Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 1

Azeris Are NOT Indo-European
I'm an Iranian Azeri.But I don't think that Azeris are ethically indo-european.

Azeris are descendents of turk people ( Oghuz Turks). Unfortunatey most iranian azeris think they are ethnically IRANIAN!!! due to political propaganda.

Iranian is not an ethnological term. Iran is a country and iranian means the one who belongs to iran country despite of the ethnical specialities. then southern azeris ( azeris of iran) are iranian, but they are not indo-european.

All azeris (in Azerbaijan rep. or other countries) are ethnically Turkic. Their Morphological factors and genetic are very similar to turkic people (such as maxillary bone type or other special facts).

NO One has a good reason to prove that azeris are persian, or indo-european sub-group.

People of Iran are from various ethnic groups such as arabs, kurds, azeris, turkmens, lurs as well as persians. THEY ALL ARE IRANIAN, but they are not totally persian or indo-european.--Dr.Hamed 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just look in the face of Azeris and Persians and then look at the Turkic Kazakh and Turkmen, then you will understand why Azeris are Iranian in stock. Apart from this all the historical evidence show they are Iranians who lost their language to Turkic. It is a well-documented fact.

Take care. --Mani1 12:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

MR MANI1:

Don't change my talk headline, it is talk page, and I can say my opinion with my own headline for my Talk. You can't change my sentence "Azeris are not indo-european" to your own "Azeris are indo-european". understand?

and about the morphological facts: In small towns and villages of azerbaijan (where the ethnical mixtures are rare) you can see people with typical Turkish faces. their beard and maxillary bone structure and other facial and anatomical factors. I'm a medicine studentd in Tabriz.Azeri cadavers are compeltely different with Persian ones, even in arterial branches.

Your reason "Just look", is not a scientific reason.


 * "Indo-European" is not an ethnicity. It is a language group. Azeris do not speak an Indo-European language. Western Turks are did not mix with Mongolians and that is why they do not exhibit mongolian traits. AverageTurkishJoe 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a duplicate of Azeris.
Someone should investigate if it's a spelling issue, and in that case, which is better to use.

--Shallot 19:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Admin
This is the last time I am visiting this page as I find it very biased. The majority of accepted history versions here are coming from Iranians towards a turkic republics). Azeris are not an iranic people neither are related. We are a turkic people. Shohreh aghdashloo or most the other Iranians being fabricated into Azerbaijani history by the government sponsored propaganda of the Iranian diaspora and iri. Search up most of these names like Shohreh aghdashloo and googoosh that have been labelled as azerbaijanis and you will see that they represent Iranians in American show business. They represent Iran not Azerbaijan. I don't care about the so-called self- proclaimed south Azerbaijan. Just lay your hands off our country and stop accusing Azeris when your own self- proclaimed Iranian "Azerbaijan"'s problems. There is only one Azerbaijan republic. Look in the un, one Azerbaijan. Iranians do not represent Azerbaijan. A poll in Azerbaijan indicated that 86% of the country wants an alliance with turkey. Iran got 2% vote, Russia 9% and none 3%. So lay off !! And stop trying to represent everything azeri as Iranian to the world. You should have seen the streets in baku during world cup soccer 2002 when turkey became 3rd, joy and parties everywhere. The streets were crowded and people screaming "turkiye-asazerbaycan". Tabi Yeter Issizler

Take it easy, man... Before second half of 20th century Iranians had no influence on ezternal view of the area. If you think that you right support your opinions properly.Yeti 22:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm an Azeri from Iran
Azeris speak a Turkic language but they are, just like the Persians, an Indo-Iranian ethnicity. Some Azeris resent Persian chauvinism, but for the overwhelming majoirity, the identification with Iran is exceptionally strong. The fact that many of Iran's rulers, from the Safavid dynasty to the Qajars, were Azeris, or the fact that the current "Supreme Leader" is also Azeri, I am sure does make the notion that Iran is somehow an "alien" land bizzare for us. There are twice as many Azeris in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan. Most of Iranian national heroes like Sattar Khan, Bagher Khan and even Dr. Mosadegh were Azeri. Azerbaijan is Iran. It's the birthplace of Zartosht (Zorastor). - Yalda

Why does no one talk about Azeri Genocide? It is much more important than the contraversy about whether azeris are turk or not! Azeri Genocide by Armenians should be the backbone of Azeri nationality and history. It happened a decade ago and still occupies 20 percent of Azerbaijan under occupation and we let the world to turn a blind eye on this topic. Come n guys.

---Parishan 0:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess, I'm the only Azerbaijani/Azeri here, and I pretty much agree that the article has got completely messed up. Shallot, Shohreh Aghdashloo IS Azerbaijani, no matter what others say. It's obvious even from her name, which can be easily translated from Azeri: "agh" - white, "dash" - stone, "loo" - one of the typical endings for an Azeri lastname. Same with Googoosh. Her parents were originally from Baku and they emigrated to Iran in early 1950s, i.e. before she was actually born. Azerbaijanis of Iran are the majority of today's world's Azerbaijanis. You have no right to call them "self-proclaimed" or "false".

Other Turkic Peoples
Other Turkic peoples who have inhabited Azerbaijan besides those labeled as the Oghuz Turks (majority population in Azerbaijan in the 10th and 11th centuries) were the Scythians and Massagets (both reffered to as Ishkuz) Salars, Avars, Huns, Gok-Turks, Barsils, Saragurs, Kurtugurs, Khazars and the Ilkhanids. The ancient civilizations of the land such as that of Sumer, Elam, Urartu, Mannai, Media and Albania were inhabited by Ural-Altaic (proto-Turkic) peoples. It should be noted that under Mongol pressure in the 13th century, Turkic tribes under the Ilkhanid banner also settled in large numbers in Azerbaijan to escape Mongol persecution.

1. There are no proofs that Turkic peoples constituted a majority of polulation n 10th century. 2. There is commonly accepted that Scythians ans Massagetes were Iranian tribes. This is suppotred by available historical records, archeological findings, language analisis etc. Theories supported by some Turkic scientists about their Turkic origins are not supported by any serious proofs. The first documented Turkic settlemtnt of the sorrounding areas occured after 4th century. 3. Claim that Sumer, Elam, Urartu, Mannai, Media and Albania were inhabited by Ural-Altaic (proto-Turkic) peoples can not be supported by mainstream science.

To summarise: This is a nationalistic bias, which has nothing to do with history.

Azeri is the ethnicity, Azerbaijani is the nationality (aka citizenship) There is also a region in northern Iran that is called Azerbaijan.

I removed the following sentence : Most Azeris are businessmen (Vahid Alekperov, the head of "LukOil"), lawyers (Shirin Ebadi, the Noble Prize winner), musicians (Aziza Mustafa Zadeh), actors (Shohreh Aghdashloo, "The House of Sand and Fog", the Oscar nominee), and scientists (Lotfi Zadeh, Ali Javan). While i have no doubt that these people are important, I have stumbled over the begin of the sentence "Most Azeri are...". Are there no carpenters, shoemakers, plumbers or farmers among Azeris??? Please reformulate into something more sensible. Refdoc 21:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do regret the removal of the "Garden of Eden" remark. It was one of the most endearing features of this article :-). No, seriously - how important is this as a e.g. national myth? Is there actually a concrete place e.g. pilgrimage destination for the Garden of Eden or something similar - If yes, however fanciful the connection might be I think it should be part of the article. If on the other hand this was simply a remark, based on a superficial/wishful reading of the Bible to say - "You thought we are small but we are really SOOOO big!", then yes let us forget it. Refdoc 10:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I had never heard anything of the Garden of Eden thing, and I'm almost sure there is no national pilgrimage site or anything like that for it. It's ridiculous, and I think is really offensive to sane Azeris. A claim like that will ridicule the Azeris, which is not neutral.


 * When I told that to two of my Azeri colleagues (born in Tabriz and Urumia), they were ashamed. They hadn't heard about it either (while one had heard about the Sumerian thing). If someone has written that "there are also claims that Moses is buried in South Azerbaijan", should have we kept it? roozbeh 14:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well there are all sorts of fanciful claims for all sorts of people's graves etc around. (not just Iran and Azerbaijan) most prophets have a several burial grounds, the Via Dolorosa has AFAIK little connection with the actual route of Jesus on his walk to Golgatha/Calvary and if you put together the available splinters of the true cross you will get a whole forest - hence I would not be too suprised to have someone claiming "Here is where the Garden of Eden was". But thanks for the info anyway. It seems to be better out than in... Refdoc 15:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are no nations in the world that are pure. Persians themselves are mixtures of 10s of different nations (Assyrian, Scythians, Greeks) and so on. The same with English- they are mixtures of Anglos and Saxons, the same with Italians. So there are no pure nations. However, there is a notion of ethincity. Azeris are ethnically Turks- despite many people here trying to portray them as mixtures of Persians and Turks. There may be mixtures as I said every nation has, however, if the Turkic language prevailed in the Azeri nation then it means their Turkish ethnicity have become very predominant and therefore Azeris cannot be called a mixture of Perisians and Turks. The Azeri nation has no myth of being associated with the Persians. Yes we have always been associated with the state of Iran and Persia but not to the Persians. Azeris throughout history have always been prouf of their Turkish descent and it shows them being Turks by ethnicity! So full stop to this selseless arguments!

Removal of POV notice
I propose to take down the dispute messages in 48 hrs if no objection regarding content comes up. When the note went onto the article, everything here looked very different... Refdoc 22:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Population Estimate
The new wording for the population says "it is estimated", instead of "it is claimed". What is the source for that estimate? I guess not many people will agree with the estimates. roozbeh 11:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope, probably not, as they are guesstimates. The source - myself. I added the widely varying numbers which were hanging around in the various Azarbaijan related articles here on Wikipedia and gave a sum for the lower end (and deducted a bit more) and a further one for the higher end and added a bit more. The numbers were/are widely diverging and this is quite annoying, therefore a better estimate would be highly appreciated. But 'claim' sounds like dishonesty, while estimate says just this - better numbers are needed. At the moment though I think this range is much better than a definite, but inaccurate number as our anonymous friend is banding about. Refdoc 13:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too many reverts
I have been asked by two different contributors to take a look at the Azerbaijanis article, and other related articles. My initial glance shows too much reverting.

These excessive reverts are being done by "logged-in contributors" just as much as by "anonymous" ones. That's the problem, as I see it.

Find common base
The solution I'm going to propose is this:


 * Find a common base in any disputed version; instead of reverting the whole thing, make sure you preserve at least one good part of it.

For example, if someone adds a good header (but also deletes or mangles a passage of text you cherish), DON'T revert the whole thing, but DO cut and paste that good header.

More advice to come, after I make a few edits to demonstrate what I mean. (Oh, and who am I to jump in and give all this advice? Well, I've been at Wikipedia longer than 99% of the current contributors, for one thing :-) --Uncle Ed 12:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, take a look at the new project page I created: Restoring part of a reverted edit --Uncle Ed 15:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to do just that in the recent edits, and have come to your "use a good part" independently. The problem is that it may solve one side of the problem, but not the other. I agree that half is better than nothing, and I'm doing that. roozbeh 13:41, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

''uniting previous Turkic inhabitants. The later group also believe that prior to that there were also traces of Caucasian peoples, such as the tribe of Chols as well as Indo-Europeans, who are often labeled as Iranic people.'' - can you support this thesis? Why do you claim that previous inhabitans were Turkic with only traces of Inouropeans and Caucassians. As far as I know this is highly controversial in the view of mainstream science.Yeti 10:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have no clue..
Hi, when I came to the site I fond this message;

--- User talk:198.81.26.80 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You are editing the Azerbaijanis article without explaining your objectiong on its talk page. If you continue to do the removal of information and not explaining your actions or answering questions, you will be blocked. roozbeh 10:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) ---

To be honest I have no idea how this can have be done by me, or my pc because I have been on a vacation for one and my pc has not been turned on, no one can access my house and second, if this article had not been brought under my attention just now, I would probably never have known of it's existance and I do not know anything on this subject and have the ethics to not ever add or change anything without expertise and research on a subject. I just came home from my vacation to find this message.

Hopefully this clears this up, I would really not know I got to get this message, or even if that is my ip address (to be honest) but apart from a wonder, I do not think it could have been done. My pc is passwords protected also btw.

Edited; checked and that is not my ip address.

with all respect, Ferre

Tabib's version and my reversal
While Tabib claims NPOVing the opposite has been achieved. I am all for getting the balance right, but the reverted-to version had teh advantage of being supporte dby sources, while Tabib's largely is not supported by sources. Also it introduces the term South-Azerbaijan as a fact while the term itself is expression of a POV. Further the classification of the Republic of Azerbaijan as part of the "historic Azerbaijan" annexed and divided is POV, anotehr is that the name has been Transferred" in order to support territorial claims. I am not saying any of this is right or wrong, but a wholesale cull of a version which tried to mention all disputes and all different angles and insertion of one which shows a single POV as the whole truth is a very poor move. Refdoc 23:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit belated but just wanted to note that Refdoc was talking about this edit (note, between my edit and Refdoc's reversal there were several other edits by other users too, see history log for details). I was not actively involved in this page so far, but I hope with help of other editors including Refdoc we can help this page to develop.--Tabib 15:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Azeris are not Turks
I am Azeri man. Yet, I have my minor ethnicity group - Talysh. The latter involves people coming from the Southern area of Azerbaijan. These people have almost identical cultural values with Turkic people but the language is different. It is more like Persian. Also, people residing in the Northern area of Azerbaijan who call themselves Azeris, speak Taty and their ethnicity group is Tat. We can conclude that being Azeri does not mean the same as being Turkic except for the language... To illustrate the difference in societal and ethnical roots and convergence in language, I will use the UK example. People in UK, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, all speak English but they would be strongly offended by being called English themselves. In nowadays Azerbaijan, I can see many people who think of themselves as Turkic, but they are not in reality. These people have been raised with the only thought in their minds that they can not ever have their national identity. Seventy years of occupation by Russians and their communist regime made Azeri people speak fluent Russian and ignore their beloved Turkic language. If you got to down-town squares and central streets in Baku, a capital and the largest metropolitan area of Azerbaijan, there are people speaking Russian only, some for fashion dying on the vine... Now the fashion seems to be to speak Turkic which is slightly different from Azeri language. Coming to the soccer game parade following the third tournament position of Turkey's national team, we, people in Azerbaijan, used to cheer up Russians when they played world cups... So let people trying to convince the world that Azeri people are Turkic calm down, and stop confusing everybody. One must have no respect to his country's history or cultural heritage represented by the think-giants such as Fizuly, who was writing mainly in Arabic and Persian, or King (Shah) Ismayil assassinated by Turkic aristocrat, Sultan Salem during the private audience, to ignore the facts and call for the external links with Turks.

P.S. I am an Azeri man, but not Turkic at all.

'''Dear "Azeri who is not Turkic at all",

Azeri, Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani Turk is a name given to or taken by the Turkic speaking population in Azerbaijan Republic, IRI, Turkey and etc. Giving or adopting this name to non-Turkic speaking population of Azerbaijan, IRI and Turkey, especially over Talish, Tats, and etc does not help to imrove the situation at all, but actually serves to the assimiliation of this people. To be called British or Azerbaijani by your citizenship is your right but to ask to be called Azeri by ethnicity is your assimilation. Enough of Kasravi deeds. True, under Soviet rule, as Iranian speaking Talish people of Azerbaijan were taken away from census almost for a 50 years, most of Talish preferred themselves or were "asked" to name themselves "Azerbaijani" when it came to ethnicity. But today, when there is all the freedom you want in chosing your ethnicity, you do not have to name yourself Azeri or Azerbaijani, except the case when it comes to your citizenhsip (when applicable).

Moreover, being accurate and honest fits all people regardless of their nationality, ethnicity or race. I truly did not want to see here lies from any ethnicity about Fuzuli or Shah Ismayil Safavi. First, Fuzuli wrote mostly in his own Turkman Azerbaijani, whereas Shah Ismayil survived Yavuz Sultan Selim by 4 years (!)''' --Ulvi I. 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

I am growing increasingly ashamed of the despicable fanatical conduct of some AZERBAIJANI compatriots!!!!
Would the Azerbaijani person, who is lecturing everybody on his blatant  P O V , while calling any aposthates from his opinion "vandals" (sic), quit his shameful conduct!? He increasingly sheds (very) bad light on honest and sincere Azerbaijani folks, who are not guided by political kaders in Baku (or receive kickbacks for spreading propaganda).--Deli-Eshek 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Azeris
I believe that before Azeris can talk about Pan-Turkism a they should think about a Pan-Azeri nation encompassing both northern and southern Azerbaijan. I am a proud Azeri, who is proud of his heritage and traditions. I also consider myself a Turk. However, I am first and foremost an Azeri. Iran/Persia has long been a close friend and ally of the Azeri and proto-Azeri people. However, they have cut our nation in two, preventing an Azeri union. I understand that it is all politics and economics that have permeated this division, but as an ultra-nationalist and an idealist I hope to live to see the day when Azeri can be united again. Then we can talk about Pan-Turkism. Forgive me if my article is not to the highest of standards, I am young and sometimes foolish.

Sincerly, Ulvi

Dear User, Please use proper signature to avoid further confusion. Thank you for understanding. --Ulvi I. 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

THE IRANIANS HAVE CUT YOUR NATION IN 2!!!! SHAME ON YOU! IT WAS ALL A PART OF IRAN UNTIL THE RUSSIANS TOOK IT! AZERIS ARE IRANIANS BY RACE AND NOT TURKS.

Azeris no longer exist
The Turkic population of Azerbaijan are not true "Azeris." They are a hodgepodge of mainly Turkified Iranians and nomadics Turks. Prior to the 15th century a true nation of Azerbaijan existed, and it was an Iranian nation in that they spoke an Iranian language (Azeri), had Iranian customs, and shared in Iranian history. This "old Azeri" language was a Northwestern Iranian language, related to Kurdish and Zazaki. The only true Azeris are the Tat and Talysh; the rest are simply Turks, and should just accept that.

Azeri

To you whom are writing and editing that the azeri are a turkic people have absolutly no scientific or historic basis on this claim, please research on the subject and you will find out that a) they are desendents of the Medes in Persian Maadha, and they have been living in on the Iranian plateue since 1000-700 bc. b) their language have been changed into a turkic dialect in the 12 century AD, but this not change the fact that they are an Iranian people.

your claims are deeply disturbind and have no historical basis, please stop rewriting history in this way, I am myself an azari, and I know my past, I have nothing against turkic people but we share the same language, not the same DNA or culture, we are Iranian!

the fact that the Irish and Scotts speak english does not either make them english

/an Azari

Azeris are not Turks
It seems like Azeris are neither Turkic nor Iranian, but of Armenian 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. However, whereas the mtDNA results show that Caucasian groups are more closely related genetically to European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast the Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East than with Europe. -    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 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. -213.39.128.63 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article about the DNA gives some interesting facts, but the conclution above doesn't make sense to me. The DNA article states that both Azerbaijanis and Armenians are predomenately Caucasians (equal to the Caucasian tribes like Lezgi, Udin) and not Indo European (Persian), Armenian or Turk. The traces of Indo European and Near East influence show that there are som woman that have moved (probably with their family) from European tribes and som men (probably warriors or migranst) coming from Near East tribes.


 * It is known that the Armenians (as a language people) originally came from a location further south, around the lake Van in Turkey. I have also seen on historical maps the Armenian area 2100+ years ago being an area of Turkey touching the Mediteranian around Antioch (Antakia).

Title
One has to separate history from reality, and stop attempts to use on to change the other. One has to accept that today, influence of Iran upon Azerbaijan is minuscule comparing to that of Turkey. The reason is obvious, Iran's support for Azerbaijan's worst enemy - Armenia. As long as this condition, along with resulting Azerbaijan's orientation towards U.S. persists, there can be no appreciation in North Azerbaijan of the fact that most of Azeri Turkic brethren live in Iran. The fault is mostly that of Iranian/Persian propaganda machine, whether under Shah or Islamic regime.

But leave alone politics and international relations. We are talking about history. It's impossible to deny that all of peoples/ethnos/cultures that existed on the territory of Azerbaijan have relation to origins of modern Azeri people. Whether it's Caucasian Albanians, Iranian Medes/Atropats, or 1500 years of Turkic brethren, they all are our origins. Nevertheless, I have to question the opinion of a fella who declared below that Azeris are Iranian ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined by language and nothing else, and Azeris are of Turkic ethnicity. Culturally, Azeris share both Iranian and Turkish cultures, as well as any other culture that surrounded or inhabitted Azeri land, this is natural.

Finally, it's incomprehensible to me why current international relations should change the truth of history. This is exactly the pit that Iranian side is falling into. The Islamic regime and its unobvious allies among Iranian Diaspora are trying hard to erase Turkic resemblance in Azeri origin, thinking that this would enforce Iranian unity. Iranian diaspora websites call Azeris as Iranian people, while Turkmens are Turkic? Why? Didn't Turkic Azeris integrate and live in Iranian society for ages by remaining Turkic speakers and Turks? The glory of Iran came under Turkic rulers of Safavi and Qajars. Why should their history be rewritten, changed now just for the sake of some sick ideologists, whose thinking is only limited to ethnicity? This is not right for 21st century, this is something Nazis did 50 years ago and failed.

Similarly, there was a considerable Iranian influence on Azeri history and origins as well, and nothing wrong with that either. Yes, Azeri origins extend to Zoroastrianism, Babak Khorramdin (who is considered a hero in Azerbaijan), Sassanids as well. This is how the culture emerged in mixture with mostly Turkic elements. I think it's beautiful, and Azeris should cherish their origins, rather than fall into Iranian trap of erasing history and rewriting it as either Turkish or Iranian. We, Azeris, do not need to be Turkish or Iranian, we have our own statehood, culture, language, nation, and building upon true and distinct background will help us overcome our enemies whether in Iran, Armenia, Russia or elsewhere, countries that do not want to see Azerbaijan on the world map.


 * Ethnicity is not defined by language if that is the case most Africans are Europeans becasue they speak English or French or Spanish. Azeris are not Turks even the people of Turkey are not ethnic Turks. Ethnic Turks live in eastern Kakastan and Central Asia. They are an Oriental people like the Mongols and we all know this. As for the issue of Caucasian and Iranian stock they are so similar that it is somethimes argued to consider them as one genetic stock.

Title
A couple of topics to consider:

1. When talking about azerbaijanis, one should distinguish between those that live in Iran (the majority) who have kept their Iranian heritage much more than citizens of the republic of Azerbaijan. Those azerbaijanis that have lived under Russian influence for the past 150 years are less influenced by the Iranian culture than those living in Iran. So the opinion of the author beneath is only valid for a minority of Azeris.

2. Ethnicity is much more than language; Ethnicity is composed of language, history, culture, traditions, festivals, cousine, etc. If ethnicity was "language and nothing else" as the author beneath suggests then the Brazilians should be considered Portugese since they speak the same language! Ofcourse, anyone who has visited these two countries, knows how meaningless such a notice is! The same is valid about Iranian Azeris, who have a very strong Iranian ethincity.

I am a Turk of Turkey
And I would like to tell that any statement claiming that "Azeris are of Persian stock" is nothing but hollow Persian propaganda. Iranis know that the largest ethnic group living in Iran are the Turks (Azeri, Afshar, Turkmen etc.) and because of their Turcofobia they are telling these lies to Southern Azerbaijanis. If they are Iranis who have lost their linguistic characteristics by the time of Mongol invasion, i would like to ask "why do not they speak Mongol but Turkish?". The area of Azerbaijan have been a Turkish land for more than a thousand years, and whole area of Iran had been ruled by Turks (Seljuks, Ilkhanids, Timurids, Safavids, Qachars) until Pahlavi dynasty.

Tats, Talysh etc. does not deserve to call themselves as Azerbaijani at all. I myself perfectly know their role in the overthrow of Elchibey.

Azerbaijan is the land where many pan-turkists were born. Ali Bey Hüseynzade, Ebulfeyz Elçibey, Mehmet Emin Resulzade. The greatest poet of Turkish, Fuzuli was also an Azerbaijani.

The anthropologic structure of Oghuz from the other Turkic groups is different. All sub-groups have different characteristics indeed. Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Nogay are of Kipchak group, they have more Mongoloid admixture than Oghuz (Gagauz, Azeri, Turks, Turkmen). This does not change the truth that we are one!

Objective: Turan.

Men bilirem ki dediklerim birgün gerçek olacak. Tanrı Türk'ü Qorusun!


 * ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THIS IGNORANT MANS STATMENTS AND SEE WHAT LIES ARE COMING FROM TURKEY. First of all Turks have not even been in the Middle East that long you liar.

Azeri Oil Field ??
Isn't there a large oil/gas field called "Azeri"? Does anyone know where that is?


 * Its probably in Baku but definitly in the Absheron region, most of the oil is from that area Baku87 20:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Regarding genetic evidence
I added a genetic studies section that might help with the debate as to who the modern Azeris are by way of ancestry. The initial results appear to show that they are native to the Caucasus and have instead absorbed other peoples over time, while maintaining their native Caucasian base. This may not be popular with many people, but I just thought I'd try to make a constructive addition. No offense was meant to anyone as I think it's more important to use all the tools we can to determine the past. Thanks. Tombseye 00:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Albanian historians
Just one observation. The Albanian historians by the names of Moses Kalankaytuk, Kalankatly and Moisey Khaghankatli are actually the same one person. This should be corrected. Grandmaster 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ismail I picture
Just want to say that I'm the guy who up Ismail's picture in the first place, but there is some debate regarding his 'authentic' Azeri background so I wanted to substitute his picture with another, although I'm not entirely convinced he doesn't qualify as Azeri. Also being Jewish should not exclude someone from being Azeri as with Radjabov (someone commented on his inclusion). It's an ethnic group, not a religion. Tombseye 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how some one would exlude Shah Ismail from being Azerbaijani. He was considered to be of "pure" Turkish descent. I put pure in brackets because, it is impossible to be of any pure blood in such a region, and his maternal grandmother was a princess from Greek Trabzon Empire. But that aside, Safawids are known to be Turkish, the debate about their origins is actually modern and is mostly politic. There is no mention of Kurdish or any other origin of Ismail I. It's just some people can not tolerate the fact that one of the greatest dynasties of Iran was in fact Turkish and now they have thrown this Kurdsih origin theory, which is totally baseless. I also think that the user's comment on Radjabov is appropriate. If he, being Jewish but born and raised in Azerbaijan is considered an Azerbaijani then why not Shah Ismail? Radjabov actually is a native Russian speaker, in which case we have more reason to consider Shah Ismail an Azerbijani than Radjabov. At least Shah Ismail was a native Turkish speaker. --TimBits 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've been reading conflicting views on the origins of the Safavids is the problem. I read an entry in Encyclopedia Americana which stated that the Safavi family were of Kurdish background, but had assimilated into Azeri culture and spoke Azeri Turkish. This is an unusual case here as the Azeris themselves are largely not of Central Asian background and show the most similarity to the peoples of the Caucasus. To add to the confusion, the Kurds, although speakers of an Iranian language, also cluster closer to the peoples of the Caucasus. In addition, as so many have stated, it's not inconceivable that many Kurds were assimilated into Azeri culture as were the Albanians. I'm not really going to push this issue as it's kind of border-line.


 * I was under the impression that Radjabov was a native Azeri of Jewish religion and not a Russian Jew. Didn't a lot of Azeri Jews (and others in the Caucasus) simply adopt Russian during the Russian Empire and Soviet period rather than being Russian Jews who are distinct? I mean there are native Jews in the Caucasus, so exclusion by religion seems more of a stretch to me than someone who had assimilated from another ethno-linguistic group. Since the Safavis origins seem to be difficult to pin down, I'm not going to press the issue one way or the other, but I am arguing for the inclusion of Radjabov until someone proves to me that he's a Russian transplant. Tombseye 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Radjabov is an ethnic Azeri, but apparently his got some Jewish background as well. In Azerbaijan, and particularly in Baku many people, including ethnic Azeris, speak Russian, it’s a second popular language here, but that doesn’t make the speakers of that language ethnic Russians. Grandmaster 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Radjabov is definetely not a Russian Jew. He just learned Russian as a first language and also speaks Azerbaijani, although with some diffiulty. The same is true for many people in Azerbaijan, including the children of Ilham Aliyev, the president. Even if he was Russian ethnically, I would still consider him Azerbaijani. He was born and raised there and represents Azerbaijan. My point though is that, if Radjabov, being Jewish and speaking Russian as a first language is considered Azerbaijani then, no one can say that Shah Ismail does not belong to Azerbaijani people. Even if we accept that his ancestory was Kurdish, this does not change anything. He is more associated with Azerbaijani Turks than Kurds. This does not mean that he should not be considered Iranian at the same time. Most of the Azerbaijanis are Iranians. So, I would say, keep Shah Ismail's picture. --TimBits 05:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. I also think that the pictures of Shah Ismail and Teymur Radjabov should remain, but we should replace the picture of Lala Sovket, who’s just another politician in Azerbaijan, with that of somebody more prominent, like Kerim Kerimov, Uzeyir Hajibeyov, Rashid Behbudov, Gara Garayev, Fikret Amirov, etc. I think Azeri culture and science should be reflected in those photographs as well. Grandmaster 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but this list shouldn't be too long and exclusively formed of people from Azerbaijan Republic. Iranian Azerbaijanis and others also deserve to be represented. --TimBits 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are only 4 pictures there, so we obviously won’t be able to include too many people, and I suggest we replace Lala Shovket with somebody else. Nothing personal, I just think there are more prominent Azeri people that deserve to be included there. Grandmaster 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to replacing Lala, but I would hope that there could be another women put in her place. The reason being that I think it's a good idea to include women since they make up half the population on the planet and are often ignored. Just my two cents. Also, as for the Shah Ismail issue, I'm okay with keeping him and just wanted to discuss this issue because a user pointed his situation out to me, although I was aware of the mixed situation with the Safavis (with a mainly Azeri background interspersed with Kurdish groups), but had not looked into Shah Ismail's background further. Obviously, Ismail can be argued as a member of both Azeri and Kurdish peoples. Not a problem for me if he's included here. Tombseye 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Lala was replace already. Okay by me. Tombseye 18:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It was me who put in Mehriban Aliyeva in place of Lala. She's the first lady of Azerbaijan and a very prominent social activist. A lot more famous than lala and a helluva lot more better looking(*wink*). Got the image off her personal website. Any objections ? User:Mrent


 * I have no problems with Mehriban replacing Lala. She is a lot easier on the eyes too! I hope there aren't any copyright problems though. Other than that I think she's a great substitute. Tombseye 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The copyright should work out fine(I think). Is Larissa Dolina an Azeri or Russian ? She's from Azerbaijan, but im not sure about her ethnicity. User:Mrent

No problem for me - We could insert Natavan instead but what the hell. Ismail Shah Khatai is clearly identified with Azeri people. I would be quite surprised if Kurds identify with him... He has neither wrote in Kurdish, nor he was Sunni, like most of Shias. Now, Sheyki Safi (XiVc) may have been of Kurdish stock but so what. Do not forget that his mother, Despina was the daughter of Trebizond Greek emperor. It does not make him Greek, does it Abdulnr 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Azeri Identity
Here's Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism at work again. My father is an ethnic Azeri TURK from Hamadan Province. Azeris ARE Turks, whether my Persian brethren like it or not...oh, did I mention my mother is Persian? So you see, I am not anti-Persian...how could I be when my own mother is Persian? Answering those who claim they are Azeris but not Turks, I wonder if they have been brainwashed by Iran's policy of "Farsification" (more like "falsification") of Azeri history and culture. Men ozum azeriyem, ve hemishe deyirem ki torkum...tork fars deyir, qanirsanmi? Biz torkuz. I do not favor secession for Azerbaijan, but I do favor autonomy for Iran's Azeri provinces (East/West Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Zanjan, and Hamadan provinces). The more the mullahcracy continues to deny us our linguistic and cultural rights, the more we will gravitate towards Baku.

Once again, I am not anti-Persian. My mother is Persian, and because of the common Shi'ite faith and common Iranian nationality, there have been millions of mixed Azeri-Persian intermarriages, of which I myself am a product of. There are over 4 million Azeris in Tehran alone, more than any city in Azerbaijan proper, and Azeris run many of the businesses in Tehran. Azeris may be well integrated in Iranian society due to their being fellow Shi'ite correligionists, and there may be many Azeris in prominent positions in the Iranian government. But that does not change the fact that young Azeri children attending school in Tabriz have to learn arithmetic, geography and science in Persian, a language that does not come naturally to them. With over 35 million Azeris, Iran has not made the slightest attempt to make Azeri Iran's second official language, and in Azerbaijan, schools, government offices, public institutions, newspapers, TV and radio stations all use Persian, and not Azeri. Azeri is not allowed to be taught in schools, and the language of instruction is Persian, resulting in many young Azeri children falling behind academically. Finally, we Azeri TURKS will never forgive the mullahcracy for supporting Armenia's terrorist campaign against our people in Qarabag...the mullahs watched as their fellow Shi'ites were slaughtered like sheep, and this was a slap in the face for Iran's own 35 million strong Azeris. Armenians in Tehran freely demonstrate in front of the Turkish Embassy, yet Azeris are not allowed to demonstrate and protest in front of the Armenian Embassy. Once again, I do not favor secession, since I come from a mixed family, and do not want to see my family split in two countries. But Iran's ethnic Azeri Turks have rights. Our legitimate national aspirations must be addressed. Yashasin xalqimiz, yashasin torpaqimiz, yashasin dilimiz.


 * Ya alright. The majority of Mullahs are Azeris and so are all the bankers, industrialists, and military commanders. The Spiritual Leader of Iran is an Azeri. Azeris run Iran and if you look at all the last dynasties in Iran you will see they were Azeri. The Safavids and Qajars were Azeris. One can argue Azeris repress Kurds and Persians. As for what you say about Armenia, let me tell you that Armenia is Iran's friend while the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan is working with Israel and America to undermine and dismantle Iran.

As for your claims that Azeris are Turks that is simply false because Turks are ethnically Asiatic peoples related to Mongolians. Do you look like an East Asian? Do the peoples of Turkey even look like East Asians? NOOOOO

'''But the real Turks in Central Asia look like East Asians because they are ethnic Turks. So please stop these false statements.'''

"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.


 * Please buy the article and read it. Nasidze et. al. did not use any subjects from Turkey and Turkmenistan. It is curious that they did not since these countries are the closest Turkish speaking countries to Azerbaijan. Instead they used published data for subject from Kyrgyz, Karakalpak, Kazak, Dungan and Uzbek. Another interesting fact about the article is that (on page 6 of the article, which is page 260 in the publication) there is a graph that shows the phylogenetic  relationship of Y-chromosome  haplogroups, based on 10  Y-SNPs and the YAP marker.  which shows that both Azerbaijanis and Armenians are closer to Turks of Turkey then the the Iranian populations. They don't even mention Iranians as the original population. AverageTurkishJoe 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * it is here freely available http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Y-paper.pdf AverageTurkishJoe 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion after the fact of Racial proof
They are turks, since they speak a Turkic language. Turkic nations belong to different races, but have one thing in common – the language. This is what makes them turks, and not chromosomes. Regards, Grandmaster 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * SO are basically saying that Africans who speak Russian are Slavic! What about race? Do not give irrational explainations and try to redefine science to meet your wrong Pro-Turkish agendas.


 * Yes they are Slavic. Look at great Russian poet Pushkin. His grandfather was from Ethiopia, and Pushkin himself was of mixed race, but he is the greatest Russian poet. It is the language that makes people who they ethnically are, not chromosomes. Grandmaster 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya so he was mostly Russian. SO YOU ARE SAYING KURDS ARE TURKS TOO! That is the sort of mentality that Turk has trying to delete other peoples identies through propaganda and not listening to science and fact. I see you are claiming Kurds are Turks. No they are not! Turkey tried to force the Kurds into becoming Turks by outlawing their langauge and identy and callling them Mountain Turks. What rubbish.
 * I never said anything about kurds, please stop arguing with me about the words I never said. Kurds are not turks, if they don’t consider Turkish language their native tongue and have their own ethnic identity. If Turkish is their mother tongue and they consider themselves turks, they are turks. I know many Turks of Kurdish origin, and Azeris of Kurdish origin as well. At the same time I know ethnic kurds too. I don’t understand why you are trying to deny the Azeri people their right to have their own distinct ethnicity? How come that I’m Iranian if I don’t know a single word in farsi? My native language is Azerbaijani, and I also speak pretty good Russian, but I’m not Russian, because it’s not my native language and I consider myself an Azeri. Regards, Grandmaster 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster is absolutely correct. If africans assimilated and lived all of their lives in Turkey, and identified with Turks, they are in fact of Turkish nationality, but of different racial stock. We do not need to search for examples too long - French are not considered Celtic or Germanic people, they are Latin people because of language and not ethnical affiliation of neighbors. Another good example is Khazara peoples from Aphganistan - descentants of Mongols speaking Dari. They are not Mongols,and in fact will become fully Persian or Tajik under proper conditions. Abdulnr 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Puskin was ethnically Russian you foget this as opposed to someone who without any Russian background speaking Russian who would not be considered Russian. You are basically saying anyone can pick their race. Okay I'll be Japanese today, Arabic tommorow, and German on Fridays wiith your logic.


 * Turks would never consider them Turks stop kidding yourself! They don't even treat Kurds and Armenians properly. Let alone Africans on mass.


 * Actually French are considered a Germanic race of various backgrounds including Celtic. Even historically France was a part of the Germanic Empire of charlemagne which was a German Empire. The name Frank which French comes from is not a Latin name but a Germanic one. YOU ARE WRONG AND THERE FOR AZERIS ARE IRANIANS AND NOT TURKS JUST LIKE WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF ASSERTS AND CLEARLY STATES. AZERIS ARE IRANIAN. Don't try to redefine terms to your fancy. Before you said there race is Turkic then when it is proven that it is not you use culture and language as an excuse. WELL AZERI CULTURE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER IRANIAN PEOPLES. NAme differences and also note that the little differences in the Republic of Azerbaijan are 'ALIEN' changes caused through RUSSIFICATION in the last 150 years that it was taken from Iran.

Yes Grandmaster is correct. Also, the Azeris aren't necessarily Armenians as the more probable origin links them to the Albanians of the Caucasus, while the Armenians, speakers of an IndoEuropean language themselves, also cluster with a related Caucasian people whose language was replaced by Indo-European invaders whose language is today of course Armenian. In this tangled web, this can become quite confusing to relate, but simply calling the Azeris an Iranian people simply makes no sense. In fact, it'd make more sense to call them a Caucasian people, but since neither the Azeris or Armenians speak a Caucasian language this is also not a viable option. The best and most logical option is to classify the Azeris as a Turkic people and then one can also explain their origins in addition. Tombseye 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster is wrong and he knows it. Look of the term race and ethnic group it is more than language. Azeris are clearly a Turkic speaking Iranian peoples.

Azeris in Iran
First of all to the Persian who claims Azeris rule Iran...please wake up...Ayatollah Khamenei is only half Azeri, and was born in Mashad, far from Azerbaijan or Iran's Azeri provinces, and his native tongue is Persian, and he hardly identifies with Azeri people or culture, and is about as Persianized as you can get. As for your claim that the most powerful mullahs in Iran are Azeri, name a few please. The most powerful Azeri mullah in Iran Shariatmadari fought the Farsification or Persianization of Iranian Azeris, and was quickly silenced by the Persian bullies of the Islamic Republic. As for the Republic of Azerbaijan's relation with America, that is because Russia supports Armenia, and the only way to counter that is by forging an alliance with another powerful country like America. As for the Kurds, they are of Iranian stock, yet they seem to have problems with BOTH their ethnic brethren the Persians, not because of any major linguistic or cultural differences, because being of Iranian origin no such differences exist (Kurdish being a sister language of Persian, and Kurdish culture being close to Persian), and Azeris, because they dislike SHI'ITES. As for Armenia, being Iran's friend...Armenia is nothing but a landlocked, small, mountainous, insignifcant country with no major natural resources (like oil, which Azerbaijan Republic has plenty of), and ask yourself why a Christian country would ally herself with a fanatic mullahcracy like Iran's if it weren't a "doostiye maslahati" as Persians call it, or "a friendship of convenience"...Armenia has nothing to offer Iran except alliance in her enmity against Azerbaijan Republic...and last time I checked, Armenia too, had full diplomatic relations with both Israel and America. You also exaggerate Iranian Azeris role in Iranian society...believe me if we had that much power, the first thing we'd do is close Iran's border with Armenia, and suspend trade with both Armenia and the illegal Armenian-run Republic of "Artsakh" (Armenia's name for Dagliq Qarabag). And whether our DNA is Turkic or not, we are culturally and linguistically Turkic, and that makes us Turks. We do not need others to tell us what we are, thank you very much. The Safavids were Azeris, Qajars were Turkmens, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Ilkhanids, all Turks. Do not try to change history please. The last dynasty before the mullacracy was Persian (Pahlavi) and stifled all forms of Azeri cultural expression...this in spite of Farah Diba herself being of Azeri origin (father from Tabriz)...shameful!


 * From Columbia Encyclopedia, The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture ... . SouthernComfort 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From Britannica, 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. SouthernComfort 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, modern Azeris are almost invariably classified as a Turkic people by almost all academic sources due to linguistics. SouthernComfort 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Culturally and racially Azeris are Iranians. Look at the chart provided on one of th connections it even proves it. By the way that person who says the Ayatoolah is hlf Azeri and from Mashad let me tell you that illustrates how little you know about Azeris. They live all over Iran just like Persians and Kurds. As for the Pahlavi Dynasty the are mixed. Reza Pahlavi was of Northern origin from the Caucause region and his wife was a Qajar....so please talk about something you know. You make these claims that culturally Azeris are different? Define the differences in culture? What makes Azeris and even Turks different culturally from Iranians. I was taught that culturally Turkey is a part of the Iranic World from Ottoman times. Please expand give provide the cultural differences?

Funny to hear all these arguments. What you define as "alien" is in fact an identifiable part of the culture that defines a nation. The problems that you seem to have is that you identify culture as something static, when it is fluid and prone to changes. Ethnically (or better say genetically) Azeris (mostly of Northern Azerbaijan) are Caucasian people, related to autochtonous population of Caucasus. Culturally, they are cross between Turkish and Persian influence. You know very well that Azeris and Turks are culturally slightly distinct from the Persians, while they are in no doubt are part of Iranian culture. Turks were nomadic pastoralists, Persians were mostly sedentary and agricultural ... Music and oral literature have slightly different tradition and so on. At the moment in practice you see a divergence of SOuth and North Azerbaijan (both Turkic speaking) in different direction. You can see it on this talk page : northerners (I am included) define ourselves as Turkic, Turanian and(or) Caucasian, southerners as Iranian and even Arian. Sources are irrelevant here, as definitions are a part of the game. Abdulnr 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Azeri population figures
''The CIA World Factbook estimates Iranian Azeris as comprising nearly 16 million, or 24 percent of Iran’s population. The United Nations human rights report on Iran notes that "there may be as many as 30 million" ethnic Azeris in Iran. According to Ethnologue, there are 23,500,000'' Azeri-speakers in Iran as of 1997. . At any rate, I believe it is higher than the CIA figure. SouthernComfort 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ethnologue" is one of the most unrealible sources ever. Their entire collection of numbers is based on guesses regarding "how many bibles have to be printed for x languages". Here are a few numbers from the German Wikipedia:


 * It seems to me that you have just picked the highest number you could find which - btw - is the most unrealiable among all sources. I am going to revert the text. Tajik 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Iran's population is far larger than CIA estimates. It cannot be denied that Azeris constitute far more than 16 million people in Iran. Ethnologue is a reliable source and is often used on WP. You have no cause to revert. SouthernComfort 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you have no right to dispute what is very much a credible source that is widely accepted on WP. SouthernComfort 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I have. MOST of the sources - including the CIA factbook (wich is the most trusted and most widly used in WP) - put the number below 20M. Only Ethnologue is putting it above 23M (stating that there are more Azeri-Turks in Iran and Persians which is really not true). Right now, you have only one source supporting your claim, while many others - including the official statement of the Iranian embassy in Berlin - put the number at 20% = ca. 15M. This is not about what you believe but about how many reliable sources we have. The CIA factbook 2005, which is used in almost ALL articles in WP, is the most reliable. It has more weight than Ethnologue which has been criticized many many times. Therfore revert! Tajik 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are just anti-Azeri and that is most unfortunate. SouthernComfort 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you come up with a better argument?! You are constantly ignoring sources and you reject the CIA factbook (which is regarded being the most reliable source among all) simply because you believe that the number is not correct; Ethnologue's number does not correspond with other sources. Right now, it's "all other sources vs. Ethnologue", and therefore rv. Btw: maybe you are just anti-Persian and pro-Azeri and that is most unfortunate. Taken from the article Ethnologue:


 * "... The neutrality of Ethnologue as a scientific institution is sometimes disputed, particularly in areas of language classification associated with the Bible and Abrahamic religion. ..."


 * Tajik 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in no position to condemn Ethnologue which is widely used as a source on WP, and quite frankly the CIA source is no more or less reliable than any other source in this regard. This is nothing but anti-Azeri sentiment which honestly repulses me. SouthernComfort 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And anti-Persian?! Ha, that is a laugh. A lot of editors around here would say the exact opposite. SouthernComfort 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may interject here with a few points. First, Ethnologue is actually very reliable and is used by many academic institutions. The new genetic study on the Kurds and Zaza referred to the Ethnologue for example and the article is from the University of London. However, both the CIA and Ethnologue also have spotty records in terms of updating their data. One can often find such errors when verifying the data with official censuses, minority rights groups, and the UN. It's wiser thus to give a range, but I would agree that given the data thus far it's more likely that the Azeris numbers are higher than what the Iranian embassy claims. In addition, I wanted to add that we also can't include the Persians here as a related people simply because it's not a tenable position since some Persians are related and others aren't and the links can be tenuous given the cultural drift with Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan. My own position is that I back SouthernComfort's stats on the Azeris as they do appear to corroborate other findings, while I think we should leave it at the Azeris being related to their linguistic brethren until at some point we discover that in fact the Azeri-Persian connection is more substantial (say with the Azeris in Iran who have intermingled with Persians). And I think given my record, I'm not pro-anyone in this debate, but just trying to help as I was the one who largely re-wrote this page without any intent to either belittle or exaggerate the Azeris in any way. Tombseye 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, it is very, very well established that Azeris are connected culturally and historically to Persians. The level of Persianization in Iran has been very extensive, with many famous people (Farah Pahlavi) and actresses (Aghdashloo) and singers (Googoosh) ALL being of Azeri background. This cannot be denied. It is too extensive to ignore. I could go on and on with all the people who are linguistically Persian but ethnically Azeri in Iran. SouthernComfort 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, the issue is not their relationship, the issue is categorization that delineates these groups. Culturally Persian is still a bit vague in terms of related peoples and the overlap situation can also be found with Azeris who have mingled with other peoples in the Caucasus as well. I'm not going to argue over this, but this will no doubt annoy some Azeris and possibly Persians who don't agree. The main problem also stems from a perception from these outlier peoples that the larger Persians want to assimilate them and eliminate their language and culture as well. The Kurds are maintaining a desire for a more separate identity for this reason. This will simply become another point of contention when I think we can just walk away at this point and count the article as having covered all the main points. The culturally Persian aspect can be discussed further in the Azeri links to Iranian people section as well. Tombseye 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not very vague at all since even encylopedias state that Azeris are culturally Persian. Azeris constitute a near-majority in Iran - they are connected to Persians one way or another. It is impossible to ignore and I doubt any Azeris would dispute that. SouthernComfort 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Persian chauvinists who disagree, that's their problem. As you can see, there are people who wish to belittle the Azeri presence in Iran. SouthernComfort 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignoring sources won't make your versions correct. There are at least 4 sources (CIA, Encyclopaedia of the Orient, Iranian embassy, MS Encarta) stating that Azeris are less than 20 million while there is only one source claiming that they are more than 23 million (actually stating that Azeris are the largest ethnic group in Iran). It's 4 vs. 1. In this case, you are ignoring 3 other sources in favour of only source which is deffinitly not more reliable than any of the others. You are purposely ignoring sources becouse of your personal feelings, ideology, etc. Unless you find more sources supporting your version, your claims are considered POV. You clearly misunderstand the mission of WP. It is not about what certain people believe but about how many reliable sources you can find to support your claim. Any admin of WP will tell you the same. You can ignore sources, but it won't make your version right. According to WP rules, ANY version that has more reliable sources is considered the "correct version". As I have stated above, it's 4 sources vs. 1 source, and therfore, your version is POV. Tajik 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. Plus, Ethnologue's data is from 1997 - it is substantially larger today. It is sourced - you are in no position to delete that source. You make the same statements about sources on Talk:Safavids and yet here you quite revert-happy when the information does not suit your prejudices. If anyone has an ideology here, it is you. SouthernComfort 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk about Safavids is about history. I posted sources from the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most authoritive and most trusted source in the world (written by REAL experts all over the world), clearly proving that Safavids were ethnic Kurds. This one is about population stats that change every day. If you check out Ethnologue sources from 1995, you will see that the number of Azeris was put somewhere near 15,000,000. Only 2 years later, they changed the number to 23,000,000! That's +8,000,000 in only 2 years! We have other reliable sources, like the CIA factbook (from 2005!) and the MS Encarta (2006!) stating that Azeris are LESS than 20 millions. You are clearly ignoring widly accepted sources because of your own personal beliefs. That's totally against WP rules. I am going to ask an admin to teach you WP rules. Tajik 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we just make it a bigger range from the low-end figures to the high and include both sources and then let the reader figure things out? since the sources seem to vary a little anyway, perhaps this could be more agreeable? Tombseye 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, he obviously has something against Azeris and I doubt he would concede to that. At any rate, the truth is that the population of Azeris in Iran is very, very large. He cannot deny this. SouthernComfort 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry my friend, the problem with giving a consensus on the Azeri population of Iran is hard becuase they are so mixed in with everyone else and their are similar speaking Turkic-speaking Iranians who are sometimes considered Azeris and sometimes not. Qajar are considered as their own type of Turkic peoples and as an Azeri peoples with others. There are Azeris who don't speak a word of Azeris and even Persians in the North who speak better Azeri than Persian. It is a very twisted topic. As for Azeris they are an Turkic-speaking ethnic Iranian people. One thing I got to say is that in the Middle East the terminology used is very problematic such as calling Azeris by the term Turks.


 * First the problems with the Kurdish article, and now this. When will this crap end? When will people just abandon this stupid prejudice and get a life? SouthernComfort 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have anything against Azeris. I am just quoting reliable sources, while others who - I assume - are Azerbaijani nationalists or some other kind of Turkish fanatics ignore sources because the numbers do not fit into their nationalists views. Right now, we have 4 sources (and all of them can be considered "reliable") while there is onyl 1 source supporting the other claim. In this case, it does not matter wether Ethnologue is reliable or not. It's 4 vs. 1. Case closed!
 * As for those who are interested in other sources which may not be considered "reliable", here are the results of a recent survey in the US among Iranian immigrants: http://web.mit.edu/isg/survey.htm Accrding to this survey, out of ca. 4000 American-Iranians, 88.2% consider themselvs "ethnic Persians" while only 11% consider themselvs "Azeri". It is widely believed that the percentage of ethnic Azeris among Iranians living in the US/Eu is higher than the percentage of Azeris living in Iran (many Azeris were rich and educated and left the country after the Islamic revolution). If that is really the case, then - according to this survey - the number of Azeris in Iran cannot be 30% of the population. Tajik 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this:


 * From US Department of State:


 * Over 21 million Azerbaijanis live in Iran, and 2 million or more live in the other republics of the former Soviet Union. The Azerbaijani population living in the U.S. is difficult to estimate, since many that are ethnically Azerbaijani are often identified as Iranian or Turkish. Grandmaster 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We Can See how the Middle East is being Balkanized
Iran, Iraq, Caucasia, and the Middle East are being balkanized were everyone fights each other like in Yugoslavia. And who wins with fabricated ethnic disputes? Guess who!


 * This statment says it all about that region and goes beyond its statement about Iran.

''Israeli and U.S. intelligence are concentrating hard on Iranian minorities, because they have no military solution for this problem. They want to disintegrate Iran into a few countries like the Soviet Union and that is not going to happen. ''

More Information on Azeris
1. There are no proofs that Turkic peoples constituted a majority of polulation n 10th century. 2. There is commonly accepted that Scythians ans Massagetes were Iranian tribes. This is suppotred by available historical records, archeological findings, language analisis etc. Theories supported by some Turkic scientists about their Turkic origins are not supported by any serious proofs. The first documented Turkic settlemtnt of the sorrounding areas occured after 4th century. 3. Claim that Sumer, Elam, Urartu, Mannai, Media and Albania were inhabited by Ural-Altaic (proto-Turkic) peoples can not be supported by mainstream science.

Azeri is the ethnicity, Azerbaijani is the nationality (aka citizenship) There is also a region in northern Iran that is called Azerbaijan.

I removed the following sentence : Most Azeris are businessmen (Vahid Alekperov, the head of "LukOil"), lawyers (Shirin Ebadi, the Noble Prize winner), musicians (Aziza Mustafa Zadeh), actors (Shohreh Aghdashloo, "The House of Sand and Fog", the Oscar nominee), and scientists (Lotfi Zadeh, Ali Javan). While i have no doubt that these people are important, I have stumbled over the begin of the sentence "Most Azeri are...". Are there no carpenters, shoemakers, plumbers or farmers among Azeris??? Please reformulate into something more sensible. Refdoc 21:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do regret the removal of the "Garden of Eden" remark. It was one of the most endearing features of this article :-). No, seriously - how important is this as a e.g. national myth? Is there actually a concrete place e.g. pilgrimage destination for the Garden of Eden or something similar - If yes, however fanciful the connection might be I think it should be part of the article. If on the other hand this was simply a remark, based on a superficial/wishful reading of the Bible to say - "You thought we are small but we are really SOOOO big!", then yes let us forget it. Refdoc 10:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My 2 cents
I'll use color here to cause less confusion about who said what. Everything in color below is my 2 cents: 

Hmmm,

This dispute should not have taken place. Because User:Tajik and User:SouthernComfort are actually on the same side. Both are trying to keep the illegitimate influence of Pan-Turkish editors on Iranian articles out. Let me see if I can diffuse the problem:

First,

The reason I think there is so much variation in the population numbers is that there is a varying definition of what a Persian or Azari is. For example: I am Azari. But I speak Persian as my first language, and I am accused by User:Zora and a few others as being a "Persian nationalist". My Azari cousins have names like "Mehrdad", "Dariush", etc (Persian popular names). They all identify with the mainstream culture, like I do. So am I and my family Persian or Azari? I have a Kurdish aunt in Sanandaj. Her kids are all named "Farhad", "Parviz", and "Shirin". My maternal grandfather was from Georgia. And at the same time, I even have Sayyed blood in me, which makes things even more mixed. I think that's where the source of variation may be coming from: People define things differently. But then again, that's just my opinion.

But what I am certain about is this:

That Azeris and Kurds are Iranian. We have been Persianized just as the Persians have been influenced and changed by other Iranian ethnic groups.

If there were to be a real "melting pot" in the world, it would have to be Iran. In Iran, we dont view things from an ethnic pair of eyeglasses. That viewpoint is being imposed on us by outsiders. The Republic of Azarbaijan was part of Greater Iriana, and was forced to separate by Russia in the mid 1800s. So was Turkmenia and Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia. We are the children of one family. That's why as an Azari, I feel culturally at home in Baku, as I do in Samarqand and Shiraz, my birth place.

As Frye put it:


 * "Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of central Asia, whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values and traditions with only language separating them."

And if someone says I am being dominated by "Persianization"? I'll tell them that I am already Persianized! Just as the Persian has parts of me in him. The Persian language isnt even Persian in writing. It's Arabic in script. And half the vocabulary is foreign.

An analogy:

Think of the bonding culture/history/identity that defines us as an Iranian as the Strong nuclear force that keeps the Nucleus (Iran) stable, and prevents different Protons and Neutrons ("ethnic members") from pushing eachother out and destroying the Nucleus.

My solution,


 * Either, mention a range of population as User:Tombseye says.
 * Or just mention all sources. Say "According to CIA it's this, according to Ethnologue it's this, according to Iranian embassy it's this..."

That should alleviate the problem, I imagine.

Now, User:Tajik,

User:SouthernComfort is not an anti Azari or anti-Persian. He has an indisputable record of fighting pan-Turkists and Pan-Arabs and all the other bellicose pans devoted to defaming and destroying the memory of Iriana, Land of The Arian. He is a top-notch editor that should be respected by all means. Were it not for him, the Iranian/Persian/Zoroastrian/Tajik articles would be decimated by malicious Iran-hating revisionists. Same as User:Mani1, User:wikiacc, User:Refdoc, and some others. We're on the same side.

I think that if you make the distinction between Azari/Turkic and Turkey/Turkish obvious in your writings, these disputes wont show up. I always point out to the pan-Turkists that Turkic not= Turkey. As SC pointed out, Turkic is synonymous to Central Asia, the same place where the Ghaznavids, Sultan Malekshah, Sultan Sanjar, etc supported and nourished Persian culture and were Persianized a long long time ago. Funny as it may sound, I see them as Iranian too. We are like the Persian Rug, with variety in unison.

I think you are doing a splendid job. But if you word your sentences more carefully, we will avoid these needless disputes and instead focus on the real things.--Zereshk 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the Ghandi of wikipedia. I agree with you.Don't forget me too.....


 * Aziz e delam...you too, man! :)) --Zereshk 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with that post. However, that's not the point in here. Wikipedia is not a place to "live" pan-turkist or pan-iranist dreams. It's about how to give this article some quality. And right now, it is about sources - because that's what Wikipedia is about: collecting reliable information from various sources. Personally, I do not give a damn about the number of Azeris or Persians or Lurs in Iran. I was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. My father's family is originally Sayyid-Arab from Herat, but totally Persianized. My mother's family is Kizilbashi from the Bayat-clan of Oghuz-Turks (in other words: my mother's family is Azeri and settled in present-day Afghanistan during the campaings of Nadir Shah). My mother tongue (and that of my family for the last 8+ generations!) is Persian, with my mother's father being a Ghilzai-Pashtun from Qandahar. The rest of my "ancestors" were indigious Iranians. I have absolutely no interst in altering any numbers, be it Pashtuns, Tajiks, Turks, or whatever. But that is not the point in here - we have four reliable sources attesting that the number of so-called Azeris in Iran is less than 20 million, while we have only one source saying that they are more than 20 millions. It's 4 vs 1 ... and therefore, according to the rules of Wikipedia, it should be written in the article that Azeris are LESS than 20 million. At least till we get to see other reliable sources proving the claims of Ethnologue! -Tajik 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tajik
Tajik you have confused everybody on this page...first of all Ghilzai or Dorrani Pushtuns do not speak Persian as their native tongue, much less for 8 generations. Your name Tajik suggests another ethnicity. Secondly, you claim Azeri descent on the other side of the family...if you mean to tell us Shi'ite Azeris and devout Sunni Pushtuns intermarried back in the era you are referring to, then that is quite an anomaly and should be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records. You were born in Kabul and are an Afghan for all intents and purposes, so what is your stake here in trying to tell the rest of us what our true ethnicity is.


 * First of all, this discussion is not about me or my family, but about the Turkish people. Besides that, you represent - in an unfortunate large part of the world's population who a) do not know as much as they believe.


 * There are millions of Pashtuns who are Persian-speakers, including the "royal family" of Afghanistan, the Barakzai Clan of the Durrani branch. Today, they are called "Muhammadzai" and they are native Persian-speakers, though of ethnic Pashtun origin. Other good examples would be Ahmad Zahir or Farhad Darya, both being Persian-speaking Pashtuns.


 * "Tajik" in Afghanistan is the name given to Persian-speaking Non-Pashtuns and Non-Hazaras (=mongoloid looks). It's not really the name of an ethnic group. "Tajik" summarizes a bunch of different families, clans, etc who are all native Persian-speakers and do not identify themselvs with a "clan-system" like the Pashtuns. Usually, the large cities are dominated by "Tajiks". And usually, the Tajiks do not call or consider themselvs "Tajik" but "Farsiwan" (= "Persian speakers").


 * There are a lot of Shia-Sunni marriages in Afghanistan ... and in my case, my grandfather wasn't even Sunni but a Shia from Qandahar (yes, there are many Pashtuns who are Shia). It might surprise you to know that Afghanistan's fomer king, Dost Mohammad Khan, was himself half-Qizilbash . Shias make up 20% of Afghanistan ... you can't just generalize everything.


 * "Qizilbash" in Afghanistan do not consider themselvs "Azeri Turks". This is not really surprizing since - in later periods - most of the so-called "Qizilbash" were ethnic Persians, Indians, and so on.


 * This a free Wikipedia and everyone has the right to take part in conversations if he/she has interest in the toppic. On the other hand, you have no right to tell me not to take part in this discussion. After all, it seems like I have more knowledge about Azeris than you have about Afghanistan ...


 * Tajik 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Tajik, I have not prevented you from contributing to this page...my specialty is not Afghanistan, since it is not my country...but neither are my Azeri people yours. I know enough about Hazaras (who are Shi'ites and speak Hazaragi which is a form of Persian but are not Tajiks, and who'se name is derived from "hazar"...thousand...allegedly a thousand mongol soldiers were their ancestors). I know who Tajiks are, dear sir...I have met Tajiks from all over Afghanistan (good friend was from Maimana, Faryab Province, neighboring Uzbek territory) among the Afghan expatriate community in both Oakland, CA. and northern Virginia as well as southern California, and have known a descendant of Amanullah Khan Serraj for years, not to mention relatives of Hamed Karzai in the Baltimore and northern Virginia areas. Not to mention the fact that my father has met Tajiks in Samarkand and Bukhara (even though they are Uzbek citizens)...furthermore I knew already that Zahir Shah was a Persian speaking Pushtun and that the Pushtun elite of Kabul speak "Dari" as their native tongue and I even know about other sub-ethnic groups, Pashaee, Nooristani, Farsiwan, Aimaq, and the Ismailis who are Shi'ites of a different kind, and the very small Hunza minority near the Chinese border... etc. etc....I may not know as much about Afghanistan as you, but for a non-Afghan I don't think I'm doing as bad as you say. Thanks for the clarification anyways...of course why you choose be an apologist for ultra-nationalist Persians in Iran is something that is hard to understand...you spend much time trying to prove that Azeris are not Turks. Azeris are mainly a Caucasian people, but they are culturally and linguistically Turkic, albeit many traits of Persian culture are to be found in Azeri culture (such as the celebration of Novruz). I may not know much about Afghanistan as I would like, but I question your expertise on Iran and her demographics...I know the country MY ancestors came from, better than you, just as you know yours better than me. On that you can rely.


 * Who ever wrote the comment above is part of the minority of irrational individuals who do not like the fact that Azeris are Iranians. The majority of Azeris consider themselves Iranian and once more it has been proven scientifically through genetic studies. 75%-80% of Azeris consider themselves Iranian, which again history and science proves to be true, while a very small minority of politically motivated individuals in the Republic of Azerbaijan (which has only been seperated from Iran for a little over 150 years) and individuals in Turkey are trying to brainwash Azeris into believing this rubbish that Azeris are Turks. Azeris are culturally, historically, and racially Iranian and are proud of that fact.

If Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Bulgarians and all the other nations who lived under Ottoman controle for thousands of years, can speak their own language now, Why do you think that Azeris are assimilated and lost their own language but accepted 100% turkish as their national language? Why don't they speak half persian half turkish but 100% turkish? Why do they speak a better, pure Turkish thn the Turks living in Turkey?. Ottoman Empire its self used persian and arabic as the official languages so we cant say that there was an oppression against Azeris. So why all the Azeris deleted their native language and their roots from their memories and prefered to be Turkic? The purpose is to DIVIDE Turks and Azeris. To all my Azeri friends: Dont forget what Aliyev said "We are ONE nation, two states".

Well Iran is too scared of 24 millions Azeris living in Iran so they dont want them to found their of own state. This nothing but persian propaganda, a brain wash. Azeris are very proudful and people like Azeris doesnt change their language and their roots like they change cloths cause language is sacred.Mysterieux 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Buddy talk with facts. What you are saying is the other way around. It is Turkish propaganda. It is Turkish propaganda to brainwash Azeries. Turkey use to be divided into four sections, the West was Greek people, the South of Turkey was Semetic, and the East was Iranian peoples( who the Kurds are a racial representation of) and Armenians. Azeris celebrate Nowruz for thousands of years and have a lot of Persian and even Kurdish in their langauge. The Ancestors of the Azeri are the Aryan Mede.


 * It will be surprising to learn for many that Nowruz is not necessarily a Persian holiday. It is celebrated in Turkey and also in Greeece it is probably more ancient than all the ethnicites mentioned here. []AverageTurkishJoe 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for what you said about the Ottoman Empire don't fabricate falsehood, many Turks know that their great grandparents came from other places like Iran or Bosnia or Albania who adopted Turkish. As for Turkey why don't you let the 35% and up Kurds, Armenians, and Georgians get the freedom they want. It is Turkey that tries to force Kurds into saying they are Mountain Turks! Turks are known for trying to re-write history. Take Istanbul for an example or ask the Greeks and Bulgarians. That is why Turkey has problems with all its neighbours except Iran, because Iranians are reasonable.


 * Turkey is a state made for Turks, Iran is a multi-ethnic state made for all Iranians like Persians, Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Azeris, and others. It was Turkey that oulawed the Kurdish language and made it a crime. In Iran everyone is allowed to read, write, and speak in whatever langauge they want! 

DO you know who Hossein Rezazadeh is he is officially the strongest man to have ever lived in the world, a world record holder, top Olympian, and athlet from Iran. He is an ethnic Azeri, Turkey tried to bribe him with millions of dollars to play for them. Don't forget what he said, "I love my race and my country I will never play for Turkey or be Turk."

Are you Azeri? I am sure you are not...Inanna 14:39, 22 February 2006 (UT

Yes I am Azeri, unlike you are a Turk from Cyprus. See you are the people pushing this propaganda. Itis not Azeris it is people from Turkey who are coming here trying to change Azeri identity. 75%-80% Azeris are from Iran and when we try and put their pictures up you people delete them because they all contribute to Iran and Iranian society. All Azeribajian was a part of Iran for most history. It has only been less than 150 years that the North was taken from Iran by Russia. The Northern culture has also been changed it is the South that has kept the real Azeri culture which is Iranic. I am a proud of my Azeri background and of my Iranian nationality and race!


 * That's your POV. Just because some weight-lifter said that he loves being part of Iran doesn't mean that all Azerbaijanis do. I'm sure there are many Azeris who want to be separate from Iran. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NO, THEY DONT! THAT IS WHAT YOU PAN TURKS ALWAYS SAY! IF THE AZERI'S WANTED TO SEPERATE, THEN WHY DIDNT THE QAJAR, SAFAVIDS, MOSSADEGH, OR KHAMENEI DO IT? ALL OF THEM RULED IRAN, ALL OF THEM CONSIDER/ED THEMSELVES IRANIAN, AND IT NEVER CROSSED ANY OF THEIR MINDS TO SEPERATE FROM IRAN!

I MYSELF AM PERSIAN, TWO OF MY AUNTS ARE OF AZERI DESCENT, MY COUSIN IS HALF AZERI, ETC... NONE OF THEM WANT TO SEPERATE, INFACT, THEY ARE MORE PATRIOTIC THEN I AM! FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS TALKING TO MY AUNT (OF TURKIC DESCENT) ABOUT IRAN CHANGING ITS SCRIPT TO THE LATIN SCRIPT, LIKE TURKEY. SHE LOOKED INTO MY EYES, SEEMINGLY OFFENDED BY WHAT I SAID, AND REPLIED TO ME, WITH A SERIOUS TONE OF VOICE: "WE ARE IRANIAN, OUR LANGUAGE IS IRANIAN, OUR CULTURE IS IRANIAN, WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE IT TO LATIN?"

AS YOU PAN TURKS SEE, AND AS MY AZERI BROTHERS HERE AHVE POINTED OUT, THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEPERATE. GET THIS TYPE OF THINKING OUT OF YOUR HEAD! IF THEY WANTED TO SEPERATE THEY WOULD HAVE PUT UP SOME SORT OF RESISTANCE RIGHT?

YOU TURKS ARE FUNNY, HALF OF TURKEY WANTS TO BREAK AWAY AND THEY HAVE FOUGHT FOR DECADES TO BREAK AWAY, YET YOU COME IN HERE SAYING THAT IRANIANS WANT TO BREAK AWAY FROM IRAN WITH NO EVIDENCE!

IRANIAN ARABS FOUGHT AND DIED FOR IRAN IN THE IRAN IRAQ WAR! IRANIAN KURDS FOUGHT AND DIED FOR IRAN IN THE IRAN IRAQ WAR! IRANIAN TURKS AND IRANIAN AZERI'S FOUGHT AND DIED FOR IRAN IN THE IRAN IRAQ WAR! AND THAT IS JUST RECENT HISTORY! MOSSADEGH SACRIFICED HIMSELF FOR IRAN! FARAH DIBA IS A PROUD IRANIAN WOMAN, AND QUEEN OF IRAN! AZERI IRANIANS PARTICIPATE IN ALL ASPECTS OF IRANIAN SOCIETY FROM THE MULLAH GOVERNMENT TO THE PRO DEMOCRACY MOVEMENTS! YOU PAN TURKS ARE REALLY SOMETHING SPECIAL, SO NATIONALISTIC, CHAUVINIST, AND SUPREMACIST!

UNLIKE YOUR TURKIC NATIONS, IRAN HAS ALWAYS ENCOURAGED, SUPPORTED, AND PRESERVED THE CULTURE, LANGUAGE, AND LIFE OF ITS ETHNICITIES!

AND FOR ALL WHO SAY THAT IRAN PERSECUTES ITS MINORITIES: THE MULLAHS ARE RULED BY A MINORITY LEADER, AND THE MULLAHS PERSECUTE EVERYONE, PERSIANS PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE!

AND FOR THE IGNORANT PERSON WHO SAID THAT NOUROZ IS NOT AN IRANIC/PERSIAN HOLIDAY, I JUST HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO YOU: IRANIAN CULTURE WAS SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL THEN TURKIC CULTURE, THAT THE OFFICIAL CULTURAL LANGUAGE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WAS PERSIAN, THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF MANY OTHER TURKIC NATIONS WERE PERSIANS (SUCH AS AFGHANISTAN TODAY), AND THAT IRANIAN CULTURE DOMINATED TURKIC CULTURE TILL PAN TURKISM ARRIVED. SO I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT YOU TURKS, WHO LEARN SO MUCH NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA IN YOUR COUNTRIES (OBVIOUSLY WITH INFERIORITY COMPLEXES), WOULD TRY TO MAKE SOME FULLY IRANIAN NON-IRANIAN TO MAKE YOURSELVES FEEL BETTER.

-IRANIAN PATRIOT


 * That was beatiful, what you wrote was music to my ears. 69.196.139.250 03:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you! i just hope that these pan turks will stop talking about things they dont know anything about.

any way, the writer ahmad kasravi, an azeri, fought against pan turk claims that azeri's were originally turkic peoples. he wrote books on the subject, and always claimed that azeri's were of iranic orgin, and then turkified, which is true and most historians agree with this.

another thing you turks keep saying is that "well, you might not want to seperate but the majority do..bla bla bla" how many times have we given you proof that they dont? if the majority wanted to seperate, then why would ahmad kasravi deny it? why would mossadegh not create a nation for his azeri people, why didnt the safavids and qajar's create a seperate azeri kingdom? were they not all azeri's, THEY WERE! they all considered themselves iranian, nothing less. --Iranian Patriot

WE SHOULD PUT MORE PICTURES OF IRANIANS (AZERIS FROM IRAN) ON THE ARTICLE, AFTER ALL ALMOST ALL AZERIS ARE FROM IRAN

 * I agree, but please lay off the caps lock. Please give me some suggestions of who you want in the picture and I can fix it. --Khoikhoi 05:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me or the person who put that title up?

- Iranian Patriot


 * I was talking to the person who wanted to change the pictures. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should be put up pictures of Iranians in the Azeri article..? Perhaps this guy meant South-Azeri..? Baku87 12:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87


 * Iranian Azeris, yes. --Khoikhoi 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Population figures
I'm kinda concerned about the accuracy of the info you've provided on the numbers of Azeris all over the world. I have doubts about Turkey having 800,000 Azeris living in it, since different websites provided different data (numbers ranging anywhere from 25,000 to 3,000,000). Turkey doesn't consider ethnicity when carrying out its censii. As for Canada, the official 2001 census results say there were ca. 1,500 Azeris living there at that point - 1,445 to be precise. Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-canadians-by-ethnicity And only 30,000 for 'Other' is certainly not correct. Uzbekistan alone is a home to 59,000 Azeris.

AZERIS ARE TURKS NOTHING ELSE
Why the people here struggling to prove azeris are indo-european persian people.They are obviously Turks as much as Turks in central asia.Reason can not be a genetic proof.However Azeri Turks have Turkish heritage as much as kazakhs and other central asian Turks.This culture makes them enough Turk to be a turk.Turks of turkey and Turks of İran are sharing same language and similiar culture.Azeris have already developed a national turkish identity despite communist and persian chauvanist.One day the borders between us will be lifted off despite all indo-european efforts.I want to ask this question here. If azeris are in the armenian-iranian genetic pool,why armenians killed thier fellow kins?However they treated poor azeris as if they were not human beings.Armenian and iranians do not think azeris are indo-european,they are turks,so they are right we are turks.
 * ...says the Panturkic propaganda. Plus no one is trying to prove they're Indo-European. Nations can't be purely X or purely Y. And in the case of the Azeri, its extremely hard to tell since so many ethnicities and cultures have mingled and gotten mixed with each other in the Caucasian lowlands.
 * P.S. I'm really having hard time tracing significant cultural similarities between Azeris and Kazakhs. And yes, I do think that Azeris and Persians are more similar in that sense.
 * P.S. I'm really having hard time tracing significant cultural similarities between Azeris and Kazakhs. And yes, I do think that Azeris and Persians are more similar in that sense.

Turkish tradition of Nevruz
Hi, I've created a stub on the Turkish version of the spring festival, Nevruz. I appreciate anyone who can edit and add information to the article.  D iyako Talk + 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...
Hi, im a Azerbaijani people from Switzerland and i her first Time --> Azeri or Azerbaijani people aren't Turk people ^^... lol


 * No your not an Azeri. If somone clearly looks at the history and traces you back to your unsigned user origin they will see you are lying and a Turk. This says a lot about Turkish propaganda. Those who advocat e that Azeris are Turks are not Azeris they are Turks pretending to be Azeris. Azeris are Iranians and proud. 69.196.139.250 04:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

=Azeris are Iranians and nothing Else=

Azeris are racially and culturally Iranians. 69.196.139.250 04:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeris in Turkey
Should we really include the illegal Azeri immigrants of Turkey? There are nearly 500,000 Azeris who reside and work illegaly in Turkey. Dont take this the wrong way but NPOV. Karaman 08:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any official data on such people? Grandmaster 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read that in a book about ethnic divisions of Turkey.Whatever, Turks or Azeri, not so much diffrence... :)

69.196.139.250:

I bet you are not an Azeri.I think you try to be an Azeri because they have high social status(such a Shirin Ebadi) and income in Iran.

Iranian Patriot:

You persians are trying to assimilate the nations(especially the Azeris) in your country.That's the best proof of this.Because they are quite strong in iran.

%70 of Turkey-Turkish and Azeri-Turkish are same! Grammer is already same.We have broadcast of Azeri channels because we are sharing our satellite(Turksat) with Azerbaijan.Sometimes i watch the Azeri channels and i can understand most of the sentences.Azeris are watching the Turkish channels as well(in Iran also).They have only some common stuff with you persians because of alevite.

Turkey is fighting for Nagorno-Karabakh, where was occupied by Armenia illegaly, in the international arena with Azerbaijan.Armenians has nearly killed 20,000 Azeris near Baku in 31 March 1918.Then, we(Ottoman Empire) have sent our army(Caucasus Ottoman Army) there and stopped Armenians who were being supported by Russians.Where was the iran in this period.Why iran is cooperating with Armenia against Azerbaijan if you are racially same? Turkey helped Azerbaijan after collapse of soviets.Gave financial aids, trained and weaponized Azerbaijani army.What did you persians did? Nothing just what i thought...

So let's ask Azeris about who they feel more closer, right?

We have nothing to do with persian culture.We have a very developed culture, already.Iran and Persians have been ruled by Turks for centruies so you should have been affected from us.Persian was never used as an official language.Where do you find those stuff?

Inferioty complex? Don't compare yourselves with us.Turkey is too much more developed than Iran in all ways.Even Turkish and Persian histories cannot be compared...

Nevruz is a Turkish festival.Even the fire in Nevruz is burnt for the fire in "Ergenekon" Mythology.It's celebrated in all Central Asian Republics as well.However, Iranian people(Kurds) try to consider that it's their own custom.On the other hand, Kurds have Turkic roots.You can see this in the museum of Bishek/Kyrgyzstan.Kirmanchi is a Turkish tribe name also but Kurds have mixed with indo-iranian people much more than Azeris.So their language is affected by persian language.Most the words in Kurdish are Turkish words...

Indo-European? You are called Indo-Iranian.Anyone can see that you are diffrent than russians. --Karaman 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Buddy We can all see that the education system in Turkey is Third World from you stupid statments. You want us to take you seriously?????? Hahahaha. Iran is a freer, more developed country than Turkey. Go look it up and learn something instead of the false misinformation they teach you in Turkey. DO you know who helped Turkey during the Brd Flue? The Iranians. Do you know which country is the world's most educated Muslim country? Iran. So stop making us laugh and yes Iranians are Indo-Europeans like Russians, Armenians, and Greeks. Greeks are also the Iranians cousins and Iranians support the Greeks against Turkey. By the way the people you insulted were all Azeris and they want nothing to do with Turks. 72.57.230.179 08:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And we can all see that you are a persian from your incivilized speech.The all what you say are too far from reality.Turkey’s anually average income is two times higher than Iran and we are not oil and natural gas riche as you.Because we are selling technology as all developed countries but you are selling raw materials like all backward countries.Besides, %80 of Turkey’s economy out of savings.You can compare the prices between Iran and Turkey as well.

Let’s compare some indicators:


 * GDP of Turkey: 362$ B
 * GDP of Iran: 178$ B


 * Trade Value of Turkey: 189$ B
 * Trade Value of Iran: 97$ B


 * Military Expenditures of Turkey: 16$ B
 * Military Expenditures of Iran: 4$ B


 * Population poverty below line %15 in Turkey
 * Population poverty below line %40 in Iran

I hope those gave you an information about raw material riche Iran and oil and natural gas poor Turkey(But we are still the greatest economy and power in the middle east).Turkey is too much more developed than Iran in all ways as i said before.

I can’t say we aren’t nationalists.However, we are not giving signs to be a terrorist alive bombs such as Persians.We do not call US as “The Great Devil” though we are not supporting them.We do not plan to wipe the Israel off the map.Make a self-criticize at first, then make comments about the others.

I wonder what did you do during the Bird Flu.However, don’t forget who sent you the biggest aid after the earthquake in Iran.We sent you lots of tents, prefabricated houses, foods, drugs, telecommunication systems and so on.Even you didn’t thank us.

Freedom?! Iran is one of the most teribble countries in the world to live.Everything is forbidden.The women have no rights.Everyone are supposed to wear strange clothes such as grim reaper.Any foreign movies, channels, musics...etc. are forbidden.Boys and girls cannot date.Which one i say? There is full freedom in Turkey.No diffrence than USA about rights.Anyone can wear whatever he/she wants.Men and women have compeletley same rights.Everybody can use any foreign stuffs.We do not satirize anyone due to their sexual preferences.We are the model country for all islamic countries.You can hear that sentence so common in Turkey; ”What should we do if we were like Iran?” You are only a little bit shapely form of Afghanistan.

The world's most educated Muslim country is Iran?! Please don’t make me laugh.Literacy in Iran is %76 while %94 in Turkey.There are 48 universities in Iran while there are 76 universities in Turkey.If you include the 7 universities in Northern Cyprus, the real figures are much higher.Turkey’s education expenditures are too much higher than Iran.So, Turkey is the most educated Muslim country in the world.

Yeah yeah, I’m sure.So why don’t you look like Russians or Germans? Persians are similar with Kurds, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Urdians, Indians and Gyspies.Your language is similar with Indo-European languages as grammar.You cannot be European only by words.

Well done, and we are supporting Israel(except for Palestine) but don’t forget! You cannot compare the military, economic and politicial powers of Jews and Greeks.

Last but not least, I have never insulted Azeris.Don’t make provocation.Even Azeris and Persians don’t look like eachother.So let’s ask them which side they fell closer.

“Türk ve Azeri kardeştir, ayırmaya çalışan kalleştir” Full stop! --Karaman 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly user:Karaman your stats are fake and untrue and if you want I paste sources which show quiet the oppose. Iran has a higher standard of living according to Human Development Indexes and Socio-Economic figures, much of Turkey's expenditures are foreign aid and it is one of the largest welfare states, but this is an article on Azeris. Secondly I am an Azeri and so were the editors you insulted they were Azeris too. Please understand that we are not Turks as has been proven through our culture, history, and scientific genetic testing. We only speak a mixed Turkic language. We are Iranians. As for culture even Turkey's culture is Iranian or Iranic. 72.57.230.179 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you get your sources but; n 1994, Iran had over 2.2 million students enrolled in universities. Iran currently has 54 state operated universities, and 42 state medical schools. These are primarily the top choice for students in national entrance exams, and have the largest and most prestigious programs. There are 289 major private universities operating as well. These figures do not even include Business Institutes, Technical institutes, and Iranian colleges which are 5-6 times greater. In Iran there are also three compolsive languages that are taught in school, Persians, English, and Arabic. How many in Turkey. In Iran we have Kurdish schools teaching Kurdish and both Kurdish and Azeri are taught at the university level. If you want move figures and facts I will be glad to prove to you the higher standards of living in Iran.


 * Just talking about universities and no other post-secondary institutes in Iran we are talking about a figure of 400. Thank you for coming out and showing everyone how wrong your figures are. 72.57.230.179 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The disputes about educational and social standards in Turkey and Iran are irrelevant to this page. As for Azeris, they are a Turkic people, it’s a fact, whether someone likes it or not. I don’t think there’s much to discuss here either. Azeri language only slightly differs from Turkish, and these two languages are mutually understandable, while being an Azer-speaker I can’t understand Farsi, only certain words. Grandmaster 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Azeris are a "Turkic people" according to the modern interpretation of the word (meaning that they speak a Turkic language). But they are not "genetic Turks", and they are certainly not descendants of Oghuz Turks or Turkoman tribes - this is confirmed by recent genetic analyses. I think this is the main reason for the confusion in here. There seems to be almost no genetic relationship between Azeris and traditional Turkic peoples in Central-Asia. So, considering Azeris a "Turkic people" along with Oghuz Turks and Seljuqs is like considering African-Americans and certain tribes in Africa, America, and Europe "Germanic peoples" because today they are native English-, Dutch- or German-speakers.
 * As for the language, of course it is different for Azeris to understand Persian, although Azeri has been greatly influenced by Persian. But besides language, there is not much difference between the people of Iran and Central-Asia or Caucasus ... the only thing that seperates Kurds, Pashtuns, Azeris, Hazaras, Persians, etc is the language and some minor cultural elements special to the region.
 * Maybe the article Turkic peoples should be expanded, explaining the difference and confusion between "modern Turks" (who are simply Turkic-speaking, but not Turkic by heritage) and "ancient Turks" (meaning the original Altaic/mongoloid people in Central-Asia).
 * --Tajik 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that’s what Azeris are according to any major academic source – Turkic people. There are no such things as modern Turks and ancient Turks, people are grouped by the language, and therefore Azeris belong to the same Turkic people category as Kazakh or Uyghur people despite racial differences. I agree that Azeris have culturally a lot in common with Iranian people, but again they belong to different group of people. You see, many European people have a lot in common with each other, but they are ethnically grouped according to their language. And also Azeris have as much of Turkic heritage too, especially in literary tradition. With all due respect, your proposals are what is called an original research, which is not allowed here. You should back you theories up with some authoritative sources. Grandmaster 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No Azaris are not Turks. The facts have already been proven showing Azaris are racially Iran. RACE! According to most major sources Azaris are Iranian peoples speaking a Turkic language. Almost all European people belong to the same ethnic category. Finns are actually a Urlic people whos language is related to Turkish and Hungarians are also from the same Uro-Altaic group, with their language being an Oriental or Asian language related to the Asiatic Turkic languages, but they are not categorized as ethnically non-European or as Turkic-related, proving that it race is the primary base of ethnicity. So please that is enough hot air from you. Additionally Brazil, where everyone speaks Portugese is considered to have manny different ethnicities. According to your twisted and very wrong logic all these people in Brazil should be considered one ethnic group or race, just by speaking the same language, BUT GUESS WHAT THEY ARE NOT. Not only that, BUT THEY ARE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED PORTUGESE EVEN THOUGH THEY SPEAK PORTUGESE. Lets look at the rest of South America, they all speak Spanish, but guess what ANTHROPLOGISTS DO NOT CLASSIFY THEM AS SPANISH PEOPLE, THE CONSIDER THEM AMERINDIANS! AZARIS ARE AN IRANIAN PEOPLE AND IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. Additionally the Majority of AZARIS CONSIDER THEMSELVES AN IRANIAN PEOPLE AND THAT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT YOU CAN BANK ON! 72.57.230.179 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)