Talk:List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks"

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamic Republic[edit]

I've added the Islamic Republic as its overly represented by Azeri Turks, as is the economy.

Dispute[edit]

The article is manipulated and has a strong anti-Turkish POV. Togrol 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific about the points you think anti-Turkish here.
I am an Iranian Turk and see nothing anti Turkish here.
Please note that this article, by the way, has not much to do with Turkish of Turkey. The Turkish Turks are our neighbour and brother. However, Iranian Turks have been as Iranian as anyone else in historical Persia and modern Iran. They have built and shaped Iran through history with the rest of Iranians and defended Iran many many times. Safavids of Iran always fought against Turkish Othoman Empire defending Persian Iran. 203.48.45.194 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be very acadmeic in your citings. Iranian Turks do not speak Turkish of Turkey. Only one percent (refer to Demographics of Iran. I am not sure how you end up with the figure 1 in 3 Iranian for Turkic speaking Iranians and how you conclude they speak Turkish and what you mean by "they speak Azeri as their mother tongue". Please be more specific and source your references carefully with an objective and academic approach. 203.48.45.194 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the POV box and will wait for your specific point here. A general POV with no much detaisl does not have a use. Please be more specific. 203.48.45.194 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current version does not seem to be anti Turkish to me either. I can see someone was trying to delete unsourced information here who was doing a good job doing so but also removed some historical/cultural information. 203.48.45.194 did well in putting some usefull info. back while keeping non-sourced information out.
I think it is more anti-Turkish to put unsourced and biased information here. Cleaning those sort of pieces are very pro-Turkish. That helps the aim of this article as it is reflecting on importance of Iranian Turks among the rest of Iranians. Persian Magi 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that the whole article is unsourced and it is very much "Turkic" POV. Most of the dynasties were shouldn't be called Turkic in the first place, Safavids for example only spoke Turkic until the war with Ottomans were they changed the official language back to Persian. Major clean up needed --87.194.56.199 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that, iranian turks even azarbaijanis, safavids and all other variants of them are a mixture of turks and persians, just like myself. :) --Darkred 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are many mixed Persian Turks and also not even one single Persian or a Turkic speaking Iranian can tell if he is ethnically Persian, Med etc. However, there are many Iranians who have been speaking Turkic Azeri and other Turkic languages and so many of them were not and are not mixed. This article, basically, tries to explain what academia knows about them. I am not sure how this looks like a POV for some people. Are we not to explain facts and figures about peoples here. It is POV if for fears of separatist movements etc. not to mention academic facts.
Please help complete the document rather than feeling emotional and unacadmic. Thanks.. By the way, I am an Iranian Turk and no mixture, at least for the last 10 generations and I am married to a Persian :) 203.48.45.194 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your POV that many iranian turks are not mixed with other people, thinking that they have lived in iran for at least 800 years. However if you are correct, those only exist in azarbaijan. And i am guessing since you said that you are an iranian turk with no mixture that you are azarbaijani.
Some say that bakhtiaris or qashqai even(according to encyclopedia columbia), are the only remaining ethnic persians with no mixture. But there is no way to prove that, just like there is no way to prove many iranian turks are 100% turks. --Darkred 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is pure anything. That is not what I claimed at all. In fact, Iranians are a very mixed race. I do not think there is any pure Persian or Turkic pure tribe in Iran. What I said about myself was that both my parents and all my grandparents and grand grandparents spoke Turkish. So no claime of purity here! I, like you, believe, Iranians are mixed race. :) 203.48.45.194 00:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

Someone seems to have started an edit war without mentioning reasons. I am placing this article under protection for the moment. Please do bring your issues and discussion here with more sense rather than just editing back and forth. 59.167.0.169 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot place this article under protection, only admins can. The template you used should only be added by an admin, and on its own has no effect (the actually protection is carried out by an admin using the admin interface). If you wish to have this article protected place a request at WP:RFPP (requests for page protection). Thanks, Petros471 21:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59.167.0.169 you seem to have edited only 4 articles in wikipedia and all about iranian turks. I strongly recommend you read the wikipedia rules including the rule which Petros474 pointed out before changing everything back then trying to protect it. Thank you for your cooperation. --Darkred 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for reminding WP:RFPP. Wasn't sure how to stop you from wreckless editing. What is the points you are addressing please. You were the first to wrecklessly revert edits of others.
Furthermore, how com you remove Afsharid from the list of dynasties and are offended when someone removes it? Afsharid were Iranian dynasty without any doubt and they were Turkic speaking according to Iranica by the well known editor of Iranica Ehsan Yarshater. What is your problem with link of Shahnameh? Are you having Persian font problems? Ferdowsi in his great Iranian work which is arguably the source that kept Persian language from definite death mentions Sultan Mahmood as Shah of Iran. So what is exactly you are trying to say. I have edited one or two articles? Are you trying to hold that against me? You are not explaining the points. Just because you do not like the contents of an article, does not mean you can drastically revert things back. Please edit more carefully with full explanations of exact points. 59.167.0.169 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even bothered read what you said here this time. Again i have to direct you to read the rules before vandalizing, just like the administrator told you to do. Wikipedia is not a warground nor a playground, i suggest you understand that before vandalizing. --Darkred 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. You do not seem to bother to read. And can I ask you why you write then? The admin did not approve of your views. At least read what he has written first. Have you read those rules yourself? They specifically mention to reach consensus among ourselves. That is highly unlikely with your attitude. You do not understand that the least you can do is to read first to respect other views. Then I am not sure how we can proceed from here while You continue vandalizing the article. 59.167.11.226 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No i usually don't read what vandalizers have to say, just like now all i had to do was seeing you ip below the comment to look away. The only one that made drastic changes was you, you changed everything zeresh and kash had added. and put a protected sign on it for yourself! Do i really need to say more? If you want to keep editing in wiki STOP vandalizing. I will revert again to zereshk version for the moment until anyone has something better to add. --Darkred 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you- stop calling it vandalism. Neither of you are vandalising the article according to the official policy. If you had been you'd have found warning template(s) followed by a block on your talk page. However revert warring is not good either (59.167.11.226 is right in saying ...reach consensus). Could both of you also try and stay civil with each other and discuss content rather than users. Petros471 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how this guys (59.167.11.226) became emotional about your reverting my edits back. Look I did not revert back Kash's addage at all. I was trying to correct what Togrol added. Togrol is a bit sentimental about Turkish as mother tongue thing. I am guessing he is a Turkish of Turkey. Not sure. But he does not like seeing Iranian Turks as Iranians at all, please read his comments on "Iranian peoples" talk page. I leave it up to you to go through "my" edits and put things as you like. However, 1 in 3 Iranians do not speak Turkish as mother tongue. And also no Iranian speak Turkish as a second language. If they do, they must be living in Turkey. In fact many of my fellow Tehranis who are born to Turkic speaking parents, they hardly understand the language because of whatever. Anyhow, since you feel too emotional about revert editing. I leave it to the others to decide or yourself to put back any piece of information you agree with. But please, remove 1 in 3 and second language thing, which is nonesense. unsigned comment was added by 203.48.45.194

I am not defending togrol or anyone else here, but zereshks edit seems to be alot more neutral than the last edit i reverted. I am one of them you are talking about above, my parents speak turkic but i only know 2 words. I don't consider myself turk altho i am half turkic, i consider myself iranian turkic or persian turkic, or simply iranian.

However if you want to start from here i am willing to cooperate editing this article, and i agree that second language thing is nonesense. --Darkred 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edit War[edit]

It is really sad to see edit war on this. I request both parties to be calm for now and do not do anything drastic. I reverting things back to where it was before the edit war. Hope this cools down things a bit. Persian Magi 11:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, you were the one who reverted Kash's edit. Here is what Kahs's last revision say:


Some beleive that they are the descendant of Medes and migrated to the Iranian plateau with the Persians and later adopted the Turkic language, others suggest that they are basically central Asian Turks who had migrated to Iran after the "Aryan" tribe invasion of Iran. There is also a growing evidence that suggests Azeri people have caucasian origin.

and here is what Togrol and your edits say:

More than every 1 in 3 Iranian speaks a Turkic dialect as mother tongue and there are also a sizable number of Iranian citizens who speak Turkic dialects as a second language. As Turkic speakers, they have been present in Iranian history for around a thousand years. It is not clear if they have been among Iranians and became speakers of Turkic languages due to presence of Turkic conquerers or they are at least partly Turkic immigrants to the area.

Please have a look at Kash's last revision here.

I tried to revert things back to Kash's edit and remove "1 in 3" and "second language" nonesense. No Iranian speaks Turkish as a second language unless they are not Turkic speakers and attend a school in Turkey.

I am not reverting anything back and leave it up to you. But if you like Kash's edit, that is what included in my edits before you two started to fight.  :(

By the way, Togrol seemed to have some issues with some Iranian Turks being called "Iranians". Not sure, he is either in opinion of Iranian Turks being so pure Turks!!! Eaxactly opposite to what you stated to me above! By the way, he called Iran as an outdate term in Talk:Iranian_peoples. Have a look in there and see who you are backing now.

Hope the above helps. 203.48.45.194 00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well i am sorry it seems i reverted all wrong, i just read the first line about 1 of 3 speak turkic and thouht this looks more neutral. Yes you are absolutely correct, this was my fault, i will revert back to a better one then we can join to edit it. --Darkred 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, on second thoughts please do the reverting yourself as i do not know the history of this articles reverting and editing. --Darkred 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please have a look and let me know or edit the pieces you think appropriate. By the way, you have a nice talk page. One of these days, I should do one too. I am a bit lazy on creating account and siging in. :) 203.48.45.194 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, everything is good except, the reference at top to main article: origins of azeris, that would indicate that iranian turks origin is from the azeris. Second i tihnk we should dlete the part that they considered themselfs rulers of iran and that they spoke solely turkic in the army; This will separate iranians from turks. The only turks that may have considered themselfs rulers instead of part of iran could have been the Seljukids. The safavids for example did no such thing, they considered themselfs as much iranian as the rest of iranians. In fact they even claimed that they partly originated from the sassanids. --Darkred 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Azeri and the comments about army and elite. 203.48.45.194 01:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we agree, i also added the baharlu tribe to the list --Darkred 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Clear[edit]

This article looks a little problematic to me. It looks as if the article is trying to put ALL Turkic speaking people of Iran in one category without explaining their differences. For example this part:

The origin of Iranian Turks is disputed. Some believe that they are the descendant of Medes and migrated to the Iranian plateau with the Persians and later adopted the Turkic language, others suggest that they are basically Central Asian Turks who had migrated to Iran after the "Aryan" tribe invasion of Iran.

The Iranian Turk should be change to Azeri. These above mentioned theories are only about Azeri Turks not other groups for example Turkmen. No one has ever claimed that Turkmen are descendant of medians! Besides these groups are very different from each other racially, just look how different a typical Turkmen looks from a typical Azeri, and also culturally.

the origin of other Turkic groups of Iran should also be mentioned since it is different from that of Azeri people

I was going to change it myself but I wanted to discuss it here first.Gol 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic Iranians are mainly Azeris. Some of them like Shahsavans and Qashqais are said to be originally Azeris too and migrated during Safavids or Afsharids. Some are also believed to have scattered around Iran in different times. You are right, the above comment are true for all those. But, you are right, Turkmen are excluded. They are definitely and ethnically Turkmen. I will update that part to reflect what you mentioned. Let me know if that is better.
By the way, this article is its infancy and needs sourceful contributions. By all means, go ahead and edit. Hopefully we will treat you nicely. :) 203.48.45.194 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, If this article is about Azeris why keep it? why don't merge it into Azeri people?
I'll fix that.Togrol 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?[edit]

Is Iranian Turks an ethnic group?! Or something like that? Honestly I never heard such a thing. I suggest an AFD. I'll fix it by redirecting to Azeri people. Togrol 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on Turkish separatsim POV (according to the persian friends). They say there is no Turk in Iran but Azeris, and now they are keeping an article claimng Azeris who are descendant of an ancient people are Turks!! See the respective discussion in the talk page of Iranian peoples! Togrol 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither - and the origin of Azeris are a matter of dispute, See Azeris#Origin -- - K a s h Talk | email 07:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Togrol, not all Iranian Turks are Azeri. I am not sure if you have talked to someone from Qashqais or Shahsavans who live in central provinces of Iran. There are also many Turkmens who are not Azeri for sure. In fact, separitists want to claim all these groups are the same and are Azeris and not Iranians. Anyhow, this article wants to define of a major popultion of Iranians in the past and current times who speak Turkic languages. These people include, the current leader, Ali Daei, Samad Behrangi as well as Nader Shah, Soltan Mahmud, Agha Mohammad Khan. All these people could also be identified as Persian/Iranian by culture and identity. They are also identified as Turkic people. 203.48.45.194 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename the article. Togrol 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already is titled to show that not all Iranian Turks are Azeri. -- - K a s h Talk | email 13:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim's reverts[edit]

"partial rv. u r joking right? :) It is simple syntax - what can "Iranian Turk" mean in English? Azeri alternate name is also relevant, why take it out?"

No I am not joking buddy. What would you call an Iranian speaking Turk? er, an Iranian Turk? I put the tag in front of a specific claim.

Also a transliteration is not needed just for being "relevant". This is an English term, unless we want to provide all "relevant" transliterations there is no need to include this one. --Rayis 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there could be confusion to know which identity is the primary one. Btw, please try to avoid the personallization of the issue by saying "baristarim's reverts" - it could have been anyone reverting. Better to discuss the issue and keep it impersonal as much as we can. Cheers! Baristarim 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tags[edit]

I noted that the tags were not removed when the relevant discussions were settled long long ago. Therefore, I removed them.

The parts of the article which need further referencing or reference verifications are tagged appropriately.

In case if someone thinks that further tags needed or thinks the tags should return, please add specific details here and further work/discussion/verification might clear things up. Persian Magi 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed several sentences of POV and OR, and I restructured the article to make it consistent with other Wiki articles.Hajji Piruz 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirected[edit]

The article's concept is really saying that Turkmens, Azaris, Qashqais are the same people because of language. It would be like creating Iranic Azerbaijanis and then putting Tat, Talysh and Kurd together. The DNA stuff does not belong here either. There is article on Iranian Azerbaijanis, and Qashqais and also one on Khorasani Turkic (Afshar which is really Azerbaijani Turkic). Not sure what the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi has anything to do with this article, since at the time of Shahnameh, Turkic languages were not present in Azerbaijan or there was no Qashqai federation. When we say "Tork" in Iran in Persian or "turk-zaban"(turkic speaker) "Turk-dil"( turki speaker) in Luri, they mean Iranian Azerbaijanis. So I think the article needs to be redirected to Iranian Azerbaijans. Using pan concepts like "Iranic speakers of Azerbaijan" (Talysh, Kurds, Tats) or "Indo-European speakers of Caucus"(Ossetians, Tats, Talysh, Kurds, Armenians) is really not Wikipedia and borders on ethno-nationalism. Also Iranian Turks can denote technically Zazas and Kurds and Azeris (since they came from Iran irregardless of origin) of Turkey. So I do not see a purpose for this article and it is a repeat of other articles. Will await for feedback. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any logical objection to the redirection? Iranian Turks can equivalently mean Zazas and Kurds of Turkey. The term makes it seem like Turkmen and Azerbaijanis are grouped together. I do not think we can group speakers of a whole language group together in any country. Iranians of Turkey (Kurds, Zazas), Iranians of republic of Azerbaijan (Talysh, Tats, Kurds).. I don't see any reason for this article and everything is already repeated in other articles. What does Shahnameh have to do with the issue? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Doostzadeh, Many Iranian Turkic speaking Iranians are not Azaris. That is why this article should not be redirected. This article is not about Turkish Iranians but Iranians who speak Turkic language and are called Turks by Iranians. Do you call Turkic Turkmans, Shahsavans of Markazi province and Qashqais of Fars Azaris? I am not sure if Kurds and Zazas could be categorized as one group but Turkmen, Qashqais and Shahsavns understand each other 99% and share many customs in their culture. It has nothing to do with Turanism and pan Turkism. They are simply speak one very same language and not all of them are Azaris. Persian Magi (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the name of the article could be a little bit misleading. Maybe we should call it "Speakers of Turkic Languages in Iran" and mention they are called Turks in Iran but not all of them are Azaris, excluding Turkmen perhaps. Turkmen are specifically called Turkman in Iran whereas a Qashqai is called a Turk. Please also bear in mind that Tork-zaban is a new term invented by Pahlavis to avoid Turk..otherwise our literature always mentions Torkan or Torkamaanan. (Turkoman was not always a term for Turkmen in our writings either as it was used for Qaraquyunloos and Qajars for example.)Persian Magi (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Shahnameh is mentioned is to point out the source for Iranian-ness of Ghaznavid Dynasty as he calls Mahmoud a Shah of Iran and Turan. Persian Magi (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. I agree with what you say, but just disagree with the utility of the article. Some articles might have utility because they due away with constant editorial fights and problems. But this one I don't think there is any majo dispute, but just format. Approximately 85% of Iranian Turkic speakers are Azeris. Counting out Turkmens of Iran who are not called "Tork" , that would make over 90%+. Turkmen language of Iran, Turkemenistan is not really the same as Azeri and is not classified as so. I understand it is close but structurally, phonologically and grammatically it has some differences. And the origin of the two groups (at least from DNA perspective) are widely different. Much like say Kermanshah Lurish and Persian are close, but they are not exactly the same. For example Turkmen has 18 vowels where as Azeri has 9 and etc. As per Qashqai, from where I hear, they are mainly called Qashqai not "Tork". Also "Tork-dil" "Fars-dil" is used by Navai to denote "Tork" and "Tajiki", thus is it not a new phenomenon. For example Naser Khusraw also refers to Esfahan as a city of Parsi-Zabanan, not Parsian. So Tork-Zaban is not really a new invention since even Navai uses it. I agree Turkomen was also used for Qaraqoyunlu, Qajar and even in Turkomens in Iraq who seem to speak a closer Turkic to Azeri than Istanbuli. But in the English terminology, Qashqai, Azeri and Turkmen are separate. Thus we should perhaps make a disambiguation page for Turkmen. Turkmen afterall is a general term denoting Oghuz Turks. Note since we are in English wikipedia we should use English terminology. That is how Persians refer to Azerbaijanis is not priority in English wikipedia, but it can be mentioned in Azerbaijani people. Also Shahsevan are considered Azeris I believe, they are just nomadic instead of sedentary. So basically, if we count out Qashqais which we might disagree with, basically the terminology "Tork" in Iran is used 95%+ for what in English today refers to Azeris. I am very sure it is not used for Qashqais and definitely not for Turkmen. I think if you disagree Shahsevan is different, then a separate article can be made. Then link to various Turkic speaking groups can be given in articles such as demographic of Iran and detail on each group in its own article. But this article has some of the problems which I discussed. Turkmen and Azeris are not the same group. DNA is not necessary since this can be discussed in Turkmen and Azerbaijani people. Also Shahnameh linked here, but at the time of Shahnameh, we did not have "Iranian Turks" that is the populace of Azerbaijan did not speak Turkic neither were Turkomens in Mazandaran/Golestan. I agree Ghaznavids considered themselves Iranians actually and Sultan Mahmud considered himself Iranian, a descendant of Sassanids and considered the Qarakhanids as Turks/Turanians. But that can be discussed in Ghaznavids and history of Iran and etc. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qashqai are a confederacy of Turkic which like the Turks of Turkmen al-Sahra and the Southern Azerbaijan province are of Oghuz origin. The largest Qashqai tribes include "Amaleh" who are a branch of the "Igdir" who are one of the 24 Oghuz clans, branches of the Igdir live across Iran, Turkmenistan and modern day Turkey. Also another prominant tribe are the "Kashkulli Boz-ok" and Kashkulli Kuchuk, as well as branches of the Afshars and Bahurlu.

The non-Turks in the Fars region call the collective Qashqai "Turks".

By the 1980s, the terms Qashqai and Turk tended to be used interchangeably in Fars, especially by non-Turkic speakers. http://countrystudies.us/iran/43.htm

Qashqai and the Torks in the north of Iran often are extenstions of each others clans and tribes, the language is mutually intellegible causing the boundries to become blurred.

The distinction is generally made as Qashqai are nomadic/semi-nomadic, residing in "yazlig" and "kishlig" while the other Turks in Iran are settled.

DNA as I have already expressed before is ridiculous to try and "proove" who people are, in Iran itself there are various DNA results between East and West Iran, there are Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Persians, Hazaras in Iran to talk of a unique Iranian DNA is pointless.

--Torke (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Title to "Speakers of Turkic Languages in Iran"[edit]

"Iranian Turks" might be a bit confusing. A more precise title for this page. To avoid confusion and to avoid any sensitive political terms I changed the title to the current one. Please provide feedback and comment if you have any concerns. Persian Magi (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-readiong commens in the previous section on this talk page, I do agree with Ali Doostzadeh that this page could be merged/redirected to Azarbaijanis of Iran article. Persian Magi (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sub-ethnic groups[edit]

I've removed some wrong sub-groups and I explained in my edit summaries why I removed them. Previous edits by some ips and users were kind of irredentism. They added many Turkic-speaking (non-Azerbaijanis) groups as Azerbaijani, even Pazooka tribe -- a Kurdish tribe! And it seems these ips belong to this user [1]. He reverted all of my edits with a ridiculous edit summary "rv".--188.158.91.95 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samak: You have to cite reliable sources. You can't just add a tribe/sub-group based on your own opinion. Cite a reliable source for each of them. -- Kouhi (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kouhi: If they are not Azerbaijani sub-ethnic groups, are members of Iranian Turks except pazooka. should not removal. It is written in a separate table. each tribe whose members are Turkic people, set yourself in a separate table.--SaməkTalk 16:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samak: So... you agree that Pazooka tribe and others not belonging under the Azerbaijani category should be recategorized? Good, then this is solved! Please include references if you plan on adding more groups under the Azerbaijani category. Yilangren (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kouhi:, @Yilangren:, @Samak: Indeed tribes of Shaqaqi, Qarachorlu, Haji-Alilu, Hasanbeyglu, Chalabianlu, Mohammad Khanlu, Shaqaqi are kurd too. [2] 5.238.227.173 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.238.227.173: It's interesting because Iranica is a reliable source and it indeed lists those as Kurdish as you mentioned, yet Iranica also lists those tribes as Azerbaijani Turkic as well! I'm not sure which statement by Iranica to believe? Do they fall under both? Yilangren (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is because of iranica Confuse that they forget their native language(kurdish) and speak to another language(turkish) like Donboli .Just opposite of them is Küresünni ,or Jalali (Kurdish tribe) that is original armanian tribe, or Milan (Kurdish tribe) that is original kurd and part of them are kurdish speaking and another part are turkish speaking.5.238.244.188 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.238.244.188: Interesting! Since that is the case, I propose we keep those under the Azerbaijani category here, as well as editing their respective articles to make sure they mention their Kurdish origins — this way we avoid any conflict on whether they're Azerbaijani or Kurdish, since they fall under both. Thoughts?

Can we change the title?[edit]

The title on the list table starts with "Turkic peoples of Iran". Isn't it what we need the title to be? Turks is the intro to people from Turkey (read Turkish people) and these people are not from Turkey. This is again the confusion between ethno-linguistic grouping and nationality. Why don't we change the title?--Persian Lad (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better to just delete the article imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not an article, it's a list.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh it's still an article though. Article/list, w/e, I'd say it better to delete it. It's irrelevant and is only gonna cause issues in the long run. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ethnic_groups_known_as_%22Iranian_Turks%22&oldid=1202269948"