Talk:Tat people (Caucasus)

2004

They are Persian, they speak a dialect, so I'm changing it from just "Iranian" to persian.... check sources if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.227 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The same people that let me copy Derbent let me copy this. In fact, they let me copy anything I want from this whole website -User:Dagestan

Oy, don't shout. And I'm also wondering who will want to come to this page looking for Tattoos. RickK | Talk 04:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have the people's permission! This is ridiculous! -User:Dagestan

If you do have permission, you need to provide some sort of verification of that (post a copy of their permission letter here, and clearly cite the original source in the edit summary and/or article. -- Seth Ilys 04:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the email. I'll email them agiain. -User:Dagestan

OK, I've got the email:

Thank you for your message. You may use only the TEXT, not the images. Source should be mentioned as "Travel-images.com" Regards from Lisbon, Miguel Torres Curado http://travel-images.com (and Azerb.com)

(See? There's my permission!) -User:Dagestan

Uhhhhh... It's been a day now. Can you please bring it back? I have my proof. -User:Dagestan

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

tats in armenia

According to this site: [1] , there are very few tats in Armenia. Since the site has NK conflict materials, I did not put up in the page. But I do not see any reason they would makeup a tat population in armenia, so I have listed the country back. --alidoostzadeh 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• • But there they are talking about Armenian Tats, which has special article about them: Armeno-Tats. Ali (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mountain Jews are not "Tat converts to Judaism"

The predecessors of the Mountain Jews settled in Caucasus in the 5th–6th century and from that time on their history has been related to the mountains and the people of Azerbaijan and Dagestan. They are Jews who settled in the area, and took on the language, Tat, and many of the customs of the area they lived in, just like Jews did everywhere else in the world. There is no evidence that they are "descendants of converts". ---Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.27.93 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Tats of Derbent: Khazars

They are not Persian. Many have Mongolic and Turkic DNA and features, and just because they speak Tat doesn't make them Iranic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.57.142 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tats and Mountain Jews (Juhuro) are likely one and same nation. Genetics tests done in some Tat villages revealed close matches to Mountain Jews (I will provide links shortly). This support theory that Tats and Mountain Jews are 1 old nation. As some point - either Tats were converted to Islam or Mountain Jews accepted Judaism. Either way - Tats and Mountain Jews are the same - same looks, same language, different religion - that's about the ONLY difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuhuroNation (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Most likely case is that Tats are Mountain Jews Islam converts. This is supported by fact that some villages (and elders) in Dagestan still remember their Juhuro roots. Sometimes converts called themselves not Tats but took names of other local ethnicity. The supportive evidence is village of Usug in Dagestan, residents of which are Muslim however the belief is that the village was inhabited by Juhuro in the past. Hard evidence is hard to gather unless genetic tests are done on a per village basis. Either case, Tats and Mountain Jews are VERY closely related and most likely are one same nation.

in Turkey

There are around 20,000 Tats in Turkey as a result of some documents, some studies and public information. KazekageTR (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Can you provide a resource about this topic. Sounds very interesting. Ali (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

in Turkmenistan

Tat is a Turkic word usually given as exonyme to non-Turkic settling aborigines (non-Nomads). Thus Tat subgroup in Turkmenistan doesn't have any relation to Tats leaving in Caucasus. Ali (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Raayen

can you provide some proofs for the claim "They are Azerbaijani Persian like all other Azerbaijani which is supported with given sources in the article"? At least 3 of the academic sources in article show that Tats are Iranian people along with Persians, Kurds, etc. but not Persians by themselves ^ H. Pilkington,"Islam in Post-Soviet Russia",Psychology Press, Nov 27, 2002 . pg 27: "Among other indigenous peoples of Iranian origin were the Tats, the Talishes and the Kurds" ^ R. Khanam,"Encyclopaedic Ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia:P-Z, Volume 1",Global Vision Publishing Ho, 2005. pg 746:"The contemporary Tats are the descendants of an Iranian-speaking population sent out of Persia by the dynasty of the Sasanids in the fifth to sixth centuries." ^ T. M. Masti︠u︡gina, Lev Perepelkin, Vitaliĭ Vi͡a︡cheslavovich Naumkin, "An Ethnic History of Russia: Pre-Revolutionary Times to the Present",Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996 . pg 80:""The Iranian Peoples (Ossetians, Tajiks, Tats, Mountain Judaists)" Thanks, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Related people

The relation of the Tat people to Azerbaijani people is given in the following paper: Asadova, P. S. et al. (2003). "Genetic Structure of Iranian-Speaking Populations from Azerbaijan Inferred from the Frequencies of Immunological and Biochemical Gene Markers". Russian Journal of Genetics 39 (11): 1334–1342. - "Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan (the Talysh and Tats) are genetically closer to Azerbaijanis of the Republic than to other Iranian-speaking populations (Persian people and Kurds from Iran, Ossetians, and Tajiks)".
So Tat people are related to Azerbaijanis also genetically, but to Persians linguistically. See the article about Genetic origins of the Azerbaijani people, for more information.
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe genetically, but not genealogically. There's a big difference. The former refers to biological gene's, the latter to heritage, which follows the linguistic lineage for peoples. As said there, the Azerbaijani are genetically related to the peoples from the Caucasus. Although many have tried to determine linguistic lineage by looking at genes, this is simply not possible, because of language shift. The people in Azeri-speaking regions have shifted to using the Turkic of the invaders many hundreds of years ago, which creates continuity in terms of genes, but discontinuity in terms of language/heritage. I'm pretty sure "related peoples" is not really meant for genetics, certainly if you realize that some 85% or more of genetic variation is within populations, not between them. And some peoples are somewhat more similar to each other, which just means that the variation within a population is relatively greater w.r.t. the difference with this genetically more similar people. That said, we could say "(culturally influenced by and genetically)". --JorisvS (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The case is the Tat people consider themselves to be a sub-group of Azerbaijani people, whereas in fact (scientifically) they are not. The related people section is not for only language, geological, anthropological, etc. relations. You can see Azerbaijani people are related to Persian people as well, with whom the relation is much more less than with Tat people. You can not differ a Muslim Tat person from an Azerbaijani, otherwise than language, who are even in Russia fluent in Azerbaijani language. Joshua's Project says: They are usually bilingual in Azerbaijanian. Culturaly and according to their everyday life, the Tats are almost indistinguishable from the Azerbaijanians.

So my offer is just to see the related people of French people article, for example. Usually, the section includes the people who have relations like language, culture, heritage, religion, history, geographical ties, etc. The ONLY difference between the Tat and Azerbaijani people is language, which in fact include lots of borrowings from each other.

Most of the Tat people shifted to Azerbaijani language in the last century, still use self-designation "Daghli" (which is an exonym for Muslim Tats living in mountains given by Azerbaijani people), consider themselves as a subgroup of Azeri people. Even the name of the Azeri people come from Tat language. If it is not related, I don't know what is. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You've already made a case why to include Azerbaijani. The question is now really just how to include it. What about "(culturally influenced by, self-report, and genetically)". --JorisvS (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "(culturally and genetically)" is sufficient. Because the case here is not just influence, but shared cultural heritage. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All right, done. --JorisvS (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Terminology used on Armenian Christianity modified because NPOV

Article was using rude language on Armenian Christians, claiming falsely conversions to christianity are stimulated only by considerations from social status. This is clearly wrong. More neutral and unbiased words are used in this modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.229.152.200 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)