic populations in subsequent centuries, including those groups that migrated during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century. (The greater portion of the tribes that formed the Mongol forces or were stimulated by the Mongol conquest to migrate were Turkic--so Linguists and Sociologists this people puting in the Turkic people. Top Sources very valid. i say today Azerbaijanis is a Turkic people and speak Azerbajani Language from Turkic Language.--you may puting Azerbaijanis people in the Iranian People Template? (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)  

There is Turkic influence on the population, which affects the origin but that doesn’t changes the origin to fully Turkic. According to the origins paragraph of the article, Azerbaijani are believed to be primarily descendants of Caucasian Albanian and Iranian people. Due to migration of Turkish tribes to the area in the 11th century, the population can be considered to be also of Turkic origin now. So all three together makes the people of a mixed origin. Moreover, in the genetics section of the article Azerbaijani are "closely related to Caucasian people like Georgians and Armenians, than they are to Iranians or Turks". I don't know why you are coming up with the Iranian people template; I am talking about 'Turkic speaking people' as the most appropriate template for the Azerbaijani because they speak a Turkic language and are of mixed origin.Verdia25 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis is just a synonym for Azerbaijani Turks (make a search in Google Books). They can be and indeed are very safely described as a Turkic people. That they have mixed origins isn't particularly interesting, as all Turkic peoples have mixed origins. --Mttll (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And people shouldn't forget genetic shift. The Azerbaijanis are descended from tribal Turkic peoples for the simply reason that they couldn't have just simply taught their language to just a big population without adequate schooling. Such views are the usual illogical and nonsensical wikipedian and pop-genetics nonsense. The reason Azerbaijanis show genetic traits in common with Georgians and Iranians is because of later mixing and mixing with the original inhabitants, not because they are not descended from Turkic tribes. This is called genetic drift. You cannot show the original genetics of a population if they keep mixing with other populations (which is natural... everyone is mixed) because new genetics covers old genetics. Every ethnic Azerbaijani will obviously be descended from the original Turkic tribes, to think they do not is nonsense and highly illogical. This article should mention genetic drift rather than stating that they were Turkified which is, and I will be blunt, a stupid, moronic view. (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism in Azerbaijan

in infobox Zoroastrianism is shown as a religion practiced in Azerbaijan, but the references given don't say anything about it, just show that there WERE Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan in the past and some minor beliefs and customs still exists in heavily-Muslim Azerbaijan. Can someone justify the existence of the religion among Azerbaijani people or just delete the (dubious) claim? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the wrong sources and just kept one that vaguely mentions their presence. I added the two removed sources to a historical sentence.-Raayen (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Iranian Tats

Iranian Tats have never existed in Azerbaijan area, but in Iranian Azerbaijan. No sources and references can be found on this topic, and our personal opinions can not be measure for such claims. It can be seen in the article about them. In Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Dagestan only Tat people (Caucasus) exist. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Persian Tats who spoke and speak a Persian language have exited in Azerbaijan Republic before Turkification, and still exit in places like around Baku and Lahic. "This claim is supported by the many figures of Persian literature, such as Qatran Tabrizi, Shams Tabrizi, Nizami Ganjavi, and Khaghani, who wrote in Persian prior to and during the Oghuz migration, as well as by Strabo, Al-Istakhri, and Al-Masudi, who all describe the language of the region as Persian. The claim is mentioned by other medieval historians, such as Al-Muqaddasi". It is still confirmed by the presence of Persian speaking people who little by little are diminished in Lahic and other places in Azerbaijan republic. Please read the article and check sources before commenting. No matter what you think and what Azeri people think nowadays, they are Iranian and Persian and at the same time Turkic and Caucasian.-Raayen (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ask yourself, why Iranian Azeris are thriving and Generally "a well integrated linguistic minority" approved by academics.[1][2] Despite friction, Azerbaijanis in Iran came to be well represented at all levels of "political, military, and intellectual hierarchies, as well as the religious hierarchy"[3], while Persian tats and Tajiks of your Turkic Uzbekistan are little by little lost in your Stalinist and Pan Turkish states. Maybe those and your Stalinist and Pan-Turkic forefathers are responsible.-Raayen (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You're confusing something, Dear Raayen. I am not refusing the existence of Tats in Azerbaijan Republic. But the people you are talking about are Tat people (Caucasus), not Tat people (Iran). You can check it from all sources and articles, as well. Besides, one can not simply call Azerbaijani people Iranian, Persian or Caucasian only because these elements took part in their ethnogenesis. The categories you are mentioning are linguistic categories and the Azerbaijani people now clearly Turkic. As if, lots of ethnic groups took part in ethnogenesis of the French (Germanic Franks, Gauls, Normans, Bretons, Occitans, Romans), English (Gauls, Britons, Saxons, Normans) and Turkish people (bunch of ethnic groups which existed in Anatolia before Turks migrated there), but these people are (respectively) Roman, Germanic and Turkic now. But if you have any source claiming opposite< I would be glad to get acquainted with them. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I misunderstood you a little. But I think your are still partly wrong. Tat people (Iran) (I don't see mention of them in this article) and Tat people (Caucasus) are Azerbaijanis who kept their languages and didn't become Turkic. They are going to be assimilated in Azerbaijan republic and Iranian Azerbaijan little by little now. Note that, this article is about all Azerbaijanis, not just Azerbaijanis of the republic. So all peoples in those two lands should be mentioned, I mean both Tats. As for "linguistic categories" you mentioned in Wikipedia or other places, they are wrong, we should change them if any. Who says that language is the sole criteria? Even in French people, you mentioned, we see this at the top: "The French are a nation and ethnic group native to France that share a common French culture and speak the French language as a mother tongue. Historically, the French population descended from peoples of Romance origin, later mixing with Celtic and/or Germanic origin, depending on the region." Also "Celtic peoples, Romance peoples and Germanic peoples" are mentioned as the "Related ethnic groups". Why should Azeris be different and not be mentioned as Persian, while this article clearly proves that they are Persian by sources, along being Turkic and Caucasian!? French people with respect to Germans and Romance people are far apart than Azeris and other Turks are with respect to other Iranians. Why do you and alike, while they have established something called as European Union, want to separate us Iranians, Arabs and Turks more than we are?! I don't mean politics, but what sources say, what Wikipedia is into. I surely don't mean religion here too, but neighborhood, what we really are.-Raayen (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
But in the article when talking about the Tats and territory, the territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic is considered. If you would change the sentence to something like: The continued presence of pockets of Iranian speakers; Talysh and Caucasian Tats are present in Azerbaijan Republic and Iranian Tats in Iranian Azerbaijan with respected references I would only thank you for enlarging and enriching the article with appropriate information. Secondly, language is not the sole criteria, but the crucial one. The definition of Iranian people is given as following: The Iranian people or Iranic people are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family, as such forming a branch of the Indo-European-speaking people Besides, in the article about Azerbaijani people the role of the Iranians, Caucasians and Turkic people in the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani nation is also shown, the mentioned people are given as "Related ethnic groups". But due to the above given definition to include Azerbaijani people to that category, at the very least, would be inappropriate. If you've visited my user page you could see my political preferences, but I don't involve them into the articles when I edit them. And if anyone deleted the paragraph about the Iranian origins of Azeris I'd do the same. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Dear users who categorize Azerbaijani people as Iranian Peoples and Persian people, Could you, please, show the sources confirming this claim? Of course, everyone aware of their partly-Iranian ancestry, their cultural ties with Iranian peoples living around and with them. But given the definition of the categories "Iranian Peoples" and "Persian people", how one can categorize them as so? Doesn't it look like categorizing French people as Germannic or Spanish people as Iranian (as you know Iranic Alans took part in their ethnogenesis)? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, why do you like to define yourself as Europeans usually do?! Are you for reality or mechanics? Go for sources as mentioned in this article. Secondly, read French people again, they are related to German people. You cannot define people as only linguistically.-Raayen (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, we are not talking about related groups; you can check history of the edits and see that I always reverted the edits who deleted Iranian people from "related people". Secondly, this definition is linguistically; you can read in the article: The Iranian peoples or Iranic peoples are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages. Thirdly, we don't reject their SOME-Iranian ancestry and it is clearly shown in the article. Fourthly, please, submit the references that define Azerbaijani people as Iranian people in the talk page and discuss it. Fifthly, when categorizing people there is no such thing like how someone wants to define himself, it is not our opinion but scientific categorization. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Related people

Some users here don't know what related people section mean and are engaged in an edit war b'cos of it. Please, read more and do not delete things on your personal opinion and wishes. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So we had an editor being complained of and blocked today for edit warring. Please, before making edits think how objective are your edits and do not add based on your emotions and point of view. Anyone who does so has to be warned and complain to Administration board. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Persian Tats

Talysh people, Tat people (Iran) and Tat people (Caucasus) should be added in the section Azerbaijani people#Iranian origin along with Iranian peoples and Persian peoples as exclusives to complement. That is with clear evidences and sources in the article.-Raayen (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talysh people, and Tat people not Azerbaijanis. Write about them in the article about the Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talysh people, Tat people (Caucasus) and Tat people (Iran) took part in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people and continue to do so (e.g., by language shifting and at least, in the case of the Talysh people, Tat people (Caucasus) the "Azerbaijani self-designition"). I agree with the editor who suggests to add them in the Iranian origin section of the article. But we have to do it with references and sources.
Bests Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talyshs and Tats live in Azerbaijan, but they are not Azerbaijanis. No they do not assimilate. Live in Azerbaijan and Russian, Jews and the Avars, but they are not Azerbaijanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In Azerbaijan there are many nationalities, each with its own language. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people. It is a scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talkcontribs) 14:43, 26 March 2014

It is good when someone reads some scientific works before talking some totally non-scientific crap. Everyone is welcomed in Wikipedia, but don't you think it is better to leave English Wikipedia to the people who CAN READ and UNDERSTAND articles and comments written in English. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You cannot define people just under linguistic lines. 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.-Raayen (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 March 2014

Hi, In the pictures Mosaic, Nader Shah was not turk. He was from Khorassan. Please delete the picture of Nader Shah. Thanks. Diako1971 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He was from Afshar tribe which is considered considered as a branch of the Turkmens or Azerbaijanis. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but Afshar tribe isn't considered as branch of Turkmens or Azerbaijanis, just Oghuz. Today they group their tribes into various larger ethnic groups but that doesn't imply they're originally it's branch. The same goes for Qajars. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Iranian origin also from central Asia, from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia

The article says: "The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, as many troops under the Ilkhans were Turkic." However those so called Mongols and their submissive Turks of Turkmenistan and other places of central asia who seemingly migrated to present day Iran were "likely" mixed Iranian Xiongnu and Tocharians and "surely" Iranian Scythians, Alans, Sakas, Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians and other Iranians deep into the borders of Mongolia, later called Tajiks, language shifted (claimed to be Oghuz by some sources!); mixed with the slanted eyed actual mongols and their subdued obliqued eyed factual Turks. By common sense you can find that those Iranians didn't vanish just that! Blended features of many or some of Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Afghan people also confirm that. "attested by linguistic similarity"! is not enough to define a nation. Present day maybe yours, but please don't play with the history. Please anybody who find sources for that, add it.-Raayen (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if you have a reliable source stating opposite feel free to add them. It will only enrich the article by adding different point of views. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It is 2+2=4, common sense, see other articles on where Iranian peoples lived. But you are right, we need sources.-Raayen (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you're somehow right if I understood you correctly. But you forgot Göktürks who also was present at the area. Besides, it is talking about Ilkhanid period - by that time most of the people there had Turkic subtract and were clearly Turkophone (for further information see History of Central Asia, please). And it was one of the main waves which caused the Turkification of poliethnic South Caucasus and formation of the Azerbaijani people as a mixture of various groups from different backgrounds (Indo-European, Caucasian, Altaic and after Arabic conquest Semitic) united by Islam and adopting a Turkic language first as lingua franca, then as the mother tongue. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
See my previous comments. I don't have any problem with Azerbaijanis being Turkic, as we all Iranians have been mixed with Mongolid/Turkic peoples. I have problem them being absolutely non-Persian, non-Iranian as propagandized during Russian nationalism regimes like of Stalin and now in Azerbaijan, Aliyev Monarchical dynasty. Those Russians didn't bring us all Irainain people except separation, misery. "Erdoğan said: I'm a Georgian". He is no Turk, but a Batumian Georgian. Why do you want to be more Turk than him?! Look at Kul Tigin, the seemingly legendary one of the first Turks. Look in the mirror, do you see any similarity between yourself and him?! Of course some similarities is real among people, deep down to our genes, as we are all mixed with Turks and Mongols, however why you want to stress it more than what it deserves?! You said "Turkophone"; It means "of or relating to a population that speaks (a specified language)" (here "Turkic"). Azerbaijanis are "Turkophone". It means they are either Turks or they are related to Turks by language or mixed in anyway. However sources say that Azerbaijanis are more related to Persians/Iranians and Caucasianas, than being related to other Turkic peoples, as Turkish people are more related to Greeks and to non-Greek Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. History is garbage, but there is a pity that it may define who we are and how to direct us to deal with each other.
As a historical side note, see this choreographic order:
  • Scythians: "were mentioned as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes starting with the 7th century BC up until the 4th century AD"
  • Xiongnu: "Chinese sources from the 3rd century BC report them as having created an empire under Modu Chanyu"
  • Tocharians: "Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500 – 2500 BC)"
  • Alans: "were a group of Sarmatian tribes of Iranian origin, nomadic pastoralists of the 1st millennium AD"
  • Saka: "Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, AD 23–79) claims that the Persians gave the name Sakai only to the Scythian tribes "nearest to them"
  • Göktürks: who first come to our attention in 439
This Göktürks heritage has destroyed the civilization of central Asia. And that is the end in the historical heritage of the region, since it didn't have much to contribute to human civilization. Not that it was slight, or others were superior, but because it was living in colder lands. Colder nations defeated the warmer middle more advanced nations with simple tools, that is "sword".
Your propagandized Mongol and their subdued Turkic people (mixed with Iranian wild nations of central Asia) invasion has never didn't heal Iranians up, even until now. We lost our most valuable middle class during your Mongol/Turkic/Iranian invasion. Please don't be proud of that as we are not proud of our kins who intermingled with wild Mongols and their conquered Turks. By "you" above, I really meant "you" Azerbaijanis, who were the same as us other Iranians like in Nishabur. You learned that Mongol/Turkish invasion was not a joke. A lesson that you (as northern western Iranians) learned from our miseries (the central and Eastern Iranians). You learned that you should come into terms with Mongols/Turks/(language-shifted Iranians of central Asia). Your regional ruler subjugated to Mongols/Turks after learning from our million massacre by Mongols/Turks.That is why you, in Iranian Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan is more for reality of the world and we in some other parts of Iran is more into Mystics. You know Rumi, I believe he was somehow silly, but anyway a solution to the miseries of eastern and central Iranians that you north-western Iranians didn't have to overcome due to to your submission to Mongols/Turks. He escaped mongols/Turks and find a safe place in west (now called Turkey/ (Anatolian Indo European lands), What an irony! Why do do you think he was a mystic?! It was because of your wild Turk identity that didn't bring to Iran anything unless misery. We had Avicenna, Biruni, Razi. Your fake heritage of backward Mongol and their defeated Turks and Iranian central Asia Turanians didn't bring us anything. We still suffer from that. If You are familiar with the real history of Iran and Azerbaijan (Not the fake Russian/Communism/Aliyev history of the region), you know what I am saying.-Raayen (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd urge you not to use humiliating words against any nation!!! Every nation had its pluses and minuses. Turks were a key nation in spreading Islam in the region and later, in defending it from European Crusaders and etc. As you know Persian was the language of the administration and culture and Turkic was the language of the army. Azerbaijanis are proud about their current Turkic identity, but also no one forgot our past. Yeah, I agree that some state propaganda tries to erase this (that's why I stopped editing in azwiki), but it is more due to political reasons, which I will not touch here. BTW, I am a true Azerbaijani with Caucasian/Talysh/Tat and slant-eyed Turkic admixture. And my children will be so, although they will have some Slavic admixture as well. Being Azerbaijanis doesn't mean being pure Turks, as well as being French doesn't mean being pure Latin. The ethnogenesis of all people in the world, especially, Muslim nations are quite complicated. Azerbaijani nation merged from mixture of a lot of Caucasian tribes, local Iranian people and Turkic people, who were present in the north part of the region from earlier times because of Kipchaks (who were serving Georgian kings), Khazars and later tribes from the Central Asia, and to a lesser extent Arabs who settled in the region later and even Georgians, Armenians, Slavs, Jews who adopted Islam. And all of it is shown in the article with the appropriate references (if there are references, of course). Just I don't understand the aim of the conversation. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Higgins, Patricia J. (1984). "Minority-State Relations in Contemporary Iran". Iranian Studies. 17 (1): 37–71. doi:10.1080/00210868408701621. 
    • ^ Binder, Leonard (1962). Iran: Political Development in a Changing Society. University of California Press. pp. 160–161. OCLC 408909. 
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference state was invoked but never defined (see the help page).