Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 5

Iranian people

I think the article is fine and defines the group clearly. It does mention on top that it is about speakers of Iranian languages. Therefore I don’ think Azeri people are left out. It is mentioned in the top section how this group is primary defined by their usage of Iranian languages. Also the section when the groups are listed, clearly says “languages”

I am an Iranian and I know very well the importance of Azeri contribution to Iranian history and culture but I don’t think it is unfair that they are not included in this article as it is not about nation of Iran rather about Iranian speakers. Azeris might not be Turks, I personally think of them as 100% Iranic, but their language is and this article’s primary focus is on language. Also we can not merge this with Iranian languages since this article is not about those languages but the speakers of those languages. I think Ethnic and cultural assimilation section takes care of the issue of culture and explains that there are groups whose language is not Iranian but everything else about them is. Also, I would love to know the opinion of Azeri Iranians on this issue. thanks Gol 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dear Gol, firstly, welcome back. Secondly, Most of the Iranian Azeris voted above have both academic and Iranian concerns about the wrong use of the term "Iranian peoples" as in this article. The editors, wanted to create something of a linguistic importance, the same as Germanic and Turkic peoples. But we do not have such a thing in established academic texts. So they borrowed a term, which already has a meaning by itself, i.e. "Iranian peoples" and used it. I am not sure what else they could use. But definitely, not "Iranian peoples" which means not the same. We can not invent a meaning here for a term. We really have to look into known university textbooks and see what they use for this grouping of people. Or else, we have to define the way "Iranian peoples" is understood by all. That includes Iranian Turks. I am still waiting for the opposing parties to inclusion of Azeris to come up with some reliable university references where exact term of "Iranian peoples", and not anciant Iranian peoples and no debatable indications, as we are talking about anciant and contemporary people here. None has been provided yet. I shall be convince as well as other Iranian Azeris if we have a number of those texts presented to us using the exact terminology as defined here. No internet back links as it seems that a trend of many interenet info pages using Wikipedia and that will be self referencing. 203.48.45.194 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please list all references to the usage of the term "Iranian Peoples"

Editors,

This is a friendly request in order, to at least convince myself, for all who think the article is defining the term right, please list all reliable references that use the exact term of Iranian peoples with at least one example with full sentence that indicate the definition explained in this article and in this context, i.e. in a linguistic terms, from academia here. Please only list from univeristy text books and well established encyclopedias like Britanica. I am sure you will have plenty as you are fighting so hard to keep the name of the article as is. To me it is simply wrong, Iranian peoples are not only speakers of Iranian languages and has a much broader meaning.

If you have any comments or discussions, or like some you think the matter is too obvious (either way) for all but to me, please add an extra section and do not mix this section with discussion. However, if you think one listed is not as reliable, you could strike it like this, with a very short comment next to it.

Links are fine so long as they are links to reliable sources as above. Also, please not cite any internet encyclopedias as they mostly copy from Wikipedia and it is self referencing to mention them. And Gee how many of them...

Thanks 203.48.45.194 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussions and Comments on the reference list on "Iranian peoples"

Please add your detailed comments and discussions here.

I personally think, ther term Iranian peoples has a much broader meaning. It seems to me that editors were looking for a term such as Turkic or Germanic and they opted this term as they did find or could not come up with similar words to Turkic or Germanic. I think, Iranian peoples are who have lived in Iran and have been known as Iranians at different stages of history and those who are greatly associated with Persian and Iranian identity and culture. That definitely includes great many Iranians of modern Iran as well as members of Iranian community for the past melleniums. Well Azeris and Iranian Turkic people are members of both historical Iranian peoples and modern Iranian peoples. That is why I thought it was not acceptable to exclude them in the article by such name. As repeated by myself and many above, it is not only nationality. It is a metter of identity. If you go back to Nader Shah Afshar and ask him if he was a Turk, he would definitely say yes. But if you also asked him if he was Iranian, he would definitely say yes. If you and ask the a Western king and asked him at that time who Nader Shah was, he would also say, Nader Shah was a Persian King. I believe the same would be in acadmeic texts as well. So I am asking people if they know reliable reference saying otherwise, i.e. defining the term exactly and solely on "Speakers of Iranian languages", repeatedly and in reliable university text books and well established academic records, then be it. But if not, then why so much insisting on borrowing a term from known lexicon of English language and confuse people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.48.45.194 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 May 2006.

It is masteries!!! The supreme leader of Iran is an Azeri but Azeri doesn’t list as Iranian people.(Sampa 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Grandmaster this discussion is not your business. you are not Iranian people you are a Turk or Arrani. Then get out of this page.

The articles on Wikipedia are not owned by anyone, including yourself. Everyone has a right to edit any page. And yes, I’m not Iranian, I’m an Azeri and this issue has a direct relevance to me. Grandmaster 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not Azari or Azeri! Azari is some one whose mother and father are Azarbaijani( the real Azarbaijan not fake Republic of Azerbaijan). You are arani.

Very nice. You invented a new ethnicity, congrats. Grandmaster 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you threat me. Little GRANDMASTER if you are too brave why don’t you capture your occupied land from Armenian!

Please stop threats, and invent one convincing argument why we should redefine term Iranian Peoples from accepted scientific usage to what you just created in your head abdulnr 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Iranian peoples" (or more correctly: Iranic peoples) are a group of more or less related peoples who speak related languages and share (more or less) a common history, heritage, and culture.

While Azeris are deffinitly Iranic by culture and heritage, they are not Iranic by language - the most important factor. Therefore, there is no need to mention them in this article. Of course, this does not count for the historical "Azaris" who spoke the Iranic language known as "Azari". I think that these historical "Azaris" should be mentioned, along with other extinct Iranic peoples such as Skythians or Parthians.

However, peoples like Hazaras or Chahar Aimaq should be mentioned in this article, because they are Iranic by language, though not necessairily Iranic by heritage (they're probably Turko-Mongols).

Tajik 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. With your definition other Iranian (Iranic) peoples like Alans, Ossetians should not be mentioned because they do not belong to Persian civilizatin neither Hazaras should not be because they are Mongolian. Don't you think that Ossetians will feel dejected by not being included into your arbitrary definition. The bast solution is either to work on Turko-Iranian article or Peoples influenced by Iranian civilization article. Remember, that it is Iranian Peoples (plural) we are talking about NOT Iranian people (nation). This has gone for too long, and people still are confused. abdulnr

Well, guys, since there is no consensus, I thought, it would be better to stick to only acadmic sources rather than any opinionative speculations. So basically stick to Wikipedia's policy, no research but source an explanation. If no proof exist for the use of Iranian peoples for only ethno-linguistic grouping, then Iranian peoples should talk about Iranian peoples rather than speakers of Iranian languages. If it does, then be it and we stick to the way the article is. No editor in Wikipedia is here to do research or to push a POV, even a POV is supported by majority or all.

We all know Azeris speak Turkic now and sometime did not. We all know sensitivities of the issue. Please refrain from treating each other with respect and avoid non academic discussions.

All I am asking is for proof for the way "Iranian peoples" is used in the way in this article describes as on "ethno-linguistic" and primarily linguistic. If no such reference exist, we should move the contents of this article to an article by a name such as "speakers of Iranian languages" and link this page to Iranian demographics or include Azeris. 203.48.45.194 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well regarding the academic sources that discuss the Iranian peoples they are varied and often go hand in hand with discussion of Iranian languages. Besides the various sources listed in the article there are these, which do not mention the Azeris as an Iranian people, but one does mention the ancient Azaris and, as Tajik correctly commented, they can be discussed in the article and listed as an ancient Iranian people as well:

The Iranian Peoples of the Caucasus

Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples

Iranian peoples

"Buddhism among Iranian Peoples" in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.2: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Ehsan Yarshater (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 949-964. This refers to mostly the people of Afghanistan and Central Asia who are not, obviously, from the area of modern Iran.

Well, if you are going back to the genetic angle, then Caucasians did not have heavy present in Iran at least from the time of the Medes. Urartuians did extent to areas up to West Azarbaijan, but that area now speaks more Kurdish. But in the Caucas there used to exist Caucasian tribes like Albanians. But Iranian Azarbaijan was Iranian. After the Arab invasion, there was an influx of Arabs to mainly Khorasan and Azarbaijan. But these were absorbed as well. The linguistic shift of Azarbaijanis (in Iran at least) is well known. For example the city of Astara in Iran used to speak Talysh up to 50 years ago, but today the majority of inhabitants still consider themselves Talysh, but speak Azari-Turkish. Tabriz used to be Persian speaking up until the Safavids. (both statements can be backedup by evidence). Even if the modern Irish might be going to back to Gaelic due to nationalistic reasons, (and at least all the Irish I know do not speak it), there used to be several hundred period where English was predominant. Or for example we can take Haiti which speaks a dialect of French but the people there are primarily of African stock. I have no problem with Azarbaijanis being classified as a Turkic speaking people (Turcophones). But the problem is when they are defined as a Turkic people, while a good portion in Iran actually consider themselves Iranian turkic speakers. What is most important as I said, is how a group of people feel about themselves. And so both sides should be told. By the way Prof. Eghraq Alioff was the greatest Azarbaijani Academican from the Caucus. Many well known Azarbaijanis from Iran including: Ahmad Kasravi, Prof. Taqi Arrani, Prof. Seyyed Mohammad Taqizadeh, Shahryar the poet, Ra'di Azarkhshi, Dr. Amin Riyahi Khoi, Prof. Manuchehr Mortazavi, Prof. Abdolali Karang.. (and I can keep on going) considered themselves Iranians and the Turkic language to just be a linguistic shift. Here is another from Prof. Gernot Windfuhr[1]. In the article: Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes, in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. On pg 468, he writes: One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialect. So here is a western scholars, with no bias, who is stating a fact. As I said, if someone wants to count Azarbaijanis as ethnic Turks, it is up to them. But for many groups of people in the world, they speak languages that are not related to their history and culture. For example many parts of Africa, India, American continent speak languages that are not related to their original language. The area of Azarbaijan was Iranian speaking at least from the times of the Medes up to the transition from Ilkhanids (where the fist samples of Turkic from the courts were produced) to the Safavids. We have a good amount of Pahlavi based written material from Shaykh Safi Ad-din Ardabili. Most of the important historical cities and places of Azarbaijan and the Caucasian country of Azarbaijan have Iranian names: Baku, Shirvan, Darband, Nakhchivan, Ganjah.. and in Iranian Azarbaijan: Ardabil, Zangan, Maku, Tabriz and of course the name Azarbaijan itself. Most importantly a good portion Turcophone Azarbaijanis identify themselves as Iranians who speak Turkish. So lets be fair and allow both sides to state their point of view. --Ali doostzadeh 05:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

From Scythia to Camelot-Here the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans are referred to as Iranian peoples.

The Scythians-Same here.

Various articles in issues of Archaeology Magazine refer to Iranian peoples and their definition corresponds to language usage. For example, I have the issues that discuss the Amazons (as a Sarmatian Iranian people) and issues discussing the Scythians, again an Iranian people. Also, the term Iranic is often used by academics as an alternative just to avoid confusion with the term Iranian peoples, which many misconstrue as a reference only to Iran, when it really is a reference to the Iranic peoples including the Persians, Kurds, Pashtuns, etc. So aside from the Azaris, we really can't discuss any other groups without significantly veering away from common usage. Tombseye 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Problems of including Azeris

Many have argued for the inclusion of the Azeris, while not comprehending what Iranian peoples means and I argued that if this took place, the Kurds would be claimed by the Turks since there would no longer be any defineable criteria. Well check out Talk:Kurdish people and the nonsense that was said there:

That's to say, Kurds are of Turkic origin who mixed with Iranian people.The only diffrence between Kurds and Azeris is that Kurds are a litte bit more mixed with Iranians.Turkish and Kurdish nations must live in peace at Anatolia as they have done for centruies.

Note how similar this rhetoric is to the demands of including the Azeris as an Iranian people. I would like to make clear that none of us who don't want the Azeris included are interested in separatism (at least not that I know of) in the national sense. It is however highly dubious that the Azeris can be included without question as the evidence is conjectural. And if they are, then I see no reason as to why the Turks can't include the Kurds as a Turkic people who adopted an Iranian language since it will no longer matter. Tombseye 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets not bring discussions on other pages here and limit ourselves to academic sources. We can not sacrifice the facts for discussions and rhetorics going elsewhere. You also make the same assumptions again. Azeris claims to be Iranian has nothing to do with their current citizenship. (Some might mention it though, I do not). It has a mellenium long history and Shahs of Iran were all Turkic speaking in the past half a mellenium, except two last ones and Zand dynasty. There is a huge difference between Kurds in Turkey and Turks in Iran. I do not see any parallel there.

By the way, thanks for the sources mentioned above. Speaking of references is more acadmeic approach, I believe rather than side issues such as Kurdish pages, tec. So lets do that. Will go throught them one by one and discuss them later and hopefully we all come to the similar understanding.I will get back to you on that later. I believe they great sources. But they do not claim this is the whole list of Iranian peoples and here is the list of Iranian peoples: 1, 2, blah blah and no one else. And some talk about Iranian peoples in anciant times when Iranians did not speak Turkic at all. Iranian Turks emerged since thousand years ago. If this article only talks and assumes all Iranian people groups before then. Then ok. be it. But this article claims more than than. 203.48.45.194 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very relevant simply because if people can be claimed based upon arbitrary interpretations of history then the articles are meaningless. By the way, you're a sockpuppet and it's been confirmed here. So, at this point, your opinion has really lost a lot of credibility and the vote stacking makes your votes null and void. The article has made all the concessions necessary at this point, as the Azeris are mentioned in various sections and I will add discussion of the ancient Azaris myself and leave it at that. The simple reality is that the Azeris can't be proven, without a doubt, to be mostly the descedents of an Iranian people because it's also possible that they are a Caucasian people and there is a small element of Turkic admixture as well that is unknown in terms of size. Or they could be a combination, but we don't know for certain. And nitpicking my sources doesn't make a difference really. Professor Carole A. O'Leary Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Global Peace Adjunct Professor, School of International Service at American University's article [2] discusses the Iranian peoples as well. At this point, the discussion is over as many concessions have been made. The end. Tombseye 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So this IP voted 3 times? That’s a clear violation of the Wiki rules. Grandmaster 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed and since this person was the one who initiated this 2nd round of contention and acted dishonestly, I see no reason humor to him. Tombseye 04:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was an obvious attempt to cheat and forge the results of voting. Grandmaster 04:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how confirmed it is that those guys did sucketpuppeting!!! But I do not. My IP address belongs to a company of more than 800 people and there are a few Persians and Azeris around. To be honest with you, I only know one of them.

If you do not like civil discussions and like arguments, then Wikipedia is yours. I will be leaving it to you guys... Goodbye and hope you enjoy your arguments. 203.48.45.194 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the person who reported my IP address as suspected sucketpuppet, he himself is on probation on Iranian and Persian related topics. See here 203.48.45.194 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So what if he is? It does not change the fact that your IP was used by 3 different accounts to vote. Grandmaster 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

203.48.45.194, I'm not banned from Iran-related articles. SouthernComfort and Aucaman are. Check again. —Khoikhoi 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of speculations and Tombseye has already decided it was a confirmed case!!!

I am myself, Persian Magi, who did not start the voting, but added a deadline in voting, and has been quiet due to being busy for the last week or two. Not sure, how, who an if one or more people are sharing the same IP addresses as mine. I work for a big company and quiet a few Iranians, Turks and even people of former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan work here. We can organize a lezgi dance every Friday night here. Some are great arguers. Phew... Persian Magi 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Very convincing. I’m also waiting for your another account Gharib Ghorbati to come up with a similar story. And what was this [3] ? Grandmaster 11:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What speculation? I'm not the one who investigated the matter. At any rate, the entire process is suspect and I believe we can come to some concensus now that some of the subterfuge has been uncovered. Tombseye 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you even argue over not including them? i would like to know if anyone here has ever been to either east or west azarbaijan? not every azari is turkish, let alone speaks turkish. my whole family is from east azarbaijan, and we are all azari's yet not turks. we speak persian. azari in Iran means you are from the provinces of east and west azarbaijan. and before you respond, please let me know what part of azarbaijan you have been to, i would love to hear from people who know what they're talking about. Rugsnotbombs 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia entry on Azerbaijani people

See this: "The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture, make up about 90% of the republic’s population" --ManiF 06:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So? It’s still Turkic-speaking people, isn’t it? Grandmaster 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Encyclopedias have similar definitions for Azerbaijani people. So it should mentioned in the article that Azerbaijani people are a Turkic-speaking people of Persian culture. --ManiF 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is already there. Please see [4] Grandmaster 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be stated more boldly. Shervink 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Agreed -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we've got the Azeris mentioned as a group that is sometimes referred to as culturally Iranian AND the Azaris and others are mentioned and the Azeris are discussed in the cultural assimilation section, can we agree that the matter is closed? Mentioned on 3 separate occassions in the article has given the Azeris quite a bit of coverage that some of the known Iranian peoples haven't received. Cheers. Tombseye 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have done a great service - and the matter should be closed. all is mentioned, and mentioned in the article many times. I suggest if similar discussions arise in the future - they should be referred to the archivee of the talk page abdulnr 00:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps and hidden ancient/contemporary non-Iranic languages

The maps provided in the article only shows geographical extent of Iranic languages but has a wrong impression that the only languages spoken in this geographical area were/are Iranic. It is in no way true. Both in ancient times and even now there have been/are many non-Iranic languages spoken by large populations in this area. For example in the modern map of Iranic languiages both Azeri and Arabic areas are shown as Iranic-speaking area. No mention of non-Iranics. It is highly misleading. It should be corrected or clarified.Togrol 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable claims? And this from someone who claims that the Medes were Turkic people!!! Shervink 13:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I added the term empires so that a reader can understand that this is the extent of Iranian peoples (which is accurate as the map is pretty good) including empires so that should take care of that hopefully. Tombseye 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BC/BCE

Prior to Dbachmann's recent edit [5], this article used BCE consistently. Please at least make an attempt to observe WP guidelines instead of making such a change. SouthernComfort 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it so that it corresponds to the rest of the article. Tombseye 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to create any controversy, but I wanted to replace the picture collage

I wanted to replace the picture collage with something that is symbolic of the Iranian peoples such as something from Zoroastrianism, the Fravashi. The picture collage, in my opinion is pointless as we have pictures that are more relevant in the various sections and it clashes with the intent of the article, which is not to depict an ethnic group. A symbol would help the article maintain an encyclopedic (rather than a people magazine) presentation. Just wanted to bring it up here first before doing it though. The Fravashi is good symbol of ancient Iranic culture (as many, if not most Iranic peoples have ancestors who were Zoroastrian, even among the fringes such as the Kurds and Pashtuns) and can't be misconstrued as solely 'Persian' since Zoroastrianism most likely developed in Afghanistan anyway. Just wanted to put that forward. Cheers. Tombseye 14:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree ... maybe we should include quite a few typical "Iranic" symbols ... Tajik 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, whatever you can think of. Right now, with the picture replaced, the article will take on a cleaner and more encyclopedic look and avoid the controversy of the picture that inevitably will come up. Tombseye 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up but we can use the picture down below can't we? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Iranian model wearing traditional attire, yes it's a good one and relevant to the subject matter under the culture section so I'm in favor of it and hopefully everyone else will concur. Tombseye 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the editing wars

Okay, the last version that did not name the Azaris or Azeris by name in the list, but discussed their unique situation was the last version we agreed to. It discusses that many consider the modern Azeris as the descendents of the Azaris and other Iranic tribes, but that the issue is debated still. The discussion is listed in the modern Iranian peoples list, but the compromise (give and take people) was not to actually list them as they do not fit the main criteria of speaking an Iranian language. The intro was not to be changed. Thanks. Tombseye 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

i thought the last edit was fine. it seemed to include everyone's concerns. it just looks really unorganized right now, i thought the other way where you name azari and add the note looks more professional. Rugsnotbombs 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the intro. We are starting from an absolutely wrong definition and thus are getting wrong results. Iranian peoples are not commonly or mainly defined by language, and the intro should be changed accordingly. Azeris are commonly included as Iranian peoples, and if we had not made the previous mistake at the intro we would have no problem incorporating them here. Anyhow, not complying with the contents of a WP article is not a criterion for exclusion. WP articles are based on external sources, not on themselves. If there is disagreement between the intro and the external established sources, it is the intro which should be changed, and that is the case here. Shervink 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Iranian peoples are defined only by language as all the other ethnolinguistic group. Term Iranic has been suggested as the substitute to alleviate controversy. This is what article is about. The sources that define Azeris as iranian people have in mind a ethnocultural definition that is NOT what the article is about abdulnr 00:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not absolutely wrong, check the MANY references. Even the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies goes by it and only lists Azaris (as the ancient group) and modern Azeris are discussed in a largely argumentative article and, unlike other articles they have, is not written by an academic. Look, do we have to have have this argument continuously without compromise? Encyclopedia Americana calls them a Turkic people based on their language. In fact, most references do the same. Now, there may indeed be a large component of the Azeris that is Iranian (not necessarily Persian, but other Iranians such as Central Asian Iranian) as well as Caucasian etc., but the simple reality is that we can't get past the current classification. The Azeris are discussed on numerous occassions and their unique situation will convey to readers that sometimes they are considered an Iranian people, which is accurate enough. We painstakingly went through all of the subterfuge to come to a compromise and this is really as far as we can go. There is nothing wrong with the intro as it complies with the other similar articles and conforms to most usages. Tombseye 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making a mistake. Only language as you put it, is the basis of defining a linguistic group, not an ethnic, ethno-linguistic, or ethno-cultural (as you suggested) group. Each term implies very clearly what is and what is not included, and a group based on language is obviously a linguistic group, since its only criterion of inclusion is language. If the basis of this article is only language, its title should say so, but it does not do so now. If the article had a title like Speakers of Iranian languages, for example, we wouldn't have a problem. What the title implies now is more general however, since the term Iranian has a much broader meaning than only language. Iranian peoples are commonly defined as a cultural group rather than a linguistic one, and the linguistic-alone interpretation seems to be a WP invention based on a comparison to Germanic peoples, which is firstly plain wrong and secondly original research. The conclusion remains that the intro needs a substantial change. Shervink 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

OK, could you please answer my question? The following is from encyclopedia Britannica:

Turkic peoples - any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. [6]

Do you think Azeris belong to this group or not? Grandmaster 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a mistake here. I think you need to realize that this is largely your opinion that this article's intro is a mistake as that's just your interpretation which is different from most usages of the term. I didn't say it was necessarily only language, but that is the main criteria FOLLOWED by other factors. Language groups, formed prior to the age of globalization and showing a long common history, are perfectly viable as a grouping as well. Also, common academic practice refers to people who speak certain languages as a group, thus the MANY references to Iranian peoples throughout academia that are sourced in this article. Just saying that the usage of Germanic peoples is plain wrong and is original research is not valid since I've seen it used on numerous occassions, including when I took German classes and the Germanic languages were discussed. Historically, the tribes that went out, known as Germanic tribes, spread their languages and the peoples who adopted them (such as the Anglo-Saxons) were included. Ultimately, I think the POV problem is that you want the Azeris to be included on the list and are looking for reasons as to how to include them. By your criteria then, the French could be a Germanic people since many might be the descendents of Franks and share cultural ties etc. That's not how things are done and we've made a lot of compromises here. The Azeris are discussed, the Azaris are discussed as is the Caucasus, Turko-Iranian culture is brought up and the Azeri situation is listed in the Iranian peoples list as well so that a reader can't miss it. Basically, rather than making some sort of compromise, you simply want your way, in-spite of all of the references and sources now listed in this article. The Azeris are connected to 3 different groups, Iranian, Turkic, and Caucasian. They speak a Turkic language, have a culture that is close to the Persians, and genetically are closest (at least in the north) to other Caucasian peoples such as the Armenians. This situation is not unlike the French example that I made earlier. You might want to think of a compromise rather than putting forth what you interpret to be correct as a lot of the supporters for the inclusion of Azeris, Kash and Tajik, have agreed to the current compromise. Tombseye 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. I have a problem with your way of reasoning, which goes along these lines essentially: Since groups like Germanic peoples and others are defined mainly in terms of linguistics, we should do the same for Iranian peoples. What is true for one group of peoples is not necessarily true for another, however. 1. How many sources can you bring up which directly define Iranian peoples exactly in this same manner? 2. What type of classification would that be? Wouldn't it be a linguistic group then? Wouldn't it be wrong to call a group formed based on merely linguistics an ethno-linguistic group, as is often done here? 3. The more common definition of Iranian peoples, as far as I know, is those people living in Greater Iran, with a major influence (linguistic or otherwise) from Iranian culture. In that way, Azeris certainly are Iranian, in addition to being (obviously) linguistically Turkic. There is nothing wrong with including them in both groups, because they belong to both. Excluding them from any of the two would be a mistake, however. Shervink 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

See also:

Germanic peoples also called Teutonic Peoples - any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages. [7] Grandmaster 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. All of this is common academic practice and I don't understand why we're still discussing this issue after all of the compromises that have been made! Tombseye 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it’s clear. Ethnolinguistic groups are formed on the basis of the language as the defining factor. All other factors are secondary. I can’t see any valid reason to redefine the criteria that is used by all academic sources. Grandmaster 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The word ethno-linguistic consists of two parts. How can linguistics alone be the defining parameter for anything more than a merely linguistic group? You have not yet provided any academic sources which back your claim. Can you provide at least one source saying that Ethnolinguistic groups are formed on the basis of the language as the defining factor and that All other factors are secondary? Shervink 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Have you seen the quotes from Britannica? How do they form groups? Come on already, what’s the point in arguing about obvious things? Grandmaster 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intro currently says that language is the primary defining factor, but it fails to back that up with sources. the references 1 and 2 given after that sentence do not say anything like that. The links to Britannica are from the article on Iranian languages, so it is obvious that the emphasis there is on linguistic matters. It does not enable one to make conclusions pertaining to this article, however, which is on Iranian peoples. (Another article on Iranian languages exists on WP already). There are up to now still no sources whatsoever which support your claim that an ethno-linguistic group is defined based primarily on language, neither generally nor in the special case of Iranian peoples. If you have any sources saying that, present them so we can see. If you don't, then the article should be changed. Shervink 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I don’t have to present any sources. In this case it's your responsibility. Check the rules: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If you wish to add Azeris in the list of Iranian people, please be so kind as to present a reliable source, that includes them with Iranian peoples. Note that we need an unbiased academic source to establish the fact. Grandmaster 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are already included in the article as I see it, although probably not in the best form possible. What we are talking about here is the intro and the definition of the Iranian peoples, not the Azeris. The current intro which you are supoorting lacks sources and needs to be changed, since its definition is incomplete and inconsistent with established use. I once again ask you to provide sources for the first sentence of the intro, specifically the claim that ethno-linguistic groups are defined mainly based on language. Shervink 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I agree with Shervink, this would be an endless argument if we can not have a proper sourced definition of Iranian peoples, whether its just the speakers of the Iranian languages or whether they are indeed an ethno-linguistic group in any case this needs to be clear and non-disputed so we can further the discussion -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See the way other groups are arranged:

Slavic peoples

The Slavic peoples are defined by their usage of the Slavic languages.

Latin peoples

The Latin peoples are those linguistic-cultural groups that speak one of the Romance languages, which are languages descended from Vulgar Latin.

Germanic peoples

The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages, idioms descended from Proto-Germanic (spoken during the final centuries BC, the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe).

Iranian peoples are formed by the same principle as all other groups. If you want to change it, you’ll have to change it for all other groups as well. Grandmaster 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See Ethnic German, Imperial Germans, Volga German, Germans as well as Germanic peoples.

I know we also have Demographics of Iran, but Germans also have Demographics of Germany, therefore we may need to split this page up in to two articles, one speakers of Iranian languages and the other Iranic people for example. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the latter suggestion of Kashk. Iranian peoples in general has a broader meaning than just language. Thus, we could have pages on Linguistically Iranian people (Speakers of Iranian languages) and the more general group encompassing cultural and other aspects which would be called Iranian or Iranic peoples.

Grandmaster, I am aware of all those groups you mentioned. What I was asking for was a quotation of a credible source describing the ethno-linguistic (not only linguistic) group of Iranians (the subject of this article) in the way presented in the current version. Thus, a source which firstly deals with Iranian (not Slavic, Germanic, ...) peoples, and which secondly explicitly defines a more-than-linguistic group merely based on language. Such a source would be needed to back the claims of the current article. Shervink 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

You keep saying "Iranian peoples in general has a broader meaning than just language", but you still haven't managed to cite your sources. Until then, the definition stays. This article is not going to be come a nationalist playground. —Khoikhoi 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Khoikhoi raises a good point that you haven't cited any credible sources and as GM pointed out, it's your responsibility to come up with something with some credibility to include the Azeris as an Iranian people. We already have numerous sources on this page. 37 citations, numerous books and internet links that dwarf the evidence presented for most other articles, while you have yet to prove that the definition is wrong. You are, at this point, in the minority as there was really no need to include the Azeris at all, except in the Cultural assimilation section, but we have mentioned them throughout the article and listed them as a special case to consider under the list of present Iranian peoples. I do believe you have most of what you wanted and this does constitute a compromise. If you want to make your case, then do it on the Turko-Iranian page or other related pages. The Azeribaijani people page even makes clear that they have diverse origins including links to the Caucasus (at least with the northerners) that supercedes links to the Iranian peoples and then there is a minority genetic contribution from the Turkmen, who were themselves largely Central Asian Iranians who were turkified. In short, the Azeris are a very mixed lot with links to the Caucasus, Iranian peoples, and Turkmenistan. Out of this, they can't be included because they don't qualify in terms of the main criteria, their language. Tombseye 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are misunderstanding my point repeatedly. Why have you got stuck on the issue of Azeris? I have already declared that I find the way that they are included is more or less fine. Although I think it can be improved, that is not at all what I have been talking about in my last comments. What I am talking about is the intro and the language-based definition, not the Azeri issue. It is you people who have written and are defending the intro, so it is up to you to provide a source defining Iranian peoples in that way. The article claims to be about an ethno-linguistic group, and yet uses merely/primarily language as a definition. This is not logical and you should provide sources for it, i.e. sources defining ethnic/ethno-linguistic (not linguistic alone) groups based on language. Moreover, you have to provide a source for the specific case of Iranian peoples, which you have not so far. The sources in the intro right now are completely irrelevant and do not even mention anything related to their preceding sentence. Shervink 10:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

No, I understand your point and think you are nitpicking and I believe it has to do with the Azeris since you still think it can be improved and yet have not explained how that improvement would take place and what sources YOU have to make changes. This article has been written to conform to the other articles (I realize that you think Germanic, Slavic, etc. is different, but I don't agree at all that they are different), altered to placate dissenting views, and thus is now in its current form. The sources, such as Carol O'Leary's definition of Iranian peoples as an ethnolinguist group and the Encyclopedia of the Ukraine definition plus the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (which includes the ancient Azaris, but not necessarily the modern Azeris as C.E. Bosworth explains. [8] The other references use the term Iranian peoples or Iranic peoples and talk about the Scythians, Persians, Pashtuns, Baluchis, Kurds, etc. and that defines the group, largely due to their language usage you'll notice. The references are not irrelevant as they explain things just fine and correspond to the language use (note that they don't list other possibly related peoples at all). I'd say this is an impasse and unless you want to bring in someone to arbitrate, I'm not going along with any more changes as we seem to be talking in circles with you making demands (and I believe it has to do with the Azeris as I believe that if we added them this argument would end without protest). Tombseye 20:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to think that I am nitpicking and accuse me of not being honest, it means you are not assuming good faith. Anyhow, I have made very clear what I'm talking about here. It is not the Azeris, and if you read it again you'll see that I declared that I do in general agree with the way they are included. My point is this: The definition given in the article is not specifically supported by solid sources. Fix it please. Shervink 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Basically, the sources listed denote Iranian peoples by language as well as other factors. That's all the article is doing as well. We can't include Turkic peoples for that very reason as encyclopedias define Turkic peoples by language. I added the Circle of Ancient Iranian studies as a reference with a list of Iranian peoples who seem to adhere to the language requirement as well. That's pretty much all that can be done. Tombseye 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans and Germanic peoples are completely different things. The latter is a group of people, speaking the language of a certain group. German is not necessarily Germanic, English People are Germanic as well, while French are not. It is based on the language they speak. See also:

The Balts or Baltic peoples (Latvian: balti, Lithuanian: baltai), defined as speakers of one of the Baltic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family, are descended from a group of Indo-European tribes who settled the area between lower Vistula and upper Dvina and Dneper.

Finnic peoples (Fennic, sometimes Baltic-Finnic) refers to a group of related ethnic groups, viz. the settled nations speaking Balto-Finnic languages (Finnic languages).

The same with all other groups. I don’t understand why Azeris are even mentioned in this article, they don’t even speak an Iranian language and are Turkic people. The list of Slavic people don’t mention Germans, for example. I think Azeris should not be mentioned here at all, because I don’t see any other list including different language speakers. If you are not happy with the way linguistic groups are arranged at Wikipedia, I suggest you follow a dispute resolution procedure and start an RfC. Grandmaster 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Azeri people used to speak an Iranian language (See Ancient Azari language) and also there is also genetic and historical evidence that they share ethnic roots with other Iranian peoples, as well as that many of them live in Iran. "I dont know why" attitude won't help this discussion as there are valid points if not we are gonna go in circles. The first source of the article refers to Iranian people as an ethno-linguistical group (unmbrella group) and if Azeris were indeed both ethnically linguistically Iranian then they should be mentioned, looking at it from the Ancient Azeri people (Medes) and their descendants who are I believe Azeris and Kurds? but ofcourse they have intermarried with the rest of the population in the area (See Azeris#Origins). Well, I proposed a solution above (which I believe was proposed before also), if there are any other suggestions lets hear it. Ps. we should archive this talk -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Azeris cannot be included, they are Turkic speakers. I showed you how all other groups are arranged here, this article is no different. It deals with speakers of Iranian languages. Grandmaster 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then change its title to speakers of Iranian languages, and the problem is solved. One might still argue that most Azeris (at least those in Iran) are bilingual, but I will not be the one to bring that up. Shervink 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Why, because you don't like it? Everyone seems to understand what this specific reference is about except you. Do you really think it's at all logical for you to play the Aucaman role and demand changes even when it's understood by everyone else? And changes are not needed and if there are changes it will be to Iranic peoples. Meantime, I suggest you convince people that Slavic people, Turkic people, etc. need to all be changed to speakers of said language group and see how that goes over. It's clear academic terminology and there's nothing wrong with it. Tombseye 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am coming late into this discussion. But are Mexicans who speak Spanish, a Spanish people? What about the Irish who the majority of them speaks English? As far as I know, despite speaking Turkic, Azarbaijanis have Iranian culture and culturally they are closer to other Iranians than even Anatolian Turks. For example Nowruz is a major holiday for all Iranians. Another is Yalda. Or for example Azarbaijanis are proud of Nizami, Babak, Khaghani and etc (while these figures are Iranians and are not Turkic ethnically or culturally).

Here is a link which is reliable from historical point of view: http://www.kiffer.us/azeri_info/history_of_azerbaijan-emb.htm

What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. According to the most widely accepted etymology, the name "Azerbaijan" is derived from Atropates, the name of a Persian satrap of the late fourth century b.c. Another theory traces the origin of the name to the Persian word azar ("fire"') - hence Azerbaijan, "the Land of Fire", because of Zoroastrian temples, with their fires fueled by plentiful supplies of oil. Azerbaijan maintained its national character after its conquest by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century a.d. and its subsequent conversion to Islam. At this time it became a province in the early Muslim empire. Only in the 11th century, when Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty entered the country, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant number of Turkic inhabitants. The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia.

So the question is that are Azarbaijanis, "Turkified" Iranians or Iranians that speak Turkish? This question can not be answered scientifically. Even if there is genetic testing and we all know that original Turks are of Altaic and Mongolian stock and the modern person from the republic of Azarbaijan is closer to Armenians genetically than to Turkomens or even Turkish speakers of Anatolia. since genetics does not necessarily make an impression on culture and identity, we can not use it as proof like some of my fellow Iranians want. At the same time language does not necessarily make the final decision. What makes the final decision really depends on what todays Azarbaijanis think. Both strands and train of thoughts are currently present within Azarbaijanis of Iran. Of course it is not like the Irish who speak English, but consider themselves absolutely Irish. But at the same time, it is not like Turkomanestan, where everyone considers themselves Turks. For example Ataturk was not a Turk, and was an Albanian/Macedonian. But culturally he was a Turk and more importantly he considered himself Turk. So the important thing is the complete perspective on history, language, genetics.. from the individuals point of view. Since I am from Iran, I know both strands are present. So to be fair, both ideas must be stated and both ideas can be supported by evidence. There does not exist any absoluteness here. Also culturally, the Azarbaijanis of Iran are no different than the Talysh, Persian,.. speakers. There is a lot of intermarriage and fusion due to the the same culture. So to conclude and make everyone reasonably happy, one can describe several view points (Turkified Iranians/Turks or Iranians that speak Turkish). I am sure this is not the only place that this issue has comeup and probably Mexicans as well as other groups with a long history who experienced a recent linguistic shift, have similar questions. So lets be fair and include both viewpoints. --Ali doostzadeh 07:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mexicans are Latin peoples, same as Spanish, because they speak one of the Latin languages. English-speaking Irish people (Anglo-Irish) are Germanic peoples. And Turkic-speaking Azeris are Turkic people and they don’t belong to the list of Iranian speakers, since they speak a Turkic language. So far I have not seen a single authoritative source that included Azeris with Iranian people. This list should be arranged exactly the same way like other lists of peoples. And also, saying that Azeris culturally are no different from Iranian people is not accurate. We celebrate Novruz, like all people of Iran and Central Asia, but we also have Dede Gorgud and Koroglu in our literary tradition, which is Turkic and not Iranian. Grandmaster 12:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But Latin people is just a linguistic definition, and Mexicans are very aware of their pre-Spanish heritage and do not consider themselves Spanish. But you are considering Turkic speaking Azarbaijanis as a Turkic people. This is like considering the Irish as a Germanic/English people while they are celtic. Yes I agree Azarbaijanis, with the exception of those that are in Tehran and speak Persian as their first language, are not Iranian speakers by linguistic definition. But the article is not solely about linguistic definition is it? It encompasses history, religion (former Zoroastrians who are now mainly Shi'i Muslims which is ingrained with Iranian culture) as well. It is about those that have shared in the Iranian experience for a long time. For example Hazaras in Afghanistan speak Persian, but are considered Turko-Mongols and not Persian by history. Turkomans in Iran do not celebrate Nowruz by the way. And the Azarbaijani Nowruz celebration in Iran is the same as other Iranians and unlike the Uzbeks or Khirkhiz of Central Asia. For example Charshamba Soori, Reading Qu'ran on the exact time Nowruz, Sizdah bedar and Haft sin are all part of the Nowruz celebrate not found say amongst Uzbeks. As per Dede-Qorqod the work was discovered fairly recently (oldest manuscript is not even 200 years old) and up to 50 years ago, no one knew in Azarbaijan. But everyone in Iranian Azarbaijan knows for example the story of Rostam o Sohrab. And as per Kuroglu while the story has central Asian origins, even the Iranian Tajiks have a Persian version of it. Now while I respect your point of view, there are many Azarbaijanis in Iran and some in the republic of Azerbaijan (including Prof. Eghrar Alioff) who consider themselves descendants of the ancient Medes. Specially there are many in Iran. Furthermore when you add the name Azarbaijan (which is Iranian), the fire-temples, Babak Khorramdin, Nizami Ganjavi, Mahasti, Khaghan (none of these figures were Turkomans/Oghuz), they you either have an Iranian people or a people that were strongly influenced by Iranian culture. The former seems more true from a genetic point of view. --Ali doostzadeh 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case I totally agree with Grandmaster. MODERN Azeris are not an "Iranic people", but a "Turkic people". Their ancestors, the historical Azaris, were an "Iranic people" and they are already included in the list of Ancient Iranian peoples. The current version, which explains that SOME sources count them among "Iranian peoples", but that the MAJORITY of sources consider Azeris "Turkic" is totally enough and good. Tajik 12:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. Now if the ancient Azarbaijanis are Iranic people, then why are their descendants considered a Turkic people. Why is there a double standard while the Irish are not considered a Germanic people? So the more correct term would be to say tht they are Turkic speaking Iranians. So they do have a place here. And if you a need source, I can find some Western as well as Iranian Azarbaijani authors who also point to a linguist shift and not necessarily a different people altogether! If the article is just about Iranian speaking people, then we would have to include also Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkomans who also speak Iranian languages sometimes as their first language. Specially in Afghanistan. --Ali doostzadeh 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main problem is that we don't know for a fact that all or most Azeris are solely or predominantly descended from Iranic tribes. It's just conjectural evidence and there is a lot of support for connections with Caucasian groups as well as the Turkmen. As a result, due to the lack of substantial info. one way or another, it makes sense to classify the Azeris as a Turkic people. The modern Irish are increasingly speaking Gaelic as well and their linguistic shift is known to have taken place only a few centuries ago and thus their Gaelic origins are more of a certainty (although those along coastal areas show some Scandanavian ancestry as well). Contrast this with the English who received a much larger influx of Germanic immigrants and their language shift took place nearly 1500 years ago. These may seem like gray areas to some, but I think one that that academica relies upon is a preponderance of evidence, rather than conjecture and of course the other major factor here is nationalism. The Hazara are included in the article, while the Uzbeks and Turkmen rarely abandon their mother tongues in Afghanistan so much as speak other languages in order to communicate with others. I met Uzbeks in Pakistan and they still speak Uzbek in their homes for example. Obviously language shifts take place, but the groups are still discernable enough that we can categorize them based upon some known history, anthropology, morphology, and increasingly genetics to confirm various claims. The case of the Azeris is explained ad nauseum and I think the article is just fine the way it is as I haven't heard any constructive ways to change it as yet. Tombseye 22:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are going back to the genetic angle, then Caucasians did not have heavy present in Iran at least from the time of the Medes. Urartuians did extent to areas up to West Azarbaijan, but that area now speaks more Kurdish. But in the Caucas there used to exist Caucasian tribes like Albanians. But Iranian Azarbaijan was Iranian. After the Arab invasion, there was an influx of Arabs to mainly Khorasan and Azarbaijan. But these were absorbed as well. The linguistic shift of Azarbaijanis (in Iran at least) is well known. For example the city of Astara in Iran used to speak Talysh up to 50 years ago, but today the majority of inhabitants still consider themselves Talysh, but speak Azari-Turkish. Tabriz used to be Persian speaking up until the Safavids. (both statements can be backedup by evidence). Even if the modern Irish might be going to back to Gaelic due to nationalistic reasons, (and at least all the Irish I know do not speak it), there used to be several hundred period where English was predominant. Or for example we can take Haiti which speaks a dialect of French but the people there are primarily of African stock. I have no problem with Azarbaijanis being classified as a Turkic speaking people (Turcophones). But the problem is when they are defined as a Turkic people, while a good portion in Iran actually consider themselves Iranian turkic speakers. What is most important as I said, is how a group of people feel about themselves. And so both sides should be told. By the way Prof. Eghraq Alioff was the greatest Azarbaijani Academican from the Caucus. Many well known Azarbaijanis from Iran including: Ahmad Kasravi, Prof. Taqi Arrani, Prof. Seyyed Mohammad Taqizadeh, Shahryar the poet, Ra'di Azarkhshi, Dr. Amin Riyahi Khoi, Prof. Manuchehr Mortazavi, Prof. Abdolali Karang.. (and I can keep on going) considered themselves Iranians and the Turkic language to just be a linguistic shift. Here is another from Prof. Gernot Windfuhr[9]. In the article: Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes, in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. On pg 468, he writes: One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialect. So here is a western scholars, with no bias, who is stating a fact. As I said, if someone wants to count Azarbaijanis as ethnic Turks, it is up to them. But for many groups of people in the world, they speak languages that are not related to their history and culture. For example many parts of Africa, India, American continent speak languages that are not related to their original language. The area of Azarbaijan was Iranian speaking at least from the times of the Medes up to the transition from Ilkhanids (where the fist samples of Turkic from the courts were produced) to the Safavids. We have a good amount of Pahlavi based written material from Shaykh Safi Ad-din Ardabili. Most of the important historical cities and places of Azarbaijan and the Caucasian country of Azarbaijan have Iranian names: Baku, Shirvan, Darband, Nakhchivan, Ganjah.. and in Iranian Azarbaijan: Ardabil, Zangan, Maku, Tabriz and of course the name Azarbaijan itself. Most importantly a good portion Turcophone Azarbaijanis identify themselves as Iranians who speak Turkish. How a group or a portion of a group feels about their heritage is very important. --Ali doostzadeh 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your citation is not a proof that Azerbaijani people are Iranian people. The author just refers to the fact that Azerbaijani language is spoken by other ethnicities as well, such as Kurds and Talysh. Therefore not all Azerbaijani speakers are Turks, same as not all Persian speakers are Persians. In Azerbaijan republic everyone speaks Azeri, but not all speakers of the language are ethnic Azeris. You see, the list of people are formed on the basis of the language they speak, see above my references to other peoples groups, and no one can deny that modern Azerbaijani is a Turkic language. Therefore Azerbaijani people should be included in the list of Turkic people, but not here, because Azerbaijani language is not Iranian. Grandmaster 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when the majority of Azarbayjani speakers are Kurds and Talysh? Actually the author says: just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks.. And this is a footnote on that page for the sentence: Consequently one hesitates to identify the Kurdish band as 'Median/ dialects, not even geographically(rather one may call them 'Parthian' considering the time and fact that many non-Persian dialects in W Iran once were called Pahlavi/Fahlavi-dialects).

Putting a footnote, the author says: One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialect. He also has another article that points to this issue, which I will find if I have the time. Again we went over the language argument and Azarbaijanis are Turcophones, but to say they are a Turkic people like Yaquts, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Kazakhs is not sound logically. Since Azarbaijanis existed before the Turkic invasion and the language shift and there is still a good imprint of that former culture in the region. For many groups in the world, history over-rides linguistic. One other example amongst many is the Parsi of India, who speak Gujarti today, but nevertheless consider themselves Iranian. (fixed some typos). --Ali doostzadeh 09:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis are the same as Uzbeks, Kazakh, etc, i.e. Turkic people, since they speak a Turkic language, and not Iranian. I pointed out a number of times the lists of other peoples, see Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples, Latin peoples, etc. Btw, Mexicans, to whom you were referring, are included with Latin peoples, same as the rest of Latin America. It is known that Spanish is not their original language and it replaced native languages, but still all those people are Latin because of the language they speak now. I suggest we ask the opinion of the whole Wiki community, because if we are going to redefine who Iranian people are, then we should do the same for Latin and other peoples. Grandmaster 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again the term latinos has a large problem. And it is a geographical term to a large extent. For example Spainairds(sp?) people are not considered Latinos by the true definition. If you look at www.dictionary.com, under Iranian, Azarbaijanis definitely fit as an Iranian people[10]. Similarly the terms Hispanic and Latinos have a large gray area (see the same reference). So Azarbaijanis can be a Turkic people (definited strictly as linguistic phenomenon) but be Iranian (in terms of heritage and history). But just like the majority of people in the USA are not anglo-saxons or Germanic, even though they speak English, one should not use the term Turkic people (instead of Turkic langage) for Azarbaijanis. Of course we are going back and forth here. But the term Turkic people means the modern Azarbaijanis history starts from the time when Seljuq Turks and Oghuz tribes set foot in the area. Even the Khazar jews were kept at bay in Darband by both Iranians and later Caliphates. They might have inflitrated, but did no have a foothold. I see ulterior motives in reducing the history of Azarbaijanis and strictly defining them as culture descendants of Oghuz and Seljuqs and other Turkic groups. We should not necessarily use classifications by some Western Academics that have ulterior motives. For example why shouldn't the idea of Prof. Ighrar Alioff be given any weight? Or Ahmad Kasravi?--Ali doostzadeh 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, if you look at genetic tests, Azerbaijanis of the North are most likely the descendants of Caucasian Albanians, same as many Armenians, so if you base the ethnicity on genetics only, you can’t say that all Azerbaijanis are of Iranian origin, they are a mixture of many ethnic components. And how should we classify Armenians then? Grandmaster 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree genetic is not the only factor. We are talking about history as well. History, Genetics, Religion, Myths, Language, Culture... and many other factors define a group. think the most important thing is the common history. For example in the other thread we were discussing Nizami and Azarbaijanis as well as other Iranians identify with Khosrow o Shirin and Haft Paykar. Azarbaijanis have even made operas and etc. Or Azarbaijanis identify with Babak Khorramdin. They know the name Azarbaijan is Zoroastrian and Zoroaster could have been from the area. They (but they I mean many Azarbaijanis and I am not speaking on behalf of everyone) are proud of the large Zoroastrian temples and their Iranian heritage. For some people it could be language. So that is why both views Azarbaijanis as Iranian people and Azarbaijanis as a Turkic people should be explained by evidence and then people can judge. This question hasn't been settled definitely in Academia, and in the Azarbaijan of Iran as well as the Caucus. So in Wikipedia, both views should be heared as well. --Ali doostzadeh 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, only Iranian scholars are disputing the fact that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people. Igrar Aliyev (with whom I agree for the most part) was the supporter of the view that modern Azeris are descendants of ancient Iranian people, who inhabited the area prior to Oguz migration, but he never said modern Azeris were not Turkic people. The doctrine dominating currently in academic circles bases ethnicity primarily on the language. See Britannica, it’s written by prominent Western scholars:

Azerbaijani

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijani in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran. [11]

I’ve never denied close cultural ties between Azeri and Persian people, but almost all major academic sources group people by languages they speak, and it’s done the same way in Wikipedia for all other people. Grandmaster 05:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As I said there is loopholes in your argument. One example was the Irish. Another example is the multitude of people in the USA who now only speak English. For example have you ever seen anyone call Black Africans as a Germanic people because of their tongue? Another example is Haitians who speak French. So your rule is not absolute. There is a difference between "Turkic speaking people" (Azarbaijanis and Yaquts) and Turkic people (Yaquts and Kirghiz). Look around all neighboring people and you will see Azarbaijanis are closest to Talysh, Persians,.. and other Iranian people in culture. But you agreed that Iranians scholars and some Caucasian Azarbaijani scholars agree that modern Azarbaijanis are turkic speaking Iranians. I think the point of view of these scholars should also be mentioned and deserves recognition. Specially how a group defines itself is very important as well. For example Professor. Eghraq/Ighrar Aliyev was the top scholar of the Azarbaijan republic and his works are quoted frequently by Iranian , Russian and Western Scholars. Why shouldn't his opinion count as well. I can assure you that (god bless his soul) Prof. Aliyev was 100 more knowledgeable than the nameless author of the Encyclopedia Britannica entery. I say in matters that are not necessarily scientific (the concept of identity is definitely not scientific), both ideas should be mentioned. There are some other Academics that I can not recall, but I can find their names. Lets remember that we Eastern people give a lot of respect to Western Academics, but I can assure you that some of them have ulterior motives. Why do you think they spend so much time studying every single group and language and sub-dialect and sub-sub-dialect. The reason is that they can make "Khalq" and "Nations" out of groups that have been nations and integrated for a long time. A good example is Yugoslavia where the West deliberately broke it up because it threatened their interest. Else why the double standard I mentioned. Similarly they want to create ethnic "democratic" mosaics, where some economic lobbies will control the democratic processes of these countries and some weak leader is put in place. A good example is the Azerbaijani and Armenian republics. One is controlled by the Western oil lobbies and the othr by the Russians. If Azarbaijanis are a Turkic people than African Americans are a Germanic people. The correct thing would be to say that African Americans are a Germanic speaking people. We know hunderds of thousands of Iranians from Esfahan and Tehran and Arak..during the Qajar era migrated to Azarbaijan (Tabriz was the main city then) and became Turkic speaking and similarly much more people from Azarbaijan have settled in Tehran for example and became Persian speaking. Most people in Caucasian Azarbaijan have the last name "zadeh" virtually the same in Iran. (Of course the Russians changed a lot of it to "off"(yev), but why didn't they do that for the Armenians but did it to Tajiks and Azarbaijanis)? Read this link: http://www.muslimsonline.com/babri/azerbaijan1.htm . Iranian people is not necessarily about speaking indo-Iranian languages (this is modern definition and I can assure you for example that some indo-Iranian speakers like Ossetians never identified with historical Iran since at least the time of Scythians) and it relates to having common cultural and historical connections. So Azarbaijanis by history, culture.. are Iranians whereas Ossetians are only Iranians today by language. Azarbaijanis helped create Iran (Medes), have greatly intermarried with other Iranians, were a main component of the Babak rebellion, the great Sassanid commander Rostam Farrokhzad was from the area, there about 1200+ Persian poets in the area just mentioned in several books. In the end I think a compromise would be to allow both opinions be stated and uses will make their own judgement. Just like you might not agree with Prof. Aliyev.

--Ali doostzadeh 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see any serious loopholes. If you look at the list of Germanic peoples, you’ll see that it includes Anglo-Irish people. It also includes “cultural descendants of the Anglo-Saxons around the world, including large groups of English speakers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand”. And Azerbaijanis are not just Turkic-speaking people, they are Turkic people and described as such by most sources outside of Iran. If anything, sources like Britannica are more impartial than Iranian sources, who include Azeris in the list of Iranian people for political reasons. It is a way to prevent separatist tendencies among Azerbaijani people by making them believe that they have nothing to do with other Turkic people. In many ways that’s similar to communist practice of denying Turkic connections of Azeri people. This article might be interesting as a source, describing communist approach to this issue. [12] And here’s another resource, the missionary Joshua Project, to which you were referring in the other article, they include Azeris as Turkic people and not Iranian. [13] [14] As for the point of view of late Igrar Aliyev, he never said that Azeris were not Turkic people, he just said that they were descendants of native Caucasian and Iranian people, but that does not mean they are not Turkic. People of Latin America are Latin peoples, even though most of them are not descendants of Spanish people. If you check the articles about other groups at Wikipedia, you’ll see that they are all formed only on the basis of the language. Grandmaster 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also please see a more detailed article from Britannica. It mentions mixed ethnic origin of Azeris and Turkicization of the indigenous population, and still says that Azeris are Turkic people. One does not exclude the other.

Azerbaijani

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Article

any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijani in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran. They are mainly sedentary farmers and herders, although some of those in the republic have found employment in various industries. Most Azerbaijani are Shi'ite Muslims. They speak Azeri, a language belonging to the southwestern branch of Turkic languages.

The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries. [15] Grandmaster 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again we are going back and forth here. I am emphasizing history of Azarbaijanis in Iran as well their cultural affinity as inseperable part of Iranian people. Linguistic shift in my opinion is not sufficient to make them a Turkic people. The statement Turkic people could mean two things. Turcophones and actual Turks. Many Azarbaijanis consider themselves Turkic speaking Iranian. And what a group thinks of itself has the primary importance. Either way the current state of the article is sufficiently reasonable in this aspect. --Ali doostzadeh 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that all reasonable compromises were made to make account of the point of view you are supporting. I suggest we keep the article the way it is, it’s still different from the way major academic sources deal with this issue, but for the sake of compromise we agreed to have it this way. Grandmaster 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Proof that the claims from the Republic Of Azarbaijan's Revisionists are FALSE

Azaris are culturally, ethnically and historically Iranian; that said here is acadmeic fact.... IF YOU ALL LOOK AT MY PRESENTATIONS, YOU WILL SEE THAT AZARIS ARE A GENUINE IRANIAN TURCOPHONE PEOPLE; I Have academic proof and verifications. PLease go to talk:Azarbaijani people. User:Grandmaster is trying to even stop the use of the term AZARI. In Iran (the majority of the worlds Azaris) say AZARI not AZERI. He is trying to supress this fact. Azaris are ethnically Iran. I have genetic evidence and it is even cited throughout wikepeida in various articles on genetics. Turks are Asiatic not Caucasian. Please read the full discussion between me and user:Grandmaster. This user is also gaming the system and acting in bad faith.

Here are more sources that prove a lot of what you are saying is misinformation. http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/PARTIIAzar.html

The pan-Turanian theories discussed in Part I represent only a part of the picture. There is a whole set of beliefs being narrated about Iranian Azerbaijan in both the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. They are using the Turkish language as an instrument to differentiate Iranian Turcophones from the rest of Iran. Some of the pan-Turanian claims to Iranian Azerbaijan can be summarized into the following:

(1) Greater Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.

(2) Azerbaijanis have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years.

(4) The Safavid Empire was Turkish.

(5) Sattar Khan was a pan-Turanian separatist.

(6) Babak Khorramdin was a Turk who fought against Persia.

(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.

Before discussing these items, an important point must be revisited. Pan-Turanian claims to Azerbaijan are supported by a very powerful western lobby in the form of multinational and geopolitical petroleum interests. These hope to access and dominate the lucrative oil bonanza looming in the energy deposits of the Caucasus and Central Asia (see Part VI, items 1-3).

(d) Mr. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh. A leading proponent of Arran’s name change was Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh (1884-1955), the first leader of the newly created Republic of Azerbaijan (see photo below). Rasulzadeh was of Iranian origin from Baku, and was in fact heavily involved in the constitutional democratic movement of Iran during the early 1900s [xviii] (see Sattar Khan in item 5). Rasulzadeh was in fact the editor of the newspaper Iran-e-Now (The New Iran). Russian influence and coercion finally forced the Iranian government to expel Rasulzadeh from Iran in 1909 (?); he was exiled to Ottoman Turkey, where the Young Turk movement had gained power.

By the 1930s, Rasulzadeh’s writings revealed his full conversion to pan-Turanianism:

(a) At first he admitted that “Azerbaijan” (Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran?) was an ancient Iranian province that had been linguistically Turcified since at least the 13th century.

(b) He then rejected his previous writings and declared that Azerbaijan (both Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran) had always been “Turkish” and was never historically an integral part of Persia [xxiv]

Rasulzadeh had betrayed his Iranian heritage in two ways. First, he failed to fulfill his promises to Iranian Azerbaijanis to rectify the name change he had bought for Arran (at pan-Turanian behest). Second, Rasulzadeh adopted a false, divisive, and racist ideology. Rasulzadeh’s legacy continues to haunt the Caucasus and Iran to this day. That legacy has also provided an excellent tool for geopolitical manipulation.

After his arrest and expulsion from Russia, Rasulzadeh settled in Turkey, where he died in 1954 (see his funeral in Turkey below). Rasulzadeh established the “Azerbaijan National Centre” in Turkey, a movement which at the time was organized for the purpose of opposing Soviet rule in Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan).

c) Linguistic Turkification. The process of linguistic Turkification was reinforced with the arrival of the Mongols in the 1200s, and their Il-Khanid dynasty in Persia. Tamerlane’s descendants, the Qara/Kara-Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak/Aq-Qoyunlu (White Sheep) also ruled Iran. It must be noted that the Turkish migrants became absorbed into mainstream Persia, and they greatly patronized Persian, arts, culture and literature. Turks as whole have been tremendously influenced by Iranian culture – a prime example is the Moghul Dynasty of India, of Turkmen-Mongol descent. The Moghuls promoted Persian culture in India, a legacy which lasts to this day in modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

By the early 16th century (see Safavids item 4), Azerbaijani Turkish had largely replaced the indigenous Iranian Azeri in Azerbaijan and had also spread to Arran. The Turkish language however, did not alter the thousands year long Iranian character and legacy of Arran and Azerbaijan. As noted in item 4, the Safavid dynasty, whose members spoke Turkish in court and introduced much Turkish vocabulary to Iran, considered themselves as the heirs of Persia and bitterly fought the Ottoman Turks throughout their reign.

In Persia, identity has never been delineated by singular, simplistic and narrow concepts such as “race”, “mother language” or even “religion”. Consider the following examples:

SafavidsThe aforementioned Nader Shah was an ethnic Turcomen and adhered to the Sunni branch of Islam. Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (see illustration below) and his partisans spoke Luri, a west Iranian language distinct from Persian and Kurdish. The Zands (like Nader Shah before them) were essential in preserving Persia’s territorial integrity after the fall of the Safavids.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years. FALSE

This is at best, a grandiose exaggeration. The real influence of the Turks begins with the Seljuks and Ottomans, and even then, the Turks are only one more layer upon an ancient region that has seen a rich and varied legacy. If anything, it is the Persian and (to a lesser extent), the Greco-Roman legacies that remain in the Caucasus. The Turks, like the Russians and Ukrainians certainly have their legacy in the Caucasus. The issue in question is the exaggeration of the Turkish role, now proposed by pan-Turanian ideologues.

The Caucasus is one of the oldest cradles of human civilization – a prime example being the proto-Kartvelian Hurrian empire (2500-1270 BC) which at one time ruled much of northwest Iran and contemporary Kurdistan. The Hurrian legacy is still evident among the Kurds who use the ergative feature in their speech – a phenomenon seen in modern Georgian. While the Caucasus has certainly seen its share of Persian, Greek, Turkish and Russian influence, she has in turn vigorously and profoundly influenced all of these cultures in turn.

“The oldest outside influence in Trans-Caucasia is that of Persia (p.203)…many of its populations, including Armenians and Georgians, as well as Persians and Kurds, the Transcaucasus had much closer ties with the former Sassanian world to its south and east than with the world to the west (p.204)”.[Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p. 203-204].

'(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.'FALSE

(a) Ziya Gokalp. The notion of Azeris being Turkish because of language is based on the late Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) who equated language with racial and ethnic membership: you are racially Turkish if you speak Turkish. This is a standard argument of characters like Mr. Chehreganli and his western geopolitical supporters. Gokalp was in fact a Kurd born in Diyarbakr. He is one of a long line of non-Turks who helped build pan-Turanian ideology (Part I, item 1).

By no means is the discussion in this item attempting to simplistically outline the complex (and anthropolically interwoven) Iranian and Turkish national, ethnic, and linguistic identities. Such a Herculean task would require volumes of text. Instead, we are clearly confining the discussion to the linear and (in my opinion) divisive concept of “race” – in the purely anthological sense.

The main weakness of Gokalp’s simplistic premise is his oversimplification of the complex interrelationships between ethnicity, nationality, language and historical migrations. His logic is that speakers of a language “X” must also be racially members of “X”.

Likewise, being a Turcophone does not mean that one is automatically Turkish or Turkic by race. National identity is based on a number of domains, only one of which is defined by language. Nevertheless, this simplistic logic (language = race) is being used to attack the Iranian heritage of the people of Azerbaijan and Iran in general.

National identity is multi-faceted. A Belgian could be either a Francophone (Walloon) or Dutch dialect speaker (Flemish). A Frenchman can be Basque (Eskuri) or speak an Italian dialect (e.g. Provencal, Corsican, etc.). In northern France, many of the inhabitants lay claim to a proud Celtic tradition (Brittany).

Many modern Turks hail from Bosnian, Georgian, Iranian (Persian, Kurdish, Azeri) Greek, Arab, Venetian, Slavic and Armenian backgrounds. Arabs are just as diverse – in the eastern Arab world, many have Iranian ancestry (Persian and Kurdish) – the Levant has seen multitudes of Hittite, Mittani, etc. settlers in its history. In the Western Arab world one finds a plethora of Christians (Greek Orthodox, Coptic, etc.). One can also trace much of the ancestry of modern Arabs to the earlier Semitic peoples such as the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians (Aramaic-speakers), Syriacs, etc.

The Iranian ethnic mosaic is far too complex to even begin attempting to define it in the confines of this commentary. If we extend timelines back to pre-Aryan arrivals, we witness proto-Elamites in the Southwest and Southeast, and Hurrian arrivals from the Caucasus. We then have a long period of Iranian Aryan migrations onto the Iranian plateau and eastern Anatolia (many areas of western Iran and modern Kurdistan was already settled by Assyrian peoples). Arab settlers also arrived during Sassanian and post-Sassanian eras (a number of their descendants survive in Khorrassan and Tajikestan)– these are then eclipsed by subsequent Turkic and Mongol arrivals. The very overall sketch just outlined highlights how complex definitions such as “race” and “language” are.

Gokalp was not entirely wrong about Iran – there are a plethora of Turkic settlers who can trace their ancestry to the original Oghuzz (the aforementioned Nader Shah was a Turkmen). But even the identity of the Turkmen (meaning “very Turk”) is hotly disputed. There are claims of strong Iranic admixture within them. This is not surprising as Turkic and Iranic peoples have been intertwined in Central Asia for thousands of years. Even the Mongols who invaded Persia are said to have had some Iranian (North Iranic?) ancestry (see Turnbull in references).

The genetic ancestry of modern Turks is highly varied, mainly as a result of multiple migrations, wars and empires. While modern Turks (and a growing number of Hungarians) stress their genetic connection to Central Asia, scientific evidence fails to corroborate their beliefs. True, there are Turkmen Turks of Central Asian stock in eastern Turkey, however a large proportion of modern Turks have Balkan, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Azeri, Georgian, Varangian, and even some Celtic ancestry. The latter seems surprising; however the term “Ankara” may be derived from the Celtic “Ankyra”. The Galatian Celts appear in Anatolia’s interior after the Greeks defeated them in 230 BC. The original Turkic stock from Central Asia (some of whom live in northeast Iran today) have little or no connection to the European-type U5 cluster.

(c) The Analyses of Colin Renfrew.

Professor Colin Renfrew (see 1994 References) notes how Turkic languages spread by Elite Dominance:

“…incoming minorities…conquer other populations and…impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion…”[Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]

Genetic alteration can only occur as a result of one of more of the following:

[a] Sustained migrations across a long period of time

[b] Population dispersals by farming,

[c] Dispersals forced by climactic changes.

In general, the Turks did not arrive peacefully but as conquering elites who imposed their languages upon indigenous populations (Azeris, Arranis, etc.). Conquering elites provide very modest genetic changes to the indigenous populations that they conquer. However, they can alter the population’s language as result of their elite military and political dominance.

(d) The Cavalli-Sforza et al. Genetic Studies.

Renfrew’s studies have been corroborated by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (see photo below) and his colleagues, who have concluded the following after decades of genetic research:

“Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages…threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey…genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered…(p.125)…Turks…conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453..replacement of Greek with Turkish ..Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers…invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history…(p.152).” [Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]

Hungarians are considered to be Magyar speaking Europeans – not an Asiatic Turkic people. In like manner, why are the Azerbaijanis (of Iran in particular) being forcibly re-defined as “Turanian” simply because they speak Seljuk Oghuzz Turkish? How can a single index (Turkish language) be used to virtually erase Azerbaijan’s mighty civilizational identity in Persia? Azerbaijan has been of vital importance in the development of Persian civilization, just as Hungary has been a vital element in the development of European civilization.

It is here were the barbaric aspects of “race criteria” break down. In Afghanistan we have the Mongol descended “Hazara” (lit. “The Thousand” in Persian) who now speak Persian, or the many people of Khazar Turkish-Jewish descent in Dagestan (next to Chechniya) who speak Persian. Conversely, Azerbaijanis are an essentially Iranic people who mainly speak Turkish. A branch of the Turcophone Azeris are believed to have been settled in Iran’s Fars province by the Safavids– they are today known as the Qashqai’s (note photo of Qashaqi girl by Shahyar Mahabadi).

.....with all this criteria many of the Azari articles will have to refurbished. 72.57.230.179

GENETIC PROOF THAT AZERIS ARE IRANIANS

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/fg1.h.jpg

Additionally...there is this genetic evidence under your noses. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html?erFrom=-1568565869309167708Guest It shows that the populations of Azarbaijan and Turkey are not Turkic. Notice the makeup is WEST EURASIAN and not EAST ASIAN. WEST ASIAN IS IRANO-CAUCASIAN. EAST ASIAN IS TURKIC/ORIENTAL. SOUTH ASIAN IS INDIC. AFRO-ASIATIC IS IS NOT MENTIONED. 72.57.230.179 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Here is scientific proof that says Azeris are not Turks: You can argue with people but not science"

Azeris are mixed of Armeno-Iranian heritage:

Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome

Nasidze I, Sarkisian T, Kerimov A, Stoneking M.

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. nasidze@eva.mpg.de

A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. Armenian and Azerbaijanian therefore represent language replacements, possibly via elite dominance involving primarily male migrants, in which case genetic relationships of Armenians and Azerbaijanians based on the Y-chromosome should more closely reflect their linguistic relationships. We therefore analyzed 11 bi-allelic Y-chromosome markers in 389 males from eight populations, representing all major linguistic groups in the Caucasus. As with the mtDNA study, based on the Y-chromosome Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12596050

So, both the mtDNA (female line) and the Y-chromosomes (from father to son) seem to prove the fact, that modern Azeris are predominantly Turkic-speaking Armenians and Iranians. Their DNA has Europeana and Middle Eastern traces, but not Eastern Asian ones , which one would assume if they really were Turks. 72.57.230.179

the other iranian peoples, who have been assimilated into various other groups

medians, scythians, samartians, alans, etc... should be including in a list of iranian peoples who havent made it to today.Iranian Patriot 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See Ancient Iranian peoples. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi don’t change it!

I changed it because the section headings should stay short and simple. What's your reason? —Khoikhoi 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikoi! It is short now. There are some Iranians that don’t speak in Iranian languages. Don’t change it!

You simply don't know what the definition of "Iranian peoples" is. —Khoikhoi 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Map is original research

All,

The Map Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap21.PNG which has been presented in this article as fact, is an original research work by User:Imperial78. It needs to be specified that the map is not necessarily objective, and is instead a user-created illustration.--Zereshk 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

All maps are created by people. I'm not sure I understand your objection. --Cyde↔Weys 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article milestone

This page is the thousandth featured article on the English Wikipedia. A special thank you to Tombseye, Khoikhoi, Zmmz and the hundreds of other users who made this a reality.

Let's see what #2000 will bring... --Slgrandson 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A job well done everyone!

Not only did everyone help in making this article a Featured Article, it is the milestone in the featured articles! I want to say congrats to all the people who contributed to this article and hope you guys continue your great work! Go wikipedians! Go Iranian People! --(Aytakin) | Talk 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Commemorative Plaque

Everyone was banging on about putting some kind of plaque dedicating Wikipedia at the site of the millionth article, Jordanhill railway station, but where is the plaque going to go this time? Maybe we can hang one around the neck of every Iranian person? . Good work everyone... hopefully I can get an FA myself sometime between 1000 and 2000... SteveRwanda 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your ironic interpretation Mr. Rwanda. I'm also aiming for the coveted 1003 spot myself. ;) Tombseye 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image sources

I am not familiar with the FA process but I am surprised a more stringent image source-checking process is not in place.

1. Image:Faravahar.png this is incompletely sourced. (And weirdly, someone has tagged it as no source here, even though it's a Commons image...) The "source" is: "From the en:wikipedia by Paradoxic." From where, exactly? Which image? I can't find one on en. If it's already been deleted, an admin should check that it was sourced correctly from there, and add that information to this Commons image.
2. Image:AmazonBattle.JPG says "by Pierre-Eugène-Emile Hébert", uploaded by User:Kowloonese. Are they the same person? Seems unlikely (judging from their Babel boxes, Kowloonese is Asian, not French). So what is the true source?
3. Image:PazyrikHorseman.JPG Complete unsourced.
4. Image:Persian local woman.jpg Seems a bit suspect, but I guess someone has contacted the OTRS people to confirm it's fine?
5. Image:President of tajikistan.jpg Why is it tagged copyrightedfreeuse? From NATO website: "© NATO - OTAN 2006"
6. Image:Hazara Girl.jpg totally no evidence this is free. from [16] which says " Copyright © 2004. Hazara.net. All rights reserved".

Heads up, guys! :( --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It's likely that Image:Faravahar.png was created and uploaded by Paradoxic and the statement lost when it was {{NowCommons}}'d, though I'll post a note on his talk page to confirm.
2. I've left a note on the talk page of Image:AmazonBattle.JPG's uploader to confirm whether or not it's under the GFDL. If I don't get a response after a while, I'll put it on PUI.
3. I've left Image:PazyrikHorseman.JPG as is since it's on Commons rather than here, though my guess is that someone was interpreting Bridgemann v Corel a bit too liberally.
4. I agree that Image:Persian local woman.jpg seems fishy, especially in light of the fact that the uploader's talk page is filled with no source/non commercial image warnings, though he does mention that he has a statement confirming the image's release.
5. I've updated Image:President of tajikistan.jpg with the correct details.
6. Image:Hazara Girl.jpg is now on PUI.

Thanks for the heads-up :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help guys! Tombseye 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt response. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:AmazonBattle.JPG has been confirmed as free-use. Still waiting for word from Paradoxic on Image:Faravahar.png though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

History sections?

There seems to still be a lot left to improve in this article. The history sections are vey thorough (though a bit confusing as a narrative, partly due to the complexity and broadness), but the culture, religion, and demographics section are relatively disappointing in their shortness; it looks like a typical case of "more time spent on the higher sections than the lower ones", a common malady of longer articles.

I mainly made this post, though, because I'm confused about the distinction between the second section, "Roots and classification", and the third, "History and settlement". Don't both sections actually cover "History and settlement"? I don't understand why the lengthy analysis of Sarmatian spread is considered part of "Roots and classification", whereas the other cultures go in "History and settlement". Shouldn't we really have both sections under a single "History" header, and then simply create more specific subsections for the various historical topics that are discussed? (This would not only integrate the article better, but would also make it a lot easier to read through the history section than is currently the case, since a lack of specific headers describing what each part of the historical account is about makes it difficult to ground the readers.)

Also, as pfctdayelise mentioned above, the images are a huge deal; I'm very surprised, too, that this got through FAC without more rigorous evaluation of the images. People used to be so good at that. Also, as a slightly longer-term goal, if this page is going to be getting a lot of attention we may want to tidy it up a bit by upgrading the quality of the Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap24.PNG image; as-is, it's the most crudely-drawn map I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I know there are some amazing map-creators on Wikipedia who could make it more neat, readable, and professional-looking. But that's not as important as the other issues, of course; the map, at least, has no copyright issues and serves its basic function. -Silence 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I like your suggestions with regards to reorganizing History and Roots. I initially wrote it with different things to be discussed in each section, but I realize that they do somewhat run together. I will change it and if you can add sub-sections. As for the pictures, they were in use in other articles and others were inserted by a user who insisted on having as many pictures of people as possible. The map is a bit crude, but very informative. If it can be given a more slick presentation all the better. Also, I just noticed that Pakistan doesn't include its line of control in Kashmir which is odd since most maps denote its line of control. Otherwise though, the distribution of languages in the map are pretty good. Cheers. Tombseye 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Racial Purity? Again?!!!

This paragraph is simply racist. What is meant by being pure?. It promotes racial purity which is totally absurd.

Moreover, the Iraqi Kurds are an eclectic Iranian people who, although displaying numerous ethnolinguistic ties to other Iranian peoples (particular in their Iranian language, and some cultural traits), are believed to have mixed with Caucasian and Semitic peoples, while the Iranian Kurds are of more pure Iranian stock..Heja Helweda 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add anything about Iraqi Kurds. Ever since this article became a featured article and then was put on the main page, a lot of people (often anon) are making arbitrary edits with nationalist sentiments and without citations as well. It's a shame since I think the article was pretty much okay before all this attention and had citations and references for everything. Now it's become a tug of war as people act as if they can put in and delete whatever they feel like. Tombseye 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Heja Helweda. I had removed that sentence, but it was reverted into the article again. This parts HAS to be rewritten. Right now, it's clearly POV. Tajik 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the information is to be kept, it needs a citation, and probably an NPOV rewording. Sonething like "relatively unmixed" or "less culturally integrated", or similar, is preferable to potentially offensive wordings like "more pure". -Silence 17:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I cited the info. in the article in 2 different sections already. It's just that people don't actually read the article, they read one part and decide to mess with it so the only solution is to put the references everywhere. I fixed the problem though. Tombseye 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken it seems that the genetic analysis is only about Kurds from Iraq and not from Iran. That means it must be said that the "Iraqi Kurds are an eclectic Iranian people" since you cannot say that they are both the same people. We all know that is not true since Kurds are like Persians and not a single group, but many different tribes calling themselves "Kurds". You want to talk about nationalism? Lets talk about nationalism. Lets talk about the nationalism of Kurdish people which claims that Kurds from Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria are ALL the same people. Nonsense. There are differences between all these peoples. Read books about Kurds that ask the classic "Kurdish question" - "Who is a Kurd"? Kouroush 08:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a concensus view on this page that I mostly wrote myself. Your indignation aside, we've all agreed to render the article from a neutral point of view and those who have helped with the editing and criticism of this article included Iranians, Americans, 1 Afghan, some Kurds, and probably a few Europeans. And I'm the one who put in the genetic study as well. I've read other studies that show variations and further testing may contradict the results so we're not holding up the preliminary results as the end of the discussion. The current wording does not require any further reiteration in the article as that merely leads to useless redundancy. As for your deletion of parts of the article, they are back and with citations from where they are discussed. Tombseye 09:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Put away your pride and indignation. We all appreciate that you helped the article achieve FA but many others have been involved here, but only two people receive credit. That said I have removed your POV sentence once again since it is too convenient for you to add refs when you did not do so before. Provide proof that those sources say what you want to say. And do not remove my sentence from the genetics. It seems as though you have a POV that the Iranian peoples are only "modern" and have no connection to the past but history and genetics disagree with you. Kouroush 13:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Me? You claim that I'm jeopardizing the article I wrote most of the article and nominated it and worked with others to fix it. You, on the other hand, are acting alone. You want to make changes to the article, you discuss them here first and we'll see if the people who worked on this article agree or not. That's how this works. Tombseye 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Diversity

However, other common traits have been identified as well, and a stream of common historical events have often linked the southern Iranian peoples, including Hellenistic conquests, the various empires based in Persia, Arab Caliphates, and Turkic invasions.

This paragraph is saying much of nothing. Its interesting that no one complained about this when it was up for FA status because it adds nothing to the article but does push the "Iranians are mixed with Arabs and Turks and Greeks" POV. Kouroush 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee talks about the very thing, common historical currents. Many authors talk about various events shaping the region so it is very factual and stays. Tombseye 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye comments against me to Khoikhoi

He's saying I'm risking the FA status of the article when I freakin' nominated the article in the first place! Freakin' johnny come lately. You can revert his changes too as he's playing the nationalist game. I'm going to add citations tomorrow though to keep him from messing with the article that he had no part in creating. [17] [18]

I am amazed at this persons arrogance that he thinks he can attack me this way and that he claims ownership of the article. If you think, Tombseye, that you OWN THE ARTICLE, then you are mistaken. Very mistaken. If you think you can get away with pushing your POV that Iranians are mixed with every group on this planet, then you are also mistaken. And if you think that by calling me a NATIONALIST will get you anywhere, you are also wrong because that is a PERSONAL ATTACK for which you may be sanctioned. I should report you for this violation of policy. Kouroush 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And for your accusation that I am trying to "mess up the article" I am only removing your POV and those parts which have NO references. I have not attempted to ruin the article (and I would never do such a thing as I am Iranian) and I resent these slanderous accusations of yours. If you think that these comments will help you and this article, you are wrong. I will, in fact, go to Farsi WP and reveal your attacks against me there. Then we'll see what happens. Kouroush 13:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This part is also very interesting: I'm going to add citations tomorrow though to keep him from messing with the article that he had no part in creating. It seems as though Tombseye would like to suggest that HE had some part in creating this article. That is some claim since in actuality it was User:Mani1 who started this article in December 2004 [19]. Tombseye, I found an article you should look at: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Stop reverting other people just because your POV disagrees. And please stop spreading nonsense like you are the ONLY author of this article. Everyone knows that is not true and MANY MANY others have been involved here. Unfortunately only two people receive credit, and one of them (YOU) likes to shove this fact in other peoples faces. Very, very rude and bad. Kouroush 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only reverting your work as you keep deleting what is referenced and what contradicts YOUR unsubstantiated beliefs. There is no Iranian purity and for you to push that garbage IS POV. And yeah I am offended when someone says I'm jeopardizing the article I mostly wrote and nominated. Check the record. Mani did start the article with a stub. I wrote just about the entire article and then my fellow editors helped with changes and additions over time. I never said I was the only author, but the record will show that I did write most of the article. No arrogance from me, just reality. And it's rude to delete things in a featured artcle that you frankly had nothing to do with. Kindly bring up your changes on this page before making them in the article as there is no agreement as to your changes. Or are you incapable of working through concensus? Tombseye 17:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye I have to agree to Kouroush to a certain extent. You reverting him seems like just another POV push to me. You have done a great job no doubt, but just because something can be referenced it doesn't mean its necessary NPOV or should not be disputed ever. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, BUT his changes were arbitrary and are also POV since he didn't bother to explain HIS references that would be counter to mine. And remember we all agreed to what was in the article. Plus the Kurdish issue was a huge debate and the compromise was reached after a lot of discussion. And how am I doing a POV push when I have references and he's just got his opinion? I think it's the other way around frankly. You of all people should remember how it was with this article and how people kept fighting over the wording until we arrived at a neutral solution. Talk about jeopardizing its FA status. This will merely bring back the same problems and, like I said, let's see his references before we let him add and delete whatever he feels like. Tombseye 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol you have become too sensitive over this FA status. It is a great job but there is no reason why it can not be improved. By the way, check your email. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

The Iranian cultures that emerged, following conquests by Alexander the Great and the Arabs, were religiously and socially different from those of the ancient Iranians (see Hellenistic civilization, Islamic conquest of Persia and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan).

This is not true. I have to get this verified. The Iranian culture has been effected definately, however the traits of pre-Islamic culture of Iran is still very apparent in the culture of Iran today. Therefore this has to be removed or reworded or it may give the wrong impression --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The social organization of Iran was completely changed by the Arabs and Islam. Surely we can all agree to that? In addition, Hellenism left a strong legacy, brief in Iran although the Parthians continued their architectural influences, in particular in Afghanistan (Bactria) as an estimated 10% of the population was at one time Greek or Hellenized (60,000 settlers according to W.W. Tarn). Plus, there were some Arab settlers that became an elite in the country, with the Khurasani Arabs in particular ultimately becoming Persianized themselves. Doesn't all of this constitute changes that most academics agree upon? Perhaps some rewording to explain that SOME Iranian traits remained, but with their religion replaced by Islam and Hellenic influences that, at the time, were substantial, this statement doesn't seem out of line. Tombseye 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The social organization, religion and culture of Iran was "completley changed" during hundreds of years, not just in a certain short period of time, and was with influence of Islam as well as influence of old Iranian culture. Thats common sense. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with reduced emphasis. Old Iranian culture is not very well known and has many commonalities with Indo-Iranian and even early Indo-European cultures. I mean we don't see ritual sacrifice or a pantheon of deities or their social hierarchy. What has happened is that in the 20th century a return to Aryan nationalist began to shape how people thought with the Pahlavi period onward. Plus, this article is not just about Iran, but about all the other Iranic peoples so as a collective view, let's face it, Pashtun society was most likely pagan whereas today it is vastly different. I think it's unrealistic to link ancient people CULTURALLY to modern people anyway. Remember the Nazis tried that and most of their academics thought it was nonsense (Max Muller for one). Plus, what Old Iranian culture has really survived other than Nouruz? I can't think of much other than the language, which has also changed quite a bit. Tombseye 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember that Zoroastrianism did more than just effect people's religion, almost all Iranian etiquette and culture was influenced by it, and the most important thing is that it also influenced Islam a lot, especially when practiced by Iranian people. No doubt this needs to be explored further but I would never ever say its nonsense to think culture of old Iranian people and the modern are linked, atleast in a certain way and infact I believe its again, common sense as Iranians only gradually started to adopt Islam when they were introduced by Islamic ideas that were close to Iranian ideas which may have given birth to Sufism (almost all most known Persian poets were Sufis) and also Shia Islam. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are all things I completely agree with. The problem stems from the Iranian purity thing which is I think nonsense. At the same time we can see discernable traits in language, culture etc. from the Old Iranians (same goes for Indians and Indo-Aryans etc.), we also see some differences and changes. Khouroush seems to think that any mention of changes from invasions is somehow 'wrong' or at least his edits seem to indicate something to that effect. That's what I have a problem with as I don't support notions of purity, his interpretation of the genetic article as there are articles that show strong and possibly huge variations. I don't revert changes by say Tajik, who gave me some good references, for example. Bottom-line, his changes need references since I've already put up mine. Oh and I got nothing in the mail still. Don't worry, I'm not taking offense at your comments or the desire to improve the article at all. No hard feelings. :) Tombseye 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A common mistake is that when someone joins wikipedia and notices something silly and suddenly gets all angry. Sadly there is probably as much incorrect statements in Wikipedia as there are correct ones (if not more).. best way is to discuss them here. I just hope Koroush can go step by step about what the problems are just like I have done here so we can work them out without affecting the quality of the article --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim behavior

In the article some people want to claim that our Afghanistani and Tajikstani brethern are not muslims but Majusi this is while for 14 centuries we followed Islam. Please have a look at that; They remove the Islamic sign from the article. Its very bad. Ocean Wave 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I am perplexed how this article could have become featured sporting the Zoroastrian Faravahar symbol at the top. Most Iranian speakers today are Muslims, not Zoroastrians, so if you're going to feature religious symbolism in such a prominent location, it will have to be Muslim symbolism. Of course it is not advisable to do this at all. It is a very bad idea to do this for an ethnic group (do you see a giant crucifix plastered on the Italians article?), and an even worse idea for an ethnic super-group like the Iranian peoples. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree with having the Zoroastrian symbol in the beginning of the article. However the reason behind it was not to indicate that Iranian people follow this religion. It was put there because this religious was CREATED by Iranian people and is one of their greatest achievements. Islam was not created by Iranian people. It is the achievement of Arabs not Iranians. But as I said, I personally disliked the symbol there, pictures of Iranian people would be much more appropriate.Gol 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More than that, the Iranian peoples (not just today's Muslim Iranics) were identified with Zoroastrism and related beliefs. The picture does not have any religious meanings in this article, but onyla symbolic meaning. Tajik 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Allah

A symbolic meaning for (some of) ancient Iranians in 14 centuries ago but it has no connection with todays 99,99% muslim soceity whom we are talking about in this article. Modern Iranians symbol is this symbol:

Ocean Wave 09:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that almost all of this article is historical? This is deliberate: the concept of "Iranian peoples" is only coherent from a long-term, historical perspective. From a purely modern one, it is necessary to analyze the individual groups derived from the Iranians, as they've diverged so heavily from one another. Your claim that "99.99%" of modern Iranians are Muslims is simply a falsehood. The reason the Zoroastrian icon is appropriate for the top of the page and a Muslim one would not be is the same reason an image of a Greek sculpture of Zeus would probably be fine for the top of the Culture of Greece article, and an image from the Church of Greece probably would not, even though there is a far higher percentage of Greeks with membership in the Greek Orthodox Church (around 95%–98%) than there are Iranians who are Muslims. -Silence 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all of this article is about history, but if you think this symbole is for history issue, then add it to the history section but not at top of the article as it looks like the article is about Zoroastrianism. Ocean Wave 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not the symbol of Iranian people, its the religion of many of them, however the Farvahar symbol is an Iranian symbol, created by Iranians, which is why its suitable for this article --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be 'created by [certain] Iranians', but that doesn't make it a symbol of all Iranian peoples. It is derived from an Egyptian hieroglyph, and is pertinent to the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires, that's it. This is not the article on the Persian Empire, it's the article on all Iranian peoples, including Scythians and what not, who have no connection with the symbol whatsoever. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats created by certain Iranians? Was Zarathustra from a "certain" ethnic group of Iranians? Not as far as I know. You have to realise that this symbol is the single most important symbol of Iranian peoples. It shows their greatest contribution to man kind. The influence of Zoroastrianism has been vast all over the empire, and it influenced culture of almost all Iranian people. The article itself recognises it to have reached almost all Iranian people, it has definately influenced a lot more than just their religion or their empires. Unless you can provide an argument on why it is NOT the single most important symbol of Iranian people, it stays there. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not my last posts answer. If this image is a symbole of this peoples history then add it to the history section. Morever if you were interesed you can also add an islamic sign to the religion section too. Tha's all. Ocean Wave 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the answer to your posts. Farvahar is the symbol of Iranian people. I have no interest at all to add a non-Iranian symbol to this article --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment is 2 parts:

1)Farhvar is a symbole of ANCIENT Iranians; It belongs to history, then it should go to the history section not intro. The intro should contrain a common symbole of these peoples who the article is talking about: Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Balooch, Farsi, such as Nawruz, etc.

2)Then due to this fact that almost all of this people are muslim, we can also add an islamic image to the religion section.Ocean Wave 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Farvahar is still recognised as the most important symbol of Iranian people, ancient and Modern, very much modern infact 27 years ago it was part of the monarch symbol of Iran and today many Iranians wear the symbol around their neck, not because they are Zoroastrian but because its the symbol of the Iranian peoples. 2) Yeah sure. Perhaps with a short paragraph next to it explaining the forced conversions and mass killings done in order for many Iranian people to be converted to Islam --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that this is not an article about Iran at all? You seem to confuse the Iranian (or Iranic) peoples with the people of Iran. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I say anything about Iran? -- 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC) That was just an example to show that it was not just the symbol for ancient people but still in common use by some of Iranian people and today it is still regarded the same --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Faravahar is an appropriate choice as a common symbol (since article deals ethnically not religiously) but I have also a suggestion: use images of indo-Iranian mythological figures such as Simurgh (Sēnmurw), which would be a nice addition to article since it was a common symbol/deity for all of Iranian people (From Scythians to Bazrangids). Amir85 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. How is this anti-Muslim behavior? —Khoikhoi 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Simurgh is not bad as it is cultural not religious. Ocean Wave 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Simurgh should be used perhaps. However it won't make any difference to Farvahar, as it stays. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ocean Wave, why does it have to be a religious symbol?? —Khoikhoi 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, how it is not. it is; read what it says: Faravahar is a prominent guardian spirit in Zoroastrianism and Iranian culture that is believed to be a depiction of a Fravashi.

Zoroastrianism or Majusi is a religion founded by an Afghan (self proclaimed) prophet and that was one of its symbols. 1400 years ago all of his followers converted to Islam. and they forgot that previous religion. If this article which discusses modern Iranics, is going to have a religious symbol, then without any question it should be Islam. If you say no, that symbol is for their history, then move it down to the history section. If you say no, it is for their contemporary culture, then I regret to inform you that it has no significant place in these peoples culture anymore. As you see these peoples are muslim, and their everything is islam: They have Islamic culture. Even claiming that Majusi mark as their cultural symbol is an offensive insult to them. Look what this people did in 1979 against that Shah who had a Zoroastriansit feelings. Look if there was no USA, there was no TV in Afghanistan, people are so muslim. If in afghanistan say to a person your cultural symbol is that mark, he may kill you. Yes. and how you say it is so important in their culture? Ocean Wave 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Above is exactly why most Iranian people only see Pashtuns as those who have adoped an Iranian language. Total lack of respect for any other religion, ethnicity and culture. Oh and please don't hide it behind the title of "Afghan", thats exactly why Tajiks call themselves Tajiks instead of "Afghan". --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik and Hazara are respectively from Turkic and Mongoloid stock. Just look at their face. Ocean Wave 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So now Zarathustra has become an Afghan I guess (funny, since the word did not even exist before the 15th century AD) ... You are totally wrong in claiming that "Zoroastrism has no place" in modern Iranian cultures. In fact, it was the government of Tajikistan that asked the UN to declare 2006 the "year of Zoroastrism". Poems in honor of Zoroastrian priests were written by Daqiqi, Hafiz, or Rumi (for example Rumi's "Gone to the Unseen") ... and there is still a community of more than 150.000 Zoroastrians in Iran, India, and elsewhere. Until today, millions of people in Asia are celebrating the Zoroastrian Nowruz, and in Iran and Afghanistan people believe in Espand (sepand)[20], the highest angel of Zoroastrism. People read Hafiz' poems and believe in his Fāl, which is also a Zoroastrian belief.

Today, most of the Iranian peoples are Islamic, but their culture is built on the Zoroastrian, pre-Islamic culture of their forefathers, in strong contrast to Arabic culture which does not know Nowruz, Espand, or Haft-Seen.

Faravahar is probably the best symbol for the Iranian peoples as a cultural union. I really do not understand your agenda.

Tajik 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attack and insult other people and stay culturized and civil, (lol). But what I said? Did I say do not use a Nawruz mark instead? or spand or Simurg or anything like that? Use them as these can be cultural symbols, but using a dead religions mark for this majority muslim people is an insult and I recommend you to refrain. Ocean Wave 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying that we should not use the religious symbol Faravahar (btw: Far is not really a religious symbol) but instead use another religious symbol, like Espand (the highest angel of Zoroastrian belief) or the Simurgh (the guardian of Ahura Mazda's creations)?! Either you have no idea what you are talking about or you are just here to provocate. Tajik 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thank god I'm not Majusi; But if there is going to a religious mark be used, it should be Islam OR dont use religious symbol as this peoples symbol at all. BTW, even if Simurgh or spand are also religious marks related to this same sect, then should not be used. Ocean Wave 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank God that the majority supports the current picture :) EOD. Tajik 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there can't also be a Muslim symbol here along with the ancient symbol of Iranians in the past. I detect that everytime the Arabs are mentioned there is a great deal of resistance. The whole social changes they brought was debated and should be included. Now the article is beginning to resemble one of the Pan-Iran sites and is veering away from neutral academia. This article is not just about Iran and it should reflect the other DISTINCT Iranians' views. And now we're returning to the incorporation of the Azeris, who are probably more of a Caucasian background and are Turkish speakers. Encyclopedia Americana denotes them under the Turkic people article as a Turkish people. We had a good compromise and now this article is taking on a nationalist bent. At this rate, this article won't remain a FA for much longer. Too bad. Tombseye 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with a Faravahar so to speak (My login name is plural for Persian Magus). But Ocean Wave might have a point here. The symbol reminds everyone of anciant Iran and might fit an article named as such. Not sure, what you could use instead, maybe a Ferdowsi Square type collage or something more related to Iranain languages than Iranian religion(s). Persian Magi 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so Farvahar is the symbol of ancient Iran and Ferdowsi and Allah are modern Iran symbols of the Iranian people! I see. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, this article is about Iranian peoples and not (just) only anciant Iranian peoples, right? The symbol somehow insinuate ancient and history. By the way, what is your definition of modern. Ferdowsi lived a thousand years ago.Furthermore, his book is about Iranian legends which also belongs to anciant people.

Use of Faravahar is very popular among Iranians, specially nationalistic Iranians to emphasize their non Arab-ness. That to me is not necessary here and makes the article more like a nationalistic propaganda page rather than Academic. Persian Magi 11:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am not saying Ferdowsi and Simorgh are the best symbols to represent the topic in this article. I do not have anything in mind right now, in fact. But would be nice if someone could come up with something more inclusive than Faravahar which is only anciant and represents a more nationalistic aspect of Iranian culture or Zoroastianism at its best. Persian Magi 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha excuse me? So Farvahar is a nationalist symbol and Ferdowsi is not? Ferdowsi wrote Shahnameh to save Parsi after the Arab invasion! it was Ferdowsi who wrote the most nationalist stories of Rostam! it was Ferdowsi who wrote about the Derafsh Kaviyani!, and you are telling me that Farvahar is nationalist and should not be used? Give me a break. Your name is Persian Magi as you reminded everyone. The only reason that Farvahar might be seen as "nationalist" is that because its pretty much the most important Iranian symbol if we have lost our identity so much that Farvahar is too nationalist for us, do me a favour and change it to Allah, I don't know what is Iranian anymore. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it's A symbol, not the symbol. Many Kurds and Pashtuns were never Zoroastrian so it's just a symbol as the many other Iranian tribes adapted the religion from the Avestan speakers. The Iranian peoples of the south also took Islam and made it their own. Many sufis made it a spiritual faith and also the fact that the modern Persians (and some others) are Shia has also given it a unique variation. There are lots of factors here, but the simple fact is that Islam was also adopted by the Iranian peoples just as Zoroastrianism once was. I only put the Faravahar there as an ancient symbol, not the end all. I'm frankly a bit disappointed in you Kash. You felt I was being unfair to the editor who was deleting anything pertaining to the Arabs and wanted to talk about the 'purity' of the Kurds, whereas a Pashtun user comes in and wants to show how his people are religious Muslims (and Pashtuns have uniquely taken their pre-Islamic Pashtunwali code and fused it with Islamic traits) and you think he's in the wrong and you revert his changes. I do the same with sources and I'm somehow in the wrong? Sorry, but I see a double-standard here and one that is wrong given that sources trump mere opinions on wikipedia. Tombseye 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read his first comment [21] to his last (all above). A user who posts offensive messages such as Zoroastrianism was "wrongly followed" and Farvahar is a spider mark, did not come here to provide us with the interesting information that Pashtuns are Muslims my friend. Perhaps you should study the Tajik-Pashtun relations and understand the root of anti-Iranianism which is so apparent above where he says "If in afghanistan say to a person your cultural symbol is that mark, he may kill you.", and you are telling me what? That this is to inform of us what exactly? Is it funny to you? Do you think I am happy after reading those religious and possibly racial hateful comments? or how about comments such as Farvahar is a nationalist symbol and others are not? Do you think I am happy that I see Iranians being ashamed of their own symbols because it connects them to their past? No, and I don't frankly care whether you are dissapointed by me, I don't work for you and as mentioned before, this article does not belong to you JD, but thanks for sharing your opinion. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are acting as if the Persians is what this article is about? Yes, I'm fully aware of the conflict, but what's that have to do with the issue of the Arabs' profound influence upon the Iranians? Or the mention of Islam? I'm not defending Ocean Wave, but I do detect a resistance to any mention of the important role the Arab Muslims played in shaping modern Iranian societies. In fact everything dab said is pretty much dead-on, whom I am defending instead. In fact, I may have been wrong to use the Farvahar as it is still a religious symbol, which is why I see no reason not to include other religious symbols OR simply have none. I'm not the owner of this article no, but without me you'd have a stub, no 1000th FA, and not much of an article at all. If that's how you want it, then okay. This article was written to discuss the northern Iranians, an interesting group that is largely gone, the situation with the other Iranian peoples etc. as a whole and instead, it's been mired in debates about putting in specific Persian things or debating how to incorporate the Azeris. That's hardly academic and I've actually put up references to back-up my claims. What are you putting up instead? It's real easy to edit and take out what you don't like and then claim neutrality I guess. And its largely these types of POV style views that make the Kurdish and other Iranian peoples annoyed that this article even exists as they wouldn't have a problem with neutral writing and their inclusion as long as it is given with academic reasoning behind it. So much for that or neutrality. Tombseye 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in a few posts up, put an Allah there for all I care, boss. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Allah is a good symbol there. That is good for an article about Islam and not about people speaking Iranian languages. For the same reason, Faravahar on its own is not a good symbol as it only represents Zoroastian and Pre-Islam history. Again, I am not saying, Ferdowsi is a good symbol. As Kash mentioned, it might be too nationalistic in a sense. It just something came to my mind as an speculative suggestion. If someone has a good idea about this, please bring it forward. I thought pictures of people were good. But that did not seem to go well with all. We can have no symbol there at all. If it is creating too much of a problem. Persian Magi 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kash, by the way, I did not intend to support Ocean Wave in anyway. He said a lot of wrong stuff. But for me, I only looked at his remarks in a positive way, ignoring his incentives. I should have realized that his comments had hurt feelings and apologies for not realizing that.

Also I am not ashamed of Faravahar or any Zoroastian symbol. My login name says it all as you rightly pointed out. However, like it or not, there is a tendency among us Iranians to distance ourselves from our immidiate past and trying to magnify our pride in pre-Islamic Iran, forgetting that has been 1400 years of Iranian history, and somewhat more glorious than the past. It might be due to the fact that in West people tend to disregard that we are not Arabs. I do not blame them. We use Arabic alphabet, our scientists of the past wrote in Arabic and had turbans, etc. Also I do not know much about Korean history or Chinese, for example. I never knew that saying "North Korea" might offend some Koreans from South until I met one.

However, in this article, that is supposed to be academic, we are trying to press for facts. I have no problem personally with either Allah or Faravahar. But if we can come up with something more inclusive, the better. if not, maybe no symbol would do. Like other pages. Persian Magi 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you actually read all the comments here you will realize that Zoroastrianism is more than just religion of ancient Iranians, its all over our culture, all our symbols. There is no reason to ignore our past just like our present. It's not "too nationalist" to recognize our own symbols for a change. Thing with Ocean Wave is that Pashtuns reject any sign of Iranianism, its got nothing to do with anything still. If we really don't want to offend them, we should even remove them from the list because most Pashtuns hate being called Iranian at all. In any case, Norouz is possibly the most important festival shared by all Iranian people and it originates in Zoroastrianism thats one reason to show Farvahar is still very much our symbol. If we think everything is too nationalist then maybe we should also change the name of Iranian people because Iran originates from the word Aryans and it might be too nationalist! and we don't wanna offend people now do we!! As you see, going down that approach is not the way. p.s. I think the German wikipedia has gone for Derafsh kaviyani but I am not sure if its a recognizable symbol for many Iranians. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that we must also avoid being too afraid of being seen as nationalists too. That is a great point. I was thinking on ways to improve. I have no problems with Faravahar, whatsoever.

I also agree that Derafsh is not a good idea. Iranians would hardly recognize it, let alone others. Persian Magi 11:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris

We've already discussed this Shervink, we're not including Azeris on the list—the first sentence in this article says ...primarily defined by their usage of Iranian languages. The Azeris don't speak an Iranian language. So please kindly knock it off. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change "some sources" to "a number of sources"? —Khoikhoi 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the present way (Note: Azeris are, ...) should be fine for both of us, since it still gives them a separate status apart from the rest of the groups on the list. As for Some and A number of, my understanding of English is that they both have the same meaning, with the second being more formal and more suitable for a serious piece of writing. Shervink 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well, I guess that's fine with me. If you want to remain consistent you're probably also going to have to add something on the Turkic peoples page. —Khoikhoi 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Irano-Median

Excuse me, is this article which includes several distinct ethnic groups about the Irano-Median (or Mittano-Aryan, If I'm not mistaken in spelling) people groups? We have an Iranian languages but it is solly a language group not their people. Not necessarily in all cases people groups are classified axactly according to their language affiliation. Iranian languages may include some distinct languages but Iranian peoples as i've ever seen does include only Persian speaking family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salios (talk • contribs)

You removed it? I explained it clearly for you. These peoples you are talking about are called Irano-Median. Themselves are divided into about 10 branches one of them Iranian (also synonymously called Persian group). Not averywhere you can name people groups as their respective language groups, for many reasons such as different backgrounds and assimilations. These peoples are divided into sevral groups according to their background. If you dont trust me, at least make a quote from this universal neutral project Joshua. http://www.joshuaproject.net/affinitybloc.php (For seeing Irano-median group choose it from the list and click the 'select' button).

Well, that's the first time I've seen it. Do you have any other sources? (Ones that are academic?) —Khoikhoi 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I wonder how an article of this low quality became a FA. We never had a consensus on many points, and on those on which we had a consensus it is repeatedly being neglected (Azeri issue and the repeated attempts of Grandmaster to hide the issue of Azeris). The article is, furthermore, not stable, and thus not even good enough to meet the GA criteria. The main point now is this: Present a source that gives us the same definition of Iranian peoples as this article. The sources [1-3] do not do that. Nowhere in those articles, as far as I can see, it is said that Iranian peoples are primarily defined based on their languages. If you think the sources are sufficient, please quote those parts which support this definition. Otherwise, we have to change the article. Shervink 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well it is curious that you're the only one complaining about this issue though. I'm not sure the views of one guy amount to a viable critique of the article. O'Leary says ethno-lingusitic group, the CAIS gives a list of said group, and the Encyclopedia of the Ukraine uses the term to define the ancient tribes. That pretty much says it all. In essence, everything on wikipedia is original research anyway as it may compile info. to put into one article rather than several that plagirize word for word. In addition, I see that in addition to your complaint about the definition you keep putting in your own personal view of the Azeris. The sources I put in are encyclopedias, whereas even CAIS thinks the issue of the Azeris is debatable as they only talk about them in an editorial and list the ancient Azaris instead. That isn't some sources, just some views as opposed to the mainstream view of the Azeris. You pushing your own POV and hey I'm sure your fellow Iranian editors will be glad to see the article de-listed because of your solitary protests. Tombseye 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I've reworded so that it does reflect O'Leary's definition as well. Pretty sure the review will pass it. Tombseye 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Persian people are not extinct, so I have reverted your last edit. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about the ancient Iranian peoples. —Khoikhoi 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Persians were also ancient Iranian people, so it doesn't make sense to say they are "extinct". Unless we are talking about two groups being different? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I said AND. What does this have to do with the Persians again? The opening explains that we're talking about both the modern Iranians and the extinct groups known as the ancient Iranian peoples. Plus adding ethnolinguistic groups so that Shervink has no case. Tombseye 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Persians were ancient Iranian people and also modern Iranian people, thats what it has to do with it. I am asking, are they totally different groups? were the old Persians, who were ancient Iranian people extinct? Yes? If so how did this new Persian people emerge? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article explains about the Persians and others. It doesn't need clarification as the Persians are listed as both. Tombseye 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok? So please don't change the intro to say strange things you are not going to support then, thanks. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My question could not be any clearer: Tell me exactly where in O'leary's article the Iranian peoples are defined in that way. Give me a quote. The article's subject and emphasis is entirely different. It defines Kurds as an Iranian ethno-linguistic group. It says nothing whatsoever about a definition of Iranian peoples. You don't think so? Show me please which part of the article is saying what you are so fiercely defending. It is you who is pushing POV, not me! Shervink 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

"The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari" isn't clear? Encyclopedia of the Ukraine: "Iranian peoples. The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran, Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. In ancient times they also inhabited southeastern Europe. During the 1st millennia BC and AD Ukraine was inhabited consecutively by the Iranian-speaking Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and Irano-Turkic Khazars. These peoples interacted with the indigenous proto-Slavs and influenced their cultural development." And then we have a list of said group. And you're pushing your own POV with the Azeris. I put up mainstream encyclopedias and you have one editorial. How is that many sources whereas mine are some? Come on. It's not even slightly even. We're talking the overwhelming view in academia vs. one or two. I reworded to reflect just that, that they are an ethnolinguistic group both modern and ancient. What's wrong with that? Tombseye 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I think the article is almost good enough if we do not mention "most of sources" there. You have done a great deal to include Azaris, for the sake of the name of the article as opposed to what the article was representing before, i.e. the "speakers of Iranian languages" only.

Regarding the sources above, here is my interpretation of them in English. Your quote says:

• "The Kurds, an Iranian ethno-linguistic group--like Persians, Lurs, Baluch and Bakhtiari"

The word 'like', when used in listing, does not mean there is no more in the list. For example, when I say European countries like France and Italy, I do not mean Germany is not a European country, do I?

Also, it says: Iranian ethno-linguistic group and not Iranian peoples. Are you assuming Iranian ethno-linguistic groups means "Iranian peoples"? The earlier, for some people, means differently from the latter, unless proven. It is like trying to prove an axiom, using the same axiom.

Second quoting from above:

• "Iranian peoples. The east Aryan group of peoples of the Indo-European family that today inhabit Iran"

Who inhabits Iran today? Can you tell me Azeris do not?

Do you have any other quote? Persian Magi 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to leave the article as is, but Shervink has been demanding (and he's the only one mind you) that there be a more exact definition and it turns out the only reason he has been pushing for one is to find a way to include the Azeris. Now our previous version simply said that some sources believe the Azeris to be an Iranian people due to purported ancestry, culture etc. and I (and most of the other editors) were okay with that. THEN he wants more sources to again say that the Azeris are often considered an Iranian people which is, honestly ridiculous. Nearly every major reference, books written, SPECIFICALLY refer to the Azeris as a Turkic people. Not my words, but theirs. those references I put are a response to this unreasonable insistence that the Azeris be counted entirely as an Iranian people even though, AGAIN, this article is not about Iran. It includes most of the people of Iran, but its parameters are far beyond its borders. You know this as well, but I'm merely explaining this for context. As such, the Azeris simply do not qualify, whereas the Azaris do, the Talysh do, the Tat do. I think I've been pretty reasonable throughout, listening to and responding to people, but we had some nationalist zealot come in and try to put in some garbage about 'pure' Kurds, taking out any mention of Arabs, and tried to promote what no academic would support that the Persians are of some pure ancestry derived solely from the ancient Persians or Aryans and the other ancients magically disappeared apparently. And he this without a shred of evidence or a reference. Now you tell me, am I being unreasonable here? I wrote this article because as a whole the Iranian peoples are interesting and many of the interesting things they did involved the now gone northern Iranians and the Muslim Iranians who took Islam and made it uniquely their own etc. These are all important aspects to discuss. And look at this article's mentioning of the Azeris. We're talking more about them, then the Pashtuns who are a major group (40 million which is more than the population of Persians in Iran) or even the Kurds. I think it was a good move to discuss the Turko-Iranian situation and to mention the Azeris and others as closely linked to the Iranian peoples, but their first language is Turkic and mutually intelligible with Turkish and Turkmen. all of these aspects are what I wanted to convey in a neutral manner. Surely I didn't do a disservice to the Iranian peoples by writing the article and with Khoikhoi getting it up to speed and featured as the 1000th FA. That was good press and lots of people dropped me and Khoikhoi messages saying they learned a lot from the article. Without neutral academic writing this article would not have made it as a FA as other editors would have torn it apart (and rightly so) for its extremist POV positions. I'm not saying I should be the one to decide what goes in the article by myself, but I am saying that credibility only comes with citations. If I have more references, then I believe my position is stronger, particularly when the opposing has either a few or none at all. That's my general position with any article and not just this one. Peace. Tombseye 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, What I, and I am guessing others, do not agree is that you are saying Azeris are not Iranian people because they are Turkic. No one has any doubts that Azeris are are Turkic, because they do talk Turkic. Most of your sources also indicate that. But that does not meant they are not Iranian people. They can be Turkic as well as Iranian people. Unless if you want to limit Iranian peoples to specific speakers of Iranian languages. But I think you did not want to do that, right?

I understand the article is "primarily about Iranian language speakers". However, that is why we do not list Azeris among others and as a separate listing.

So how about removing:

"However, most sources do not include Azeris as an Iranian people, but rather a Turkic people."

Just to tone down. We already say the issue remains debated. But saying above, it looks like we are somehow drawing our own conclusion that yes the debate is there but this article thinks Azeris are not Iranian peoples.

Hope this would help. Persian Magi 01:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Look I appreciate your attempt to mediate, but you need to understand that I did not disrupt the status quo. All of us, except one person Shervink, came to an agreement and now it's been disrupted with absurd inserts like "some sources say..." I'm okay with removing the second sentence if we can simply render it in a neutral manner: Azeris are, due to historical ties with various ancient Iranians[38] and their cultural ties with Persians[39], sometimes included as an Iranian people, although the modern Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language and the issue remains debated.[40][41] Two sources for each view and AND the dispute over the opening gets settled. That's a more than fair resolution given the circumstances since realistically it's rare in academia that the Azeris are considered an Iranian people and the preponderance of sources say otherwise, but for the sake of settling this dispute I think this rendering should be okay after all the inordinate amount of attention the Azeris have been given in an article that isn't really about them. If this can't be resolved in this manner, then I see no alternative but to seek neutral arbitration and watch this article lose its featured article status, which would be a real shame. I realize some of you guys are into nationalist views, but I'm not at all and I wrote the article to discuss all the Iranian peoples and not just the Persians. I wrote it with the best of intentions and I was more than a little annoyed when some new guy waltzed in and decided that the article had to reflect his views without any citations and the funny thing is he wanted me to come up with citations and then felt it was fishy that I had citations. I'm the guy who wrote the article and I know exactly what academics have said about the Iranian peoples, in particular Richard Frye. Didn't the subject of the Iranian peoples get some attention as the 1000th FA (and will get more as a featured article on the Main Page)? I would think that would make people happy enough to leave the article as it is or, if they must add things then do so with neutral academic sources to back them up and try to add things about more than just the Persians and stop with the hostility towards the Arabs which is really POV. Like I said if this can't be resolved then we do have a problem, but if we can return to a neutral academic perspective then okay. Ciao. Tombseye 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the dipute tag

I edited the relevant section in the list of Iranian peoples as per above talk with Tombseye. I hope that is a fair compromise for everyone. Please discuss it here if you still think the dispute is not over. If no one complains in a day or two, we can safely assume the dispute is over and remove the tag. Persian Magi 04:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

support Tājik 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some editors (notably Tombseye) are more concerned about keeping the article's featured status rather than improving it. From your previous posts, Tombseye, it seems that you have developed a sense of ownership of this article. While your contributions have been outstanding, still this article is not yours, nor does your background in creating it give you a right to simply reject others' concerns. If your personal satisfaction of having created a featured article overweighs your sound judgement, so be it. I don't have the intention of arguing with would-be specialists which are abundant on wikipedia and most often write about things they know little about. Go ahead and have fun. As for Azaris being classified as Turks by most sources, that is simply not true. Ever heard of Ahmad Kasravi's work for example? Shervink 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

Lol, look around you and see how many people think you're being reasonable here. I'm not rejecting other peoples concerns, nor am I acting alone as many people have been reverting your edits whereas you're in the minority of people who think the article needs clarifications and your own POV on the Azeris put in. This article is not about Iran. The Scythians are discussed as are the Kurds, Pashtuns, and others. This is about all of them. My sound judgment is based upon my references that back me up. Where are yours? Kasravi's a writer from decades back so I fail to see what bearing he has, since there are modern academics today. It is true that MOST sources do classify them as Turkic. The only place they don't is in Iran and let's face it there's probably a little nationalist bias there so not a lot of objectivity in the matter, which is not unique to Iran as most countries have the same problem. Well, I'll bet I know more about the Iranians of the steppes than you do. Or the Pashtuns, Ossetians, etc. I know enough to write an article obviously. I'm not having fun. I'm irritated that one guy can create so many problems though and act so stubborn when most people think he's being unreasonable. I take it you don't support the compromise or has there been a change of heart? Tombseye 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

support. From what I see, Shervink is the only one trying to impose his will and support the tag. --Aldux 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

support. I'm okay with it as it was before Shervink changed it. Tombseye 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Support It's frustrating that one person can plaster that message on an article and it takes a long dispute (most of the time the arguement has already been done on the site) to settle it again. --Sean WI 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. —Khoikhoi 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have consensus to remove the tag now. I am removing the tag now. Persian Magi 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A new addition

I'd suggest we add pictures of different Iranian people, from Ossetians to Hazaras, as a matter of fact the article is Iranian "people", we better put more images of people. Amir85 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a Hazara, but an Ossetian wouldn't be bad. We have room in the genetics section if you can find a picture (without any copyright problems) that would be great. Thanks. Tombseye 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done in order to feature this on the main page?

Now that would be a dream come true... who's with me? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of Germanic and Slavic Aryanisms...

User_talk:SlimVirgin#New_editor_has_a_racial-revisionist.2C_Balkan-separatist_agenda... Lord Loxley 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. The Indo-European language theory was all that was discussed. We aren't backing or rendering an Aryanist theory. The Indo-European theory is backed by academic departments including at UCLA and Harvard. I don't understand your complaints and the link you provide doesn't explain anything either. The reference was to LANGUAGE. The groups, such as Germanic and Slavic people speak languages that are linked and there is NO assertion that they are necessarily all related etc. In fact, this article makes it clear that there is no specific ethnic criteria at all as it is langauge that is the main determinant as to who are members of the various Indo-European peoples. Unless you can provide some academic proof that what was in the article is Germanic and Slavic Aryanism I don't see how there is a problem here.Tombseye 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the person has a weird misunderstanding. He has also been talking nonsense at Talk:Aryan race. I have no idea what he means by "Aryanisms". He has also threatened me on my talk page. Very rude and inconsiderate. Genomist 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Genomist is likely a neonazi or white supremacist who frequents such websites as Stormfront and the National Vanguard. His promoted theories are well in step with them, but not with the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to service these agendas. Lord Loxley 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Ironic you shouting racism! and decrying supremacists!. I checked you user page and it is very unfortunate that you would refer to people in other nations as freaks and indulge in racism regarding other nations as well. That is your position however. And one not of wikipedia. Your edit in this article is out of place. It is important to point out how the term Iranian here in linguistics has nothing to do with the Islamic republic of Iran. It is important because the use of the term Iranian in western media is widely used as a reference to a person with roots in Iran or a citizen of that counry. To ease any reswervations, the slavic example was also added. Hopefully, you'll read the article in its proper context and refrain from any further edits fueled by your POVs. Omerlives 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence to true heirs of the Indo-Aryans in India and Iran, but I don't need you to define me. These theories should not pollute the minds of young and impressionable students, whom know little of the neoimperialist connections with "Indo-European" caste racism across the globe. I understand that you have your ways and culture, but they are not European ways anymore than Europeans are Asian. We are Mediterraneans. It is because of your secular theories that I endure reverse discrimination on a regular basis. I hold your institutional racism responsible, just as I do those who implemented that way of life onto my society. I will not allow your ethnocentrism to supplant my Roman Christian ways of life. Regardless, the issue was about editing from a racist POV and this is what you do. You have co-opted social science to serve your nationalist fantasies and I am severely offended. I do not edit racially. You should stop pretending to be professional whilst promoting scientific racism. Lord Loxley 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)