Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 13

Genetics sections is dubious
Quote: "The conclusion from the testing shows that the Caucasian Azeris are a mixed population with relationships, in order of greatest similarity, with the Caucasus, Iranians and Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmen" There is no such genetically homogeneous groups called Europeans or Iranians or Caucasians. For example Iranians in West Iran are closer to Azeris genetically than to Iranians in East Iran. Also, the phrase "Caucasian Azeris are a mixed population" is rather derogatory, all modern populations are mixed. In fact populations listed as "contributors" - Europeans, Caucasians, Iranians etc - are more mixed, i.e. show much wider genetical diversity than Azeris. Also section creates wrong impression that Azeris in the North somehow genetically different to Azeris in the South, who is closer to Persians. It's simply not true, for reason mentioned above, there is no genetically homogeneous group called Persians.

to Ibrahimov
Azeri language writing and teaching and spreading is banned in Iran and is never thought at university level. There are magazines in Azeri all controlled by Persian rules and words, books, music, TV, radio and etc.

Pejman! listen to me: even the greatest Dari poet made his poems for Turks under the Turks rules for money, I mean Ferdowsiye Pakzad!!!!(only for money) and Turks gave him money and made his poems become alive and Turks 1000 years preserved his poems for Dari people, why Daris are so much offensive against Turkish history, Turkish language and Turkish population, Why? do they realise realities and facts? NO, No they never understand how Turks are? They insult to their efendis and their 1000-year masters! why?

Turks in Arabic armies

 * Ethnic Turks were not part of the army that attacked the Sassanids. They started their service in Iraq during Ummayad/Abbasid times. al-Wathiq, al-Mutawakkil, and al-Muntasir as it has been said in Tabari's history where Caliphis a long time after Sasanid-Muslim wars . That's also true about history of masoudi written by Bayhaghi about the Turks in Mu'tasim era . --Alborz Fallah 13:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that paragraph or chapter is not just about attack on Sassanids, but the entire Arab period, which makes my edits valid. Turkic people's presence in Caucasus predated Oghuz influx, another important point. References provided give many examples. More from Persian historian and Georgian encyclopaedia - "The successive waves of Turkish migration from the steppe grasslands of Inner Asia to the settled regions of Anatolia and the Irano-Mesopotamian plateaus began in the ninth century, when Turkish slaves were recruited in order to create a new a military elite order, loyal to the Byzantine and the early Caliphate state." Babak Rahimi. Between Chieftaincy and Knighthood: A Comparative Study of the Safavid and the Ottoman Origins. Thesis Eleven, Number 76, February 2004: 85–102, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi). "In 627 Tbilisi was invaded and destroyed by Byzantine and Turk hordes; in 736-738s - Arab military leader Marvan II Ibn Mohammed invaded the city. The Arab invasion had dire results for Tbilisi which in the thirties of the 8th century became the residence of the Arab emir. In 764 Tbilisi was sacked by nomad Turks. In 853 in order to strengthen the caliph rule in Tbilisi the city was invaded by Arab military leader - Buga Turk." O. Tkeshelashvili, G. Kacharava. Historic background. Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, http://www.ceroi.net/reports/tbilisi/background/history.htm Eloghlu 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have your dates mixed up, what you're talking about is the 8th and 9th centuries during the Abbassid era and not the attack on Sassanid Iran. The Khazar events your talking about never resulted in Turkic settlement in the Southern Caucasus region. Peter Golden states:


 * Turkic peneration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol( Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan( Arran , the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran . This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

Also, dont use Azerbaijani historians as sources, only neutral third party reliable sources please.Hajji Piruz 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You got many things wrong: there is no rule against Azerbaijani historians as a source, but I don't use them. I said very clearly that the paragraph and chapter in question is not about Sassanids, but Arab conquest in general, hence the issue of Turks being a major part of Arab armies is relevant. Be kind do not delete the large number of sources I provided. Thanks. Eloghlu 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Geographicaly speaking, the Khazar's border was north of the Daghestani region and the Turkik tribes of central Asia appear in Islamic history many years after the Arab-Sasanid wars. "Ninth century" as you yourself have mentioned,is far after 636 CE that was the last year of Sasanids. --Alborz Fallah 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! I did my best and did not delete any source that you mentioned ... I only changed the paragraph!
 * It's an undisputed fact that were no Turks in Omar or Osman's armies, the Turks started entering the Arab army almost a century later, please don't misrepresent sources. AlexanderPar 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * is it really an "undisputed fact" as claimed? Not only were Turks present widely in the Caucasus before the Arab invasion, such as Khazars, Huns, Sabirs, but they were even in Sassanid army and court as stated by professor Richard Frye and Sayili "There are some reports of interest concerning the relations between the Turks and the Sasanians. There were Turkish soldiers in the army of Bahram Chubin, Persian general and usurper of the throne, whose most prominent bodyguards were three Turks, and Khusraw II Parwiz (590-628), after his defeat by Bahram, fled into Byzantine territory pursued by Turkish and Kabul cavalry. The Byzantine emperor Maurice agreed to aid Parwiz regain his throne. In the ensuing battle by the Zab river, a tributary of the Tigris, Bahrbm was defeated. Khusraw put to death many prisoners whom he captured from Bahram's army, but spared the Turks because some of them bore the sign of the cross on their foreheads. This was done apparently out of respect to the religion of his ally." Richard N. Frye; Aydin M. Sayili. Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1943), p 204. Also Turks were prominent and numerous in Arab army already in the days of founding of Sammarra (circa 835) but also lived in Baghdad and Damascus. Which means they came to Arab army much earlier.

"..the Abbasid armies had beyond doubt Turkish elements within their ranks long before the time of Mu'tasim. From the time of Mansur one encounters references to individuals described as Turks, in 'Iraq and elsewhere." *21 Osman S. A. Ismail. Mu'tasim and the Turks. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 29, No. 1. (1966), p 15.
 * 21 Thaalibi, Lataif, 15; Jahshiyari, Wuzara, 134; Ibn al-Faqih, Buldan, 282; Ibn Badrun, Sharh, 292. Thaalibi and Ibn Badrun state that it was Mansur who first introduced Turks into the service of the 'Abbasid state.

The history of Samarra, the third/ninth century 'Abbasid capital, is inextricably linked to the encroachment of a Turkish military elite upon the authority of the caliphate. The officers in question emerged from the ranks of the Turkish slave guard formed by the 'Abbasid prince Abu Ishaq ibn Harun al-Rashid (al-Mutasim) early in the reign of al-Ma'mun (r. 198-218/813-833). The guard was established probably around 200/815-816, so roughly twenty years prior to the foundation of Samarra early in al-Mu'tasim's own reign (218-227/833-842).)    Matthew S. Gordon. The Turkish Officers of Samarra: Revenue and the Exercise of Authority. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 42, No. 4. (1999), p 466.

Baghdad thus came to the conclusion that it was better off without Mu'tasim and his Turks. For Mu'tasim there were equally important reasons which necessitated the move from Baghdad. p 4

Nevertheless, it did affect the unity and esprit de corps within each group and explains the rivalry that developed later, within the dominant group of the Turks, and thereby threatened the stability of the succession to the Caliphate. More significant was the fact that Mu'tasim made it a clear-cut policy that each group was to marry only within its own ethnic community. p 9

Osman S. A. Ismail. The Founding of a New Capital: Samarra. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31, No. 1. (1968), pp. 1-13.

We can rewrite the paragraph in the article to make unconfusing. Turks were present in Sassanid and Arab armies, and lived in Caucasian Albania and north of it in the time of Arab conquest in 7-8 centuries. --Eloghlu 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Romans used Germans in the Middle East as well. Arabs used Slavs, Berbers, and Turks.  Khazars, Huns and others intruded but none of these point to a permanent Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan or Caucasian Albania. These sort of  mercenary soldiers were used by different armies, but their numbers were not significant relative to local soldiers. What your doing is called OR. Your trying to imply something based on what sources say about the Arab armies which is not its intent.Hajji Piruz 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted deletion of a whole section from the article by User:PashtaJ, which is a very suspicious account and appears to be created to edit this article. He deleted info from this article 4 minutes after he created himself an account. --Grandmaster 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

russification
ok from expierence i know that azeris are highly russified, why isnt this covered? why is "Azeris" only writen in latin leters and persian, but not russian? they were apart of the soviet union as much as kazakstan or ukraine was. i am russian, but i know azeris, and many of which would even say they are from southern russia, not northern iran. simply because of the ambiguity surounding that region (in the united states)
 * see WP:NOR.--Pejman47 10:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear similar things about Azeris, but we'd need some sources to corroborate. Otherwise, there's no point in adding the russification, which is obvious in cities like Baku. Tombseye 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Template
editprotected Just wanted to ask somebody to add this navigation template: Ethnic groups in Iran S I A M A X 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable; done. - auburn pilot   talk  22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version
The article looks a lot better now. But still there are redundant quotes that serve no purpose. They could be replaced by a couple of simple statements. I’m talking about these quotes:

''On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Indeed the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred domination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective''.[35]

''The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages''.

The number of quotes should be minimized, and the quotes should only illustrate some important position or point. Grandmaster 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image
Pejman47, why did you remove the image? Can you name me one reason why you think there's something wrong with it? Parishan 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * nothing at all wrong, even it is a good pic!
 * read Talk:Azerbaijani_people, in which a collage of pictures were proposed. Grandmaster insisted on 50%-50% quota from Iran and the republic, while I insisted it must be according to the population weight at least 70%-30%. the current picture, just shows Azaris from the republic which I think is a POV.
 * In anyway, the picture is good and is in public domain. So, I am OK if you put it back. regards. --Pejman47 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a nice picture showing girls in national costume dancing. People in national costume look the same both in North and South Azerbaijan. I think it is the best choice, as we failed to achieve a compromise on collage. --Grandmaster 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis
40 millions of Azeris are in Iran and plus the rest in world, become about 80 millions, so the information issued by Iran governments are not correct about Azeris and they are just Reza khani lies!!! Iranian officials always hide the facts of other races living in Iran to show Persians as majority, everybody in Iran even the Persian themselves know that Majority of Iranians are Azeris which half of them(about 10 millions) live in Tehran and have to speak Persian.!!!

Ethnonym

 * Hello. Do not remove sourced information. That is what the primary sources from the time period state and the editors should not interpret them. This is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I am reinserting the accurate information.Next time please discuss issues instead of simply removing information from articles.--Alborz Fallah 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed original research of Hajji Piruz. Sources do not support what he claims. Arranians/Caucasian Albanians are not identical to modern-day Azerbaijanis. Please discuss the changes before making them, this is FA article and should not contain any original research. Grandmaster 05:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

anomymous editor
pls. provide sources for your claim. pls. get acquainted with Wiki rules related to original research. You have inserted information recently which was not backed by references.--Dacy69 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinsertion of information

 * I reinserted the missing information in section "Ethnonym". Don't know who deleted them ,but please abide by WP:NOR. There is no basis for his/ her deletion of information and there is no evidence to support deletion. Thanks!--Alborz Fallah 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alborz, the Russian text of references does not say that inhabitants were Arranis, or moreover, never says such a thing that they spoke Arrani. These only talk about regions of Arran, Aderbaijan and Armenia as cited by Arab geographers, and list cities in each one of them. The fact that cities of Urmiya and Sanandaj are listed as Armenia, while Tiflis is listed as a city in Arran, actually makes their position questionnable from historical standpoint, but nevertheless, I included all three references and modified the text to remove OR. Thanks. Atabek 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we discuss this with Tombseye. This section created by Hajji Piruz is clearly an OR. Grandmaster 10:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading the text of the references to Arab geographers, this fragment is probably more relevant on Azerbaijan, Caucasian Albania and Arran pages, rather than this one about Azerbaijani people. The references don't talk much about ethnic composition but about geographical regions. Atabek 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that stuff is absolutely irrelevant and should be removed. Hajji Piruz, please reach consensus on talk before making controversial edits to FA article. Grandmaster 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't find the Russian text . But anyway the Muqadasi's original text in Arabic:

/لیدن/(1906)/259و375و378احسن التقاسیم فی معرفه الاقالیم/شمس الدین ابوعبدالله محمدبن احمدالمقدسی

talks about a language and not only geography. Also Estakhri says: و لسان اذربیجان و ارمینیه و الران الفارسیه و العربیه غیران اهل دبیل و حوالیها:( the language of Azerbaijan and Armenia and Arran is Arabic and Persian except the Dabil(?) and suburb ) More than that, the britannica is also missing (about beginning to speak Turkic language and ethnicity ....)--Alborz Fallah 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not put your own interpretation on sources. We have yet to see any evidence presented by Atabek or Grandmaster. Information cannot simply be removed for no reason. Arran had a people (Arranis) and a language (Arranian).Hajji Piruz 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think that this information is relevant and can be used at the Arran page, after being cross-checked and verified by third-party sources. --Aynabend 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the language of Caucasian Albanians has nothing to do with the language of modern Azerbaijani people. I see no relevance here. However this info is relevant to the article about Caucasian Albania and Arran, as Aynabend already stated. Grandmaster 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"As language changes, ethnonyms which were at one time acceptable become offensive" -(from the text on Ethnonym). --Alborz Fallah 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The section's name is Ethnonym. Don't you think we have to discuss about the language and ethnical background of the a name that is now an umbrella for many ethnic groups?

Yes, but you do not use the data and information of 19th-20th century, to judge the ethnonym and language of 4th century BC - 6th century AC. --Aynabend 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, once again, information is being removed based on users personal claims. Please refer to and go over the proper Wikipedia policies and rules. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 15:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but how is Arran the sole ethnonym here? For example, the Armenians had a different term, according to Iranica, "The Armenian term for this land was A¬vank¿ or R˜aneak." What's more, again from Iranica: "The Greeks knew the people as Albanoi, and the Georgians knew them as Rani, a form taken over in an arabized form for the early Islamic geographical term al-Ra@n (pronounced ar-Ra@n). Early Arra@n seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times..." This is from the Arran article from Iranica by the way so it's specific. I'm not sure how this relates to the Azeris. We would then also list them as Albanians or Albanoi if we are talking ethnonym usages, but ultimately we are talking about a dead language and people. I don't see its relevance as part of an ethnonym section really. Tombseye 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The same POV is being added to the articles Arranis and Shirvanis. Piruz claims that those were ethnonyms used before the term "Azerbaijani" was adopted, citing no sources to support this claim. People known to Arabs and Persians as Arranis were Caucasian Albanians, people who do not exist anymore. And Shirvanis are simply people living in Shirvan, to this day people from Shirvan are called Shirvanli, and it is not an ethnonym, it is a regional denomination. Albanians are not identical to modern day Azeris, they spoke a different language, and while Azeris can be considered to be descendants of Albanians, they are not the same people. This is an FA article, so any original research should be kept out of it, same as any other Wikipedia article. --Grandmaster 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes true GM. OK great, so I move that we remove this section. It adds really nothing to the article and will probably confuse people more than anything else.Tombseye 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that section should be either restored to the original version or removed. Grandmaster 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why they do not exist anymore?! Can you please explain more about this catastrophy? If there is no evidence that shows they were vanished, then the only possible option that remains is the Piruz's notorious claim : "those ethnonyms used before the term "Azerbaijani" was adopted" !--Alborz Fallah 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "People known to Arabs and Persians as Arranis were Caucasian Albanians, people who do not exist anymore. "


 * The only remnant of Caucasian Albanians are people called udis. Azerbaijanis are descendants of Albanians, but they are not Albanians, because they speak a different language. You cannot equate Azerbaijanis and Albanians, same as you cannot equate Romans and Italians. Grandmaster 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that was a good answer. It shows the difference of our point of views .As now I can understand; you consider the ethnicity to be exactly equal to the language. We consider the ethnicity to be a mixture of race and cultural entities (including language): Indeed, in our view, not only the Italians and Romans are historically equated, but also the Ottoman Turks has been called in Iranian culture as RUMI (Roman)...--Alborz Fallah 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we are talking about scientific approach, right? I don’t think any reliable scholarly source equates ancient people with modern ones, and I have not seen any source to support that claim. Also see Tombseye’s opinion above. I suggest we restore the original etymology section that was part of FA article, as Piruz’s edits have no consensus. --Grandmaster 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the original text of Ethnonym section per above discussion with Tombseye. Anyone wishing to make a major rewrite needs to seek a consensus with other editors on talk of this article. Remember that it is an FA article and we need to preserve its quality. Grandmaster 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It simply states what the inhabitants of the southern Caucasus were referred to as prior to the term Azerbaijani was introduced. The term Arrani was the middle eastern term for the inhabitants of the regoin, as well as also Tartar (Russian). Tombseye has got his time periods mixed up. THe term Caucasus ALbanian fell out of usage after the ancient period came to an end, and the term was only used when referring the the ancient period in European texts. Caucasus ALbanian does not mean anything when talking about the Islamic period.Hajji Piruz 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Piruz, get consensus for your edits before including them into the article. You are engaging in OR again. Grandmaster 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky quote
The quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam is not correct. Someone has deleted the last part of it. The original text goes:

''In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the Ghuzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azarbaijan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population .''


 * I added it in, thanks for bringing that to our attention.Hajji Piruz 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why everyone and everything is wrong but you are right with your "Everything was Persian" dogmas? Can you explain?--Aynabend 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote is from a well known academician. Please do not react unresonable ...--Alborz Fallah 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Minoresky does not provide any reason for his openion other than "disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin" which is utterly wrong. Anyone with bigginers level of Azerbaijani language would know that vocal harmony is the base of Azerbaijani gramer, as it is for the rest of Turkic languages.--Mehrdad 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Doefer and Planhol say the same thing. There is a difference between spoken Azerbaijani language (which reflects turkified villages) and the current academic standard Azerbaijani (which had a lot of input from linguists).  The issue is similar to standard Anatolian Turkish which lacks Q (probably due to Greek influence), but you can find it in some of its dialect.  --alidoostzadeh 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is vowel harmony in Azeri Turkish, the issue of q is an alphabetic one, the accents spoken in the regions of Elazig, Erzurum, Kars, Igdir in modern-day Turkey are the same as that spoken in Azerbaijan.

The works of Soviet Orientalists can reflect the bias of the official Soviet agenda, ie

''However, the official Soviet perspective such as that put forward by Minorsky has come under heavy scrutiny as being pollitically motivated. During the Stalinist era there was a fear of [pan-Turkism] spreading among Turkic populations, to be arrested and sentanced to death as a pan-Turkist one only had to say "Turkic people" instead of "Azerbaijani people". The Soviet propoganda machine had the view that peoples speaking Turkic languages were Turkic speaking but had no Turkic blood [40] Today, its clear that no nation has a unique blood or genetic type which has led to a decrease in trying to racially classify people into groups.'' [40] http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/93_folder/93_articles/93_farid_alakbarov.html

Minorsky was in the ministry of foreign affairs, he was connected to pollitics.

Any linguist will tell you about the vowel hamony in Azeri Turkish, Minorskys views are very dated, its like using Nose measurements to distinguish who is a Jew or not. --Torke (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would read Wikipedia's original research policy, which you are committing.   Minorsky is not connected to the USSR .  He fled to the USSR and is a very well known researcher.  Also Frye, Planhol, Swietchowski have the same opinions.  Also  is not a reliable source for historical research.  It is a magazine not a scholarly publication.  But in this case you are creating original research and the wrong synthesis.  Vladimir Minorsky has nothing to do with the USSR.   and if the Encyclopedia of Islam (western publication) uses his articles, you should desist from demonizing his character. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ancient people
hello peoples I dont think we should add Caucasian Albanians to the Azeri people article since it implies that Azeris were Caucasian Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isfaner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Caucasian Albanians were original inhabitants of the region, who played important role in ethnogesis of Azerbaijani people, therefore their inclusion is justified. Nowhere it is said that Azeris and Albanians are the same people. Grandmaster 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Caucasus Albanian
The term Caucasus Albanian is a term used only in the ancient context, when talking about Albania, and only in the West. After the ancient period, the term Caucasus ALbanian was not used for the name of the people and the term Caucasus Albania fell out of usage.

The information you are citing is about the ancient period, right now, we are talking about the 18th and 19th centuries, a time when only the terms Arrani and Shirvani were used to refer to the people (Russians used Tartar). See below for more information on the Arranian language and Arranis.

Infact, Caucasian Albanians, like you cited yourself, have no connection to modern Azeris as they were made up of many different peoples, and were not one ethnic group. The article Arranis, which was wrongly moved to Caucasian Albanians, should be removed to its original title, as Caucasus Albanian refers completely to a different time period and group of people than Arranis. I would also like you to take a look at that issue.


 * You made that confusion yourself, as Arabic sources talk about Albanians, referring to them as Arranians (see article about Arran in Iranica). Tadeusz Swietochowski talks about Azerbaijani people, referring to them by their regional affiliation, i.e. Azeris from Shirvan as Shirvanis, Azeris from Arran as Arrani. But Shirvani/Arrani is not used by Swietochowski as an ethnonym, it is only a reference to the people from a certain region. You are making an OR here by synthesis of published material as described here: WP:NOR --Grandmaster 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrani and Arranian
Here are direct reference to the language of the Arranis (prior to Turkification, and note, they were not Armenians, but a seperate people who spoke a separate language). NOte that Grandmaster himself initially posted this very evidence in a discussion with the Armenians, using it to show that Armenians did Armenify the region, and now he refuses to acknowledge the very same evidence:

Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:

В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. 

In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian ; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.

Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:

''Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански ''. 

Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian .

Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:

Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. 

In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian .

From the Western scholar Swietochowski:

The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis ... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)

Now please, ask Grandmaster for his sources and ask him to support his claims. Honestly, am I the one committing OR when I am the only one presenting sources to support my claims?! I have a quote from Swietochowski which directly links the term Arrani with the Azerbaijani speakers.

For correctness, its highly important to also mention that the terms Arrani and Shirvani were also used, and this is all I did:

Look at the information removed, all I did was simply state that they were also called Arranis.Hajji Piruz 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted my response at EI C's talk, but since the same sources are posted here, I post my reply here as well.


 * Piruz, here we see again how you mix up ancient Caucasian Albanians with modern day Azerbaijanis. The Arranians mentioned by Arab chronicles were Caucasian Albanians. See the article about Arran from encyclopedia Iranica:


 * Early Arran seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Ranya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century).


 * Bosworth mentions all 3 sources quoted by you and says that they speak about ancient Albanians. Now Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:


 * The Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russian-held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes even by the medieval name Arranis, differed from their ethnic siblings south of the Turkmanchai border in one essential respect: a large proportion belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam.


 * Albanians were not Turkic-speaking, so we are talking about Azerbaijanis, whose only difference from their ethnic siblings in the south was that there were many Sunnis among them. Shirvani/Arrani/Nakhichevani/Tabrizi, etc was only the regional denomination of Turkic people, i.e. Azeris. Such confusion in terms does not justify edits you make to a number of articles. We should distinguish between ancient people and more recent Turkic-speakers, who despite being descendants of Albanians were still a distinct people with a different language. Since this article is about Azerbaijani people, Albanians can only be mentioned in a historical context as people who played an important role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, but you cannot mix the two. Grandmaster 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, you leave out the fact that Arran is also the alternative name for Caucasus Albania. Once again, I will have to point out that in the Arran article of Iranica, the section you point out is talking about the Ancient period, as evident by the use of Strabo as a source in that context. The Arranis we are referring to here are the Turkified Arranis of the 18th and 19th century, not the Arranis of pre-Islamic ancient times.


 * Your last paragraph is all OR, and is unacceptable. Either debate with facts and sources or do not object to the insertion of sourced material.


 * Also, for the record, "Tabrizi" is not a regional name. In Iran, last names were not introduced until the 20th century, therefore, to indentify people, they would put the city name after the first name. This was also common in Europe as well.


 * Arrani is completely different.


 * Again, we are waiting for your sources to disprove the above, not your original research. I'll be back later to continue this discussion.Hajji Piruz 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that we talk about "Turkified Arranis of the 18th and 19th century", in that case what Arabic sources of the 10th century have to do with it? As for Tabrizi, Shirvani, etc, there are many poets with the last name of Shirvani, it is a reference to the region they hailed from. But Shirvani was not an ethnonym. If it so, show me a source that says "Shirvani is an ethnonym". Grandmaster 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be good to hear the third party opinion once again. Tombseye already commented on this issue, but I would appreciate if he could comment once again. Grandmaster 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't respond sooner, but I didn't see a response for a few days and saw that the article was OK, so I figured everything was fine. I think the problem is the relevance here. Who still refers to Azeris as Arranis or Albanians for that matter? The people in that region are so mixed up it would be silly to apply ethnonyms that have no modern usage. What's more which reference books and encyclopedias have taken this route of applying the ethnonym of Arranis to the Azeris? Not Iranica obviously. First and foremost this addition bloats the article for reasons I can't figure out (brevity and relevance). Secondly, for this article, any discussion should be, briefly, about the origins of the term Azerbaijan, which is already rendered and alternative names for its inhabitants which is also done. And again, no one calls Azeris Arranis today and haven't done so for a long time. Why are we adding this in the first place? Tombseye 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For historical context. That section goes on to talk about what the people were called prior to the term Azeri being introduced:

'' Historically the Turkic speakers of Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasus called themselves or were referred to by others as Turks and religious identification prevailed over ethnic identification. When Transacaucasia became part of the Russian empire, Russian authorities, who traditionally called all Turkic people Tatars, called Azeris Aderbeijani/Azerbaijani or Caucasian Tatars to distinguish them from other Turkic people, also called Tatars by Russians. ''

Grandmaster and Atabek have no problem mentioning this historical context. Lets include all of the information. Why leave out the fact that the term Arrani and Shirvani were used?Hajji Piruz 04:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference. Arrani and Shirvani were not ethnonyms, those were regional denominations, same as Nakhchivani, Qazakhi, etc. Grandmaster 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We have yet to see a single source supporting your claim. Your OR has no basis on this discussion. As long as you can provide nothing to contradict the sourced information above, the text will be re-added. I have given you two weeks, I will give you several more days and hope that you will respond. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Tombseye's comment above. I don't need to cite any sources, because your sources do not support your claim. Get a consensus for your edits first. Grandmaster 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic edits
I removed these unencyclopedic edits back to version by Wobble. Anon IP needs to discuss his edits, before incorporating such original research. Atabek 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

James B. Minahan
I did a search for this guy over the internet. This is what I found:''JAMES B. MINAHAN is an independent researcher living in Barcelona, Spain. He is the author of Nations Without States: A Historical Dictionary of Contemporary National Movements (Greenwood, 1996), which was named an ALA/RASD 1996 Outstanding Reference Source, and Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States (Greenwood, 1998).''. I noticed that the single Amazon reviewer blasts him for his lack of accuracy and academic ineptness. I do not think he has the academic qualification on Azerbaijan (his book seems very very general). He seems to lack a Ph.D. and a real academic position (from a good university) in the area and his major really is not in this area (the book is very general). I hardly doubt he can speak any of the regional languages. Freelance writer that lacks a Ph.D. and lacks a serious (if any) academic position is simply not good enough to make judgments on historical and anthropological matters such as this. So there is really a world of difference between him and someone like Vladimir Minorsky. --alidoostzadeh 09:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC) This is besides the fact that whoever inserted the quote actually misrepresented it. It says: ''The Azeris are a Turkic people, the descendant of early Caucasian peoples, with later Persian and Turkic admixtures. . Unfortunate that the source was misrepresented (even though it seems to lack a valid academic qualification and basis to make a judgment on this matter). --alidoostzadeh 09:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Manneans
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica which the article quotes:''spelled Manna, or Mana,   ancient country in northwestern Iran, south of Lake Urmia. During the period of its existence in the early 1st millennium BC, Mannai was surrounded by three major powers: Assyria, Urartu, and Media. The Mannaeans are first recorded in the annals of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (reigned 858–824 BC) and are last mentioned in Urartu by Rusa II (reigned 685–645 BC) and in Assyria by Esarhaddon (reigned 680–669 BC). With the intrusion of the Scythians and the rise of the Medes in the 7th century, the Manneans lost their identity and were subsumed under the term Medes. Place-names and personal names in Mannai are thought to be in a dialect related to the Hurrian language of the Hittite empire.''. There is several problems with the current article and what Britannica says. The major problem is that Britannica does not claim Manneans to have encompassed all of Iranian Azerbaijan, but only S of lake Urmia. More specific sources mention them really in more Kurdish speaking areas of Iran (Saqqez). Also the language of Manneans does not seem to have been one as shown by Prof. Zadok's article (which is much more detailed and scientific than Britannica's). Here is the webpage of Prof. Zadok. His qualifications are top notch. He says that they spoke variety of languages (including Iranian). Let me quote:''It is unlikely that there was any ethnolinguistic unity in Mannea. Like other peoples of the Iranian plateau, the Manneans were subjected to an ever increasing Iranian (i.e., Indo-European) penetration. Boehmer's analysis of several anthroponyms and toponyms needs modification and augmentation. Melikishvili (1949, p. 60) tried to confine the Iranian presence in Mannea to its periphery, pointing out that both Daiukku (cf. Schmitt, 1973) and Bagdatti were active in the periphery of Mannea, but this is imprecise, in view of the fact that the names of two early Mannean rulers, viz. Udaki and Aza@, are explicable in Old Iranian terms.''. So unless we have real top and very recent academic source stating that they were 100% Caucasian and they were centered in the Azerbaijani speaking area of Iran rather than Kurdish ones (like Saqqez) (both Britannica and Iranica say they are in the Kurdish speaking areas), we need to modify (mention other ethnic Manneans including Iranian ones) or remove the statement. I note another source from Professor Stephen Kroll(Universität München): "Less is known from the area of today Iranian Kurdistan, south of Lake Urmia, which has been identified with Mannea"(Medes and Persians in Transcaucasia) in G. B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, R. Rollinger, eds., Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia. Padova, S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria, 2003, pp. 181-231. (--alidoostzadeh 10:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's write a "History of the Middle East" from all lands on the southern and western Mediterranean and both Turkestans to the Indus River
Iran's recent Azeri cartoon caper has to remind us all of hard it is for human beings to effectivly function in peace and harmony and at the same time preserve their transparency, their ethnicity,their religious beliefs, and (most importantly) their sense of humor.

"Iran" also included Afghanistan not so long ago and I find it interesting that although Persia was never officially part of the Ottoman Empire, Turks are said to have comprised its ruling elite for eight centuries before the twentieth century's attempt to create a Wilsonian nation state under the Pahlevis gave way to present attempts at multiethnic theocracy and a new Arab caliphate unified again by the sharia.

What we pesently refer to as Arab, Turk, Persian, (As)syrian, European, Russian, and American "interests" need to be examined especially in such contexts as that of the Pashtuns on the east the Armenians, Azeriis, and Kurds of the center, and the "balkanized" minorities of Eastern Europe.

What is badly needed is a holistic approach to the history of this region that anyone with a limited vocabulary and ordinary reading skills can master in a very short period of time starting with the present situation and working backward to earliest beginnings around the Nile, Jordan, Oxus, and Indus river valleys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombleser (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Azeri are turkicized persians
As the peoples who came from central asia were mainly(70%)persian speaking tajiks and mixed turco-persians

All thes people cant exceed 100,000 for an anatolia population for taht time of 8 millions

And even the turk portion of this invaders has since the beginning mixing with persians armenians and greeks(especially the warlord ones)so nowadays there is not one single pure turk in turkey

Pure turks are mongoloid people and live as nomads

But when coming to towns they mix with established caucasoid people and loose their mongoloid features

It is for this that ouzbeks who mixed with iranian tajiks after settling in towns are turanid (mid caucasoid mid mongoloid)and caucasoid if there is more than one generation mixing

It is the same of turkmens

But nomads kazaks and kirghiz are mongoloid

We can not consider even the turks by ancestry of turkey who make as tiny as 1%of turkey population as genetically turks since tehy mixed with as much as 20 caucasoid ancestors by 1000 years

The language of real turks is turkich which is from the turkic family but is not rlated to mongolian nor tungusic(look at the altaic controversy in wiki)as the similar words were only by borrowing so it is comic when politics changed persian and sogdian names by mongolian ones though the bulk of invader turks are persian tajiks iranians and pashtun and their mother tongue was persian(even for turks ones)

The official language was persian in seljukid times

And even anatolian people spoke a turkic influenced persian langauge with some arabic borrowings

But the official(false)fachistic historical and linguistic policies were made in the aim to create a false new identity for anatolia people

As anthropolog timuçin binder confirmed in sabah journal that the remaining 85-90%of anatolia people was always living in anatolia from paleolithic ie 70,000 years and other 5-10%are different devshirmed ethnies (greeks circassians slavs bulgarians albanians{ataurk was a macedonia albanaian as akif ersoy} etc etc)

The people of anatolia and actually turkey are for sure linguistically islamized osmanlisized(then turkicized)greeks bulgars laz tcherkess assyrians arabs kurds zaza armenians etc etc The tiny minority of armenians and greeks who has not embrased islam retained their original language

Also 30 millions of kurds alevi and zaza are iranian people in origin(even alevis were persian from khurassan and they were speaking a turkich influenced persian {looks to their nooks}and alevis with their irano afghanic apparence of abundant pilosity and dark white skin whereas turks are people of rare pilosity asian slaughtered eyes and yellow skin)

South azeri are more as turkicized persians

North azeri contains also turkicized caucasians

The actual population of turkey is genetically and physically more akin to greeks bulgars syrians lebanese algerian iranian and other mediterranean peoples than to kazaks and kirghiz Also the turks who have central asian ancestry and genes are persian tajiks and pashtuns

This is the most likely truth about turkey population origins arguing scientifically without place to poor propaganda and fachistic or what other politics as our aim in this enciclopeadia is to give a SCIENTIFIC TRUE DATA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanusticus (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Azeris are the original Turks, you Iranians should not be afraid of 20 million Azeris in your country. They are not ringos like you and your sub-races...--94.54.228.174 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OR
There was some OR inserted with regards to CIA factbook figures and also Minorsky/USSR. Minorsky did not produce his scholarly work in USSR but in the West and is widely respected scholar. About the genetic stuff, I hope some experts looks at it, since I doubt Azeris genetically are close to Uighyur, Turkmen, Kazakhs as the new information states. But genetics is not my main point. Also the Dede-Qorqud and the she-wolf Ashinas and stuff.. are recent imports, but anyhow I'll let other editors look into that. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ali, not that I mind your numbers, but the CIA factbook, which you site, also says "Azerbaijan - a nation with a Turkic and majority-Muslim population". So I am not sure how your edit comment "Azeris are Turkicized Persians" is relevant in this context. Were Medians also Persians or Persianized, or maybe Helenified after Alexander's conquest? :)) Atabek (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Atabek, I didn't say any of the above. Check my version compared to Parishan's version and the intermediate revisions.  I only reinserted something and removed an OR (connecting Minorsky to the USSR).  You shall know (Talking Atabek style) that Minorsky did not have anything to do with USSR.  Just check his biography.  You shall be reminded, Medes were Persianized actually during the Sassanid era (check al-Masudi or Britannica).. that is by the end of Sassanids, the word Persian meant a different thing than by the end of Achaemenids.  As per Turkic, you shall be reminded or I shall remind you, that is a linguistic category, so if a group adopts Turkic dialect as their speech (through some historical reasons), they could be classified as such.  You can explain to US (the audience) why you think Minorsky was working for the USSR?  As far as Turkic goes, I shall remind that Mahmud Kashgari does not consider Oghuz Turks as Turks because of their heavy admixure with Persians.   :)   --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ali, I was referring to comment here which says - Azeris are Turkicized Persians. I never said that Minorsky was working for USSR, please, check the edits carefully. And perhaps, we should incorporate CIA reference which I provided above also, what do you think? Atabek (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Atabek, you probably know if you edit a subsection, the heading of the subsection comes up. So it is not really the heading of my edit summary but that of a previous user.  As per CIA factbook, the article already says Azerbaijanis are classified as a Turkic people.  But there are better anthropological sources there already, like Golden which mention this.  His book is specialized on the topic and I have an actual copy.  It is the only up to date specialized book on Altaic speaking people (Turkic people).  So I think for the quality of the article, Golden is better and he is already mentioned.  The CIA factbook was used mainly to get a estimate of demographic numbers although it has some problems with regards to accuracy, but nevertheless it is there.  Golden gives a good summary on pg 386 of his book on the Turkification process and overall is a excellent book.   In the end after the discussion of the Turkification process of Azerbaijan he mentions: "The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.".  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascist Iranian theory
classifing people with their language is the nature of natures. the biggest evidence of the "origins" must be attached in spoken language. you cant change the ethnicity with changing language(for example therese hunderds of thousands turkish-speaking kurds in turkey, but they didnt call themselves as a turk.) so the iranian theory cant be true. why do people make these genetic searches in iran, not in usa or somewhere else? i think its a game for the azeri people of iran.--Orkh (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Your Turkish brothers in Turkey are trying their best to proceed Turkification of Kurds, and when a modern Turkish person is that mean!, let's imagine medieval ones, they for sure forced Persian to speak Turkish. Alireza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.220.61 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The genetic researches have been done in Oxford, USA. Farshad —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Farshad, did you do that researches, so why dont you make a research ABOUT YOUR SELJUK ancestry...--94.54.228.174 (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Image
The image is that of an Azerbaijani girl. As this article says, Azerbaijanis were called Tatars in the Russian empire, so the image has nothing to do with Tatars of Volga, it depicts an Azerbaijani person. Grandmaster (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Seljuq conquest was in the mid to late 11th century. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkic
Added reference from CIA World Factbook to the fact that Azerbaijanis are presently an ethnic Turkic group. If anyone has doubts about this, they may present their arguments for discussion. I think denial of obvious identity over intolerance is at issue here yet again. Atabek (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Seljuq conquest was in the mid to late 11th century. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the mass migrations of Turkic tribes were from 9th to 12th century A.D., Seljukid conquest was only a temporary element of a much broader migration process. The timing difference does not matter as much as the identity element does. Many nationalities of today were formed based on migration and mixture, as are many Iranian tribes incomers to the region and not indigenous. What is undeniable though is that Azerbaijani ethnic identity today is unique and is Turkic. Atabek (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It started pretty much with Seljuqids, so it is mid 11th century.  I don't think there was a Turcophone dynasty beforehand in the Caucuses or Iran.  So the correction from 10th to 11th century needed to be applied.   Weather it was a "mass migration" or just a linguistic assimilation via eltime dominance is actually debatable and up to DNA analysis to show.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are DNA analyses which link essentially remote nationalities. And of course, there is a simplest example of Indo-European linguistic group. It does not mean Indians and Europeans are the same nations. What matters is unique linguistic (Turkic), cultural (Azeri) and religious (Shiite) identity of people living in a well defined historical region, which is Azerbaijan, both North, Republic of Azerbaijan, and South, Iranian Azerbaijan. This identity is distinct presently from people of Turkey and Iran in general, hence any DNA analyses maybe relevant in discussing the origins of portion of those people 1000 year ago, but are irrelevant in linking them to certain contemporary identity, such as purely Iranian or Turkish. Atabek (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is about mass migration.  In order to prove mass migration, DNA analysis is needed.   According to this article ,there is still a debate on Turkish or Iranian and in 1971 the offical line (that is Heydar Aliyev) favored Iranian but during the early 1990's it was more Turkish.  What you suggest is a mixture.  I actually agree with that based on this [ although the ratio is unknown as the article says.  But Iranian identity is multi-faceted so for example Achaemenid Iranian identity is no less Iranian than say Heydar Baba of Shahriyar  and people like Shahryar identified with their Iranian identity as well their ethnic identity.   And that is why they have played a role in different epochs (Iran-Iraq war, Constitutional Revolution and etc.).  Now I don't want to repeat the same stuff we had in the other discussion, but "Mass Migration" is debatable.   --[[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh]] (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ali, you're deviating to history again :), DNA data can be useful for anthropologists or ethnographs to understand the origins of where different ethnic groups came from or how they developed. Both Indo-European/Aryan and Turkic groups are incomers to Iranian plateau, Caucasus and Anatolia, they're not indigenous - so it's important to understand this in any case, prior to using "mass migration" in attempt to rephrase or redefine identity.

Again, we are talking about modern reality, today there is unique and single Azerbaijani identity in both Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan. Main factor of this identity, Azeri Turkic language, is being destroyed in Iran for political goals. So with due respect of borders and national integrities, there must also be voice against attempts to abuse cultural or historical context for eradication of modern identity. Atabek (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the topic is history. I changed 10th to 11th century (when Seljuqs came).  And "Mass migration" is something that needs genetic evidence.  Like what happened to Australia is a mass migration, but the question of the number of Turkic speaking tribes was large relative to the Iranian population, that is another story.  So indeed genetic evidence does yield data on the two theories of: "mass migration" or replacement of language via elite dominance.
 * I also disagree with your political opinion and I think statistics has shown that over the last 100 years, there is no change in the percentange of the number of Turcophone population in Iran nor in the land mass relative to 100 years ago (I have information on both), whereas the number of Tats, Kurds, Talysh has been reduced dramatically in the republic of Azerbaijan.  Note Lord Cruzon based on Russian date estimated that the number of Turcophones in Iran is 1 million in Irans 6 million population.  Now Iran's population is 70 million and we have around the same percentage.  Now on the other side, large parts of Baku, Darband, Shirvan and etc. were Tati speaking during the time of Bakhikhanov.  But that is something we disagree with and that is fine.  Ostad Shahryar was the greatest poet from Iran in the last century (both in Persian and Azeri).  And I'll take his word over the Fakhteh Zamanis of the world.  He said: "Difference in language does not lead to separate nations, a nation with one language is something that time has rarely produced".  I don't try to paint a rosy picture of everything that happened in Iran in the last 100 years, I am not affiliated with this or past government but I do not believe in radicalism either, which is to say "so called Iran".  What I do agree with is that disappearance of any culture and language is a loss to all of humanity.  So I do hope the various governments in the region adhere to virtuous principles.   --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ali, my opinion above has nothing to do with politics. It does not matter whether migration was mass or not, the reality is that today Azerbaijani people are Turkic and are diverse from other Iranians in cultural and linguistic aspects. Nothing wrong with stating or accepting that, I don't know any society where diversity didn't contribute to strengthening of national unity. But a lot can change when attempting to forcefully change an identity using historical interpretations. Because attempt to take an existing identity away results not only in loss to humanity, but in long term, in resistance and counter action, which is destructive. Atabek (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree they speak a Turkic language, but I believe Azeris also have an Iranian heritage dating back to the Medes. And I have seen Azeris be proud of Zoroaster, Medes, Atropatene, and other Iranian culture elements which they share with the rest of Iranians.  So "Turkic" is a linguistic term not necessarily denying the pre-Turkification heritage of Azeris as well.  And I also agree diversity specially with regards to Azeris is Iran's strength and they are both Iranian and Azeri.  So overall, there is not much disagreement.  My viewpoint on Azerbaijanis is that of Xavier Planhol [].  And in the end, I believe if Azeris want to identify themselves with say Oghuz Turks, or ancient Medes or Atropatene or ... it is up to them.  The only interpretation I am against is that Oghuz Turks came and destroyed the previous Iranian speaking people and Azeris are descendants of those Oghuz Turks.  This sort of interpretation is simply laying ground for some enmity, so I rather think Azeris are Iranian people who were Turkified and took influence from the Turks and they are our modern Azeris.   Although even if that did occur (which it did not but some pan-Turks are claiming Azeris are pure Oghuz Turks), one can not blame the bad actions of anyone's great great ... ancestors for anything.  Thus I think through a long process of assimilation and mutual culture exchanges, the ethnogenes of Azeris started and it has both Iranian component (note the quote you brought about linguistic Turkification) and also it a important Turkic linguistic element.  Just like Xavier Planhol stated: [[[]]].  And in the end, whatever people are happy with to define their identity, is the best and no one should force them to believe anything. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The genetics and origins argument is ridiculous, it doesn't exist for any other peoples page except ours and I find it patronising and racist.

Prior to the use of Turkish in the region an Iranic language was used. However, prior to the Iranic language a Caucasian language was used and prior to them other languages were used.

What is origins? genetic origins of humans if we go back far enough is the same.

We are discussing the origins of an ethnic group here.

What makes this ethnic group who they are?

Language is pivotal, this language is Azeri Turkish/Turki, part of the Oghuz branch.

Identity, today we are known as Turks/Torks/Azeri/Azeri Turk.

History of us as an ethnic. Our ethnic kin are Turks as we speak their language and share their identity. Also over the past millenia we have set up many states in Iran and contributed to the history.

These factors are totally ignored and were presented as a people who just speak Turkish because were so stupid that we forgot our own one and need Persians to tell us that were actually Iranic in origin (ironic because Iranic is a linguistic group!).

--Torke (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you have your opinion but there are many Azeris that differ. So that is why the article provides various opinions.  Even in the USSR era, when there was no Persians, the Medes and Caucasian Albanians were given primacy in the Azerbaijani ethnogenesis as they are today.  I am not sure what the current status, but if you claim Azeris are only Oghuz Turks (who were even influenced by Iranians prior to their coming to Azerbaijan as noted by Kashgari), then you are saying they have no relationship with the past Iranian heritage (Medes, Zoroaster, Babak, the name Azerbaijan itself, Nizami whose work is based on Persian Folklore, Bahmanyar, Khaqani, and etc.  Nowruz, Yalda, and etc.).  Note the Azeri foreign ministers speech in OIC about Azerbaijan: "remarkably contributed to enriching the Islamic civilization through its illustrious sons of eminent philosophers, scholars, thinkers, historians and poets like Nizami and Khaquani, Bakhmanyar, Masud Ibn Namdar and many others.. ".  As far as I know this foreign minister is Azeri.  Now Masud ibn Namdar was a Kurd, Bahmanyar ibn Marzuban was a Persian Zoroastrian, Khaqani and Nizami were Persian poets and there is no trace of any sort of Oghuz folklore/epic in their work and they do not have a single verse in Turkish.  None of these people were Oghuz Turks, yet the foreign minister considers them to be part of Azeri culture.  So you are wrong and there is a strong Iranian component in Azeri ethnogenesis.   In a way, if the former population (along with Caucasian Albanians) were not assimilated and did not contribute to Azeri ethnogenesis, then what happened to them?  And furthermore, Grey wolf Ashinas and etc. have never been part of traditional Azeri culture.  Neither was the work Dede Korkud known in Azerbaijan until recently.  We do not see great Azeri poets (Khatai, Nasimi, Fizuli) refer to it or the grey wolf myths and etc.  Also you are creating original research.  Just note the genetic study you brought in figure 1.  It shows Azeri mtDNA to be much closer to Kurds, Persians than to Turkomens of Central Asia.  In fact there is no doubt that a DNA of a Kurd or Talysh or etc. would be closer to your average Azeri, then the DNA of turkomen in Central Asia to Azeri.  Note the percentage of blue color for example and the percentage of yellow.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Minorsky quote is wrong! Azeri Turkish has vowel harmony
The quote says, Azeri has no vowel harmony, this is incorrect, there is vowel harmony, this error should be changed.

--Torke (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is because it is talking about various dialects and not the standardized form which was formalized very recently. Note Doerfer a well known Turkologist: many dialects, however, show signs of a dissolution of the vowel harmony  and Minorsky is referring to the Tabriz Dialect.  And note Richard Tapper: Some writers are of the opinion that the Turkicization of Azerbaijan has been relatively superficial, citing as evidence both the persistence of Tāti dialects and the “bastardization” of the Turkish language, notably the loss of vowel harmony characteristic of Tabrīzi speech.   And note Richard Tapper: "The second meaning of Tat, peculiar to Azerbaijan, designates the Turkish-speaking, settled, non-tribal population by contrast with nomadic tribal groups, especially the Šāhsevan, from whom they otherwise differ little in language, religion or, culture (see Tapper, 1979; Sāʿedī, 1965). In fact, although no systematic comparison of regional Azerbaijani Turkish dialects has been published, there is evidence that in some respects, for example the vowel harmony, the nomad Šāhsevan speak a “purer” Turkish than their ".  And note Xavier Planhol: "The disappearance in Uzbek, a language learned by the indigenous, of the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages, expresses the predominant tendency of this Iranian population base and its material culture, originating from the intensive agriculture of the irrigated regions, in the formation of a new ethnic group. "  And he says the same thing with various dialects of Azeri.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
Turkmenistan also has azeri people. I think they are more than from Kazakhstan. At least 100.000 people. I live at small city Bayramly, there is almost 5.000 azeri people. On west of turkmenistan they are called "azeri", which are mainly sunni-muslim and form azerbaijan. And others called "pursian" (persian), which are shii-muslim and from iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaweski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some realiable sources would be helpful. The census information from 1989 is not relevant anymore; it has been almost 20 years and thousands of Azeris have left Turkmenistan after the collapse of the Soviet Union, due to government-initiated policies. Parishan (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
An anonymous user deleted an image from the article, claiming that it does not show people from Urmiya. However if he cared to take a good look at the picture, he could see that it says on top: Fruit Market in Ourmiah, Persia. This image is retrieved from the US library of congress at this location: and it is PD. So I would advise this user to do some research before deleting images from an FA article, which were checked a million times during the FA nomination. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous edit
Anonymous edit on Nizami and his origination in this article was irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Please, provide references to the text or avoid original research, regardless of the POV. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Iranian Theory
why do all people are neutral about "Fascist-Extreme Islamic" genetic theory by modern Iranians in the page? Im exhausted for editing Turkic backround part of the article. I need a help about to protect Turkic backround of Azeris in the page. I think Iranians frightened about 30 million Azeris in the country but they should be neutral, their theories are really funny that only Persian genetic searchers are in the job. Someone should teach them the ethic of re-writing the history...--Orkh (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The original source from CIA World Factbook was removed by one of the editors, without providing valid explanations. Incorporating that edit, I believe a compromise version between ethnic Turkic and Turkic-speaking, would be just saying Turkic per both sources. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The compromise version we had when this article became an FA was to just say "ethnic group" and list everything about Turkic origins, etc. in the "Origins" section further down below. This is so people wouldn't edit war over the ethnic origins of the Azeris in the lead (people have been switching it to "Turkic", "Turkic speaking", "Iranian", etc.) Atabek: no one is denying what your sources say, but if you read further down below in the Origins section, it's all clearly explained: In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification. Various historians including Vladimir Minorsky explain how largely Iranian and Caucasian populations became Turkish-speaking. It then includes a quote, and we have a final sentence - Thus, centuries of Turkic migration and Turkification of the region helped to formulate the modern Azerbaijani ethnic group. Khoikhoi 05:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Azeri aswell (from Iran), except I can't speak Azeri. But I think this Wikipedia article is good - and I think that we need to make it clear that Azeris are not a Turkic people, and that we're just Turkic-speaking and nothing more than that. Also, we should make it clear on this page that the Azeris from Azerbaijan and Iran are completely different, which I myself have realized after actually meeting people from Azerbaijan, and seeing how they hate Iran so much; while the Azeris of Iran (like me) love Iran so much. And it is very interesting that these genetic studies on this page suggest that Azeris in Azerbaijan are more related to Armenians, while Azeris in Iran are more related to other Persians - because the people from Azerbaijan I have met look so different to the Azeris that I am used to seeing (because all the Azeris I have ever known are from Iran).

So yeah...um..NICE ARTICLE! I enjoyed reading this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

thats becaouse your grandmom loved persian cock and moved to persia now you feel like a persian, but your real grandmom once loved azeri cock and doggystyled by a azeri turk.. and as a turk, seeing people like you, you know what i mean(ringos), doesnt hurt too much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, just to make it clear, if Azeris are not Turkic people, and if they are just Turkic-speaking iranians, then, considering that you dont speak Azeri language, you are not Azeri anymore, You are Persian or iranian. because according to your statement Azeri ethnicity is defined by language. (I'm not Azeri, just a passer-by) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.24.134 (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason for revert
Here is my revert. According to the sources cited:


 * "...living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran."

Also:


 * "Azerbaijan is a very secular Muslim country. Far fewer women were in Islamic dress in Azerbaijan, for example, then in nominally secularist Istanbul."

Per WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Khoikhoi 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

8,676,000
I couldn't care less what the population of Azerbaijan is, the fact of the matter is that this number (8,676,000) is not the same thing as the number of ethnic Azeris living in Azerbaijan. This number also includes Lezgins, Russians, Armenians, etc. who are not ethnic Azeris. Khoikhoi 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
I have reverted and corrected previous edits by an IP. Tājik (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Since this article covers not the Azerbaijanis (inhabitants of Azerbaijan), but ethnic Azeris, half of whom live in Iran, I suggest we move it to Azeri people. kwami (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Iranian Azeris inhabit Azarbaijan, as one of the artifacts of the standard transliteration of Farsi, so this is less impressive than it may sound. I see we are using Hungarian people, not Magyars, as an article title this week, so why not leave this one alone as well? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a good point, though "Magyar" is not common in English. We could say that the Azerbaijani people inhabit the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azarbaijan, which would explain why it's appropriate to name them after the land rather than their nationality. Still, the country is named after the inhabitants, so why then refer to the people as inhabitants of the country, rather than directly? People named after a country that's named after themselves. It's like calling the Baganda people "Ugandans".
 * I am not convinced that Magyar is uncommon; indeed, in the sense of "ethnic group", I suspect it is more common than Hungarian. In the other, related, senses of Hungarian  ("The Crown of Saint Stephen is the Hungarian Crown"), Magyar is not idiom; so Hungarian is more common overall.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there no irredentist or separatist sensitivities to speaking of Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan as one country, the way Osmalis get upset if you speak of Kurdistan? I'm also thinking of all the silliness over "Macedonian". kwami (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the politics of Azerbaijani irredentism; but the Macedonian foolishness is chiefly produced by two unrelated sets of claimants to the same name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the move. In my experience, it is most common to refer to the ethnic group as azeris, so that's where the article should be. I have no figures to back this up, but a typical example can be seen on the BBC website here "Iran issues fatwa on azeri writer" Note that the article refers to an "azeri writer" and to the "azerbaijani embassy".--Barend (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to know if they'd contrast an Iranian Azeri with Azerbaijani = of Azerbaijan. kwami (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We also have articles named Azarbaijani Kurds and Iranian Azeris. kwami (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Been a few days, moving. In our Origin of the Azeris article, we distinguish Iranian Azerbaijanis, such as the Tat, from Turkic Azerbaijanis, meaning the Azeris. kwami (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I object. Azerbaijani is an ethnonym. Britannica article is called Azerbaijani people, not Azeri. Also, before moving the page, you should nominate it for renaming at a special board. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Azerbaijani is an ethnic definition in both Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran. Please, provide reliable reference as to when and where Tat (Taati) were called Iranian Azerbaijanis. Atabəy (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From Britannica:

''Azerbaijani people - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijanis in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran''. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We hardly want to use something like Britannica as a reference!
 * Yes, "Azerbaijani" is commonly used. So is "Azeri". The latter, however, is more precise, as it is only used for the ethnicity, not the nationality, whereas "Azerbaijani" is used for both. If we use "Azerbaijani" for both, we get odd statements such that 90% of Azerbaijanis are Azerbaijani, or we need to start specifying ethnic Azerbaijanis vs. non-Azerbaijani citizens of Azerbaijan. So, for example, here Azerbaijani Turks are called "Azeris", as the authors also discuss Azerbaijanis who are not Turks, such as the Azerbaijani Kurds. kwami (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Russian can also mean a citizen of Russia and ethnic Russian. Why is it a problem? Azeri is a colloquial term, while Azerbajani is the official name of the ethnicity. This is an FA article, changes like this need to be throughly discussed before being made. This issue has already been discussed many times. There's nothing wrong with discussing it again, but the page move needs to reflect a consensus. Grandmaster (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.
 * With "Russian", there is no work-around: there is no unambiguous term. However, in some cases there are unambiguous terms we can take advantage of: Mongol vs. Mongolian, Han vs. Chinese (though that isn't very anglicized), Arab vs. Arabian vs. Saudi, Malay vs. Malaysian (especially useful in such a multi-ethnic state), Abkhaz vs. Abkhazian, etc. Seems a shame not to be precise when the language allows it. kwami (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that you acted in good faith, and you don't have to be sorry. It is just that Azeri does not resolve the problem, as there was an ancient Iranian speaking people called Azeri, see Ancient Azari language, so the move does not resolve the problem of ambiguity. I believe we should go with the official name of the people, and it is not something unusual when the name of the ethnicity matches with the name of nationality. Grandmaster (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am curious as to what you mean by the term "official name of the people". Does the name become official because it's used by Britannica?--Barend (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Left-wing intellectuals assume "Azeri" to be a term of abuse, like "Paki", so the Britannica use of "Azerbaijani" is not unsurprising. In reality an Azerbaijani is a citizen of Azerbaijan - he could be of any ethnicity. Azerbaijanis don't inhabit Iran's Azarbaijan region - ethnic Azeris do. Meowy  01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Azerbaijani language the ethnicity is called Azərbaycanlı, the word Azeri is not used at all, it simply does not exist in our language. Azerbaijani is both ethnicity and nationality. That's why Britannica uses the term Azerbaijani. Grandmaster (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is simply wrong. The truth is the exact reverse. In Azerbaijan the mouthful of a word "Azerbaijani" was rarely used until the 1990s, and Azeri was almost always used. Meowy 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is not just Britannica, Ethnologue also uses Azerbaijani: --Grandmaster (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is what I assumed you meant. But this is English-language wikipedia. The Azerbaijani vocabulary is not relevant in this context. In English, the distinction between Azeri and Azerbaijani quite clearly does exist.--Barend (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think you are right. If the distinction exists, then Britannica and Ethnologue are not aware of it, which is strange. And there are plenty more sources who have no idea about such a distinction. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The distinction quite clearly does exist, as I have shown with my example from the BBC website (again here). There are plenty of other examples. We can debate whether or not we want to employ the distinction, but trying to pretend it does not exist in English usage is objectively wrong, and doesn't make for a fruitful debate.--Barend (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC article cannot be a proof of distinction. It can only prove that the word Azeri is also used to refer to Azerbaijani people in English language, which I do not deny. But it is not enough to justify a page move. Grandmaster (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kwami, will you provide any references as to what percentage of Azerbaijanis do not constitute native Turkic speakers. And still awaiting reference to your claim that Taati are referred anywhere as Iranian Azerbaijanis. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Same as anyone else can provide: about 10%. (Not sure how the Karabagh war affects that.) There are plenty of refs at Azerbaijan, and I'm sure with 5 minutes on Google you can find lots more. As for the Tats, we can't use Wikipedia as a source, which is why I gave the ref for "Azerbaijani Kurds" above. The wiki ref was merely to show that the distinction is sometimes convenient. kwami (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Distinction might be convenient, but convenience does not always mean accuracy. Grandmaster (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kwami, you reach consensus first and then move the page. I'm going to move it back until we reach an agreement. Chippolino (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kwami, I asked for references, specific ones, referring to Tats as Iranian Azerbaijanis. Would you be so kind to provide them, please, as I don't find such anywhere? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For everyone, please do not move page without consensus, discuss first. Grandmaster (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exaclty what you did right here. You moved the page without consensus, and renamed an entire ethnic group at your own discretion and pleasure. The Scythian 17:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never moved the page without consensus. This is an FA article, it went thru multiple reviews and reflects consensus among users editing this article. If you believe it should be moved to another title, suggest it and reach consensus for the move. --Grandmaster (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see where you had consensus for the initial move on your part. The Scythian 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This page has always been called Azerbaijani people, and under this name received FA status. I did not move this page, someone else decided to move it to Azeri people without consensus, and another user moved it back, as there was no consensus to move. That's it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what we have here is just, plain, no consensus. The Scythian 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, no consensus to move Azerbaijani people to Azeri people. Grandmaster (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, a large portion of Azerbaijanis call themselves Azerbaijani Turks. For doubts you may want to check the book by Professor Audrey Altstadt of UMass Amherst titled "Azerbaijani Turks: The Power and Identity under Russian Rule". So please, follow WP:NPOV and refrain from WP:OR in future edits. Atabəy (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know some people call them Azeri Turks, especially in Iran is this the case. But the offical name is Azeri or Azerbaijani. In Iran the better educated use always Azeri any way. Altstadt is not important at all, she had an agenda and was pushing her POV in her book. Similar to Brenda Shaffer. But Altstadt's book is a bit better than the other one. Still not a good book.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So per your claim, Altstadt and Shaffer, who are not Azeri Turks, have agenda, while you, with an obvious POV trying to eliminate any link of Azeris to Turkic background and instead ardently linking them to Iranian one, do not... Anyways, check The Role of the State in West Asia / Edited by Annika Rabo and Bo Utas, for studies conducted in Tehran on Azerbaijani people and how they call themselves ranging from tork-e Azari to Azerbaijani. Of course, Azerbaijani is preferable as it encompasses the unity of Azerbaijani national identity across borders, but this does not mean, you have to attack other researchers for using the historical Azeri Turk term. There is a history behind the existence of this term today, which cannot be denied or erased. Atabəy (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply say which different versions are in the bazar. I do not push towards one version above the other. However it is very easy to show of what origin the Azeri people are, the wikipedia is not the place for it. I  do not agree with it and probably you do not, but this is the way Wikipedia works--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well technically, you do push a version because you were removing "Turkic" word from the article in your edit. Generally, why there is so much interest in trying to redefine the origin of Azeris. How relevant is this? Every nation has its own identity and path of development, so do Azeris independently of any other associations. Term Azeri Turk was and is applied to Azerbaijanis in historical context, and there are many Azerbaijanis who are fine with this term both in North and, especially so, in South Azerbaijan. So why is there so much debate over usage of the terms Turkic, Turkic-speaking, etc. unless there is a clear agenda in denying those well known linguistic links? Atabəy (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No in the article is mentioned Iranian origins, Caucasian origins and Turkification. Simply put it says that Iranians and caucasian Albanians are Turkified. An Iranian POV will reject the caucasian theory, because Caucasian Albania is veiwed not as the historical Azerbaijan and only Iranian Azerbaijan is. Speaking of agenda, your definition of North and South Azerbaijan seems such one. There is a real Azerbaijan= Iranian Azerbaijan, and that was the historical Aturpatakan= Atropatena and there is a republic of Azerbaijan which was before the Caucasian Albania. Almost any reliable source agree on that.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cool. And Anglosaxons and Spaniards are Americanized in the U.S. Now what? Do we go back to redefine Americans as English or Spanish? No, that's very much a quite exhausted Iranian nationalist POV based on a very simple phobia that associating ethnic Azeris in South and North (which are indeed a single ethnos) may threaten the integrity of Iran - a baseless fear indeed, which only causes damage instead of anything useful in neighborhood. Same phobia results in such ridiculous inventions as somehow trying to call North as Azerbaijan and South as Azarbaijan trying to portray these as two different names. Ever since the 12th century, Atabegs of Azerbaijan, the name Azerbaijan was applied commonly to both North and South. There is also a reference to French traveler in Safavid court in 17th century (used in discussions on Safavid dynasty), who applied the term Azerbaijan to both north and south. Regardless of how some try to go back 7-8 centuries in history in order to redefine what's a fact today, out of above mentioned phobia, the fact is that the ethnos which developed in a geographic region from gates of Derbend to Hamadan is a single Turkic-speaking predominantly Shia nationality known today as Azerbaijanis. This does not mean someone should break political borders or trying to misrepresent reality out of fear. Atabəy (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Iranians and caucasian Albanians are Turkified
 * Indeed the fear is baseless, if there is any fear at all. Iranian nationalist position is in fact to incorporate the republic of Azerbaijan as soon as possible in a way or other. I do not know how realistic is this, but knowing your thoughts, these are the type of nationalists you mean. .... No the French traveller )you mean probably Chardin) did not call Transcaucasus Azerbaijan. I remember you or other people from rep. Azerbaijan posted something allegedly from his book whith a description of land of Azerbaijan. Bit that was not something you claim..... another thing is that in Iran there are more Turkic speaking regions. It doesnt mean that all these regions are Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan doesnt mean all Shia people who speak an Oghuz Turkic language, with a lot of persian words. For example the Turkicspeakers of Khorasan  and Fars (Qashqai) or Kerman are Shia and Oghuz speaking but this deosnt mean that these areas are Azerbaijan. I wish the logic could find its way among the theoretians of the republic of Azerbaijan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * you mean probably Chardin) did not call Transcaucasus Azerbaijan. I remember you or other people from rep. Azerbaijan posted something allegedly from his book whith a description of land of Azerbaijan. Bit that was not something you claim...
 * Oh yes he did:
 * Chardin, John. "The travels of Sir John Chardin, by the way of the Black Sea, through the countries of Circassia, Mingrelia, the country of the Abcas, Georgia, Armenia, and Media, into Persia proper: 1643-1713." Voyages and Travels in All Parts of the World. Ed. John Pinkerton. Vol. 9., p. 155: Media, which formerly ruled all Asia with an imperial dominion, at present makes but one part of a province, though the largest in the Persian empire, called Azerbeyan or Asapaican. It borders on the east upon the Caspian Sea and Hyrcania, on the south upon Parthia, on the west upon Araxes and the Upper Armenia, of which Assyria is a part, and on the north on Dagestan, which is that mountainous country that borders upon the Muscovite Cossacks, and part of Mount Taurus. The Persians affirm, that the name of Azerbeyan implies, the country of fire, by reason of the famous temple of fire which was there erected, where was kept that fire which the fire-worshippers hold to be a god. Nimrod is said first to have brought in this worship, and there is a certain sect called Guebres which still maintain it.


 * ''I wish the logic could find its way among the theoretians of the republic of Azerbaijan'
 * Wishful thinking in such fashion is part a non-neutral POV in itself. Per your logic, any Azerbaijani should theoretically desire a unification of Azerbaijan under one Greater Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan, which isn't the case among majority of Azeris at this time. But external endless Iranian POV pushing only results in such counter reaction. Atabəy (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt Babak/me and Atabek will agree on anything. What is important from history point of view is truth/sources(not romantic nationalism) and what is important in terms of ethnic identity is group-perception.  If Azerbaijani Turkic speakers (say of the Cuacus) feel they have Turkic culture they are Turks and if they feel they have Iranian culture, then that is so.  In the near east and caucuses there is no pure ethnicity, so culture is the main key and aspects of culture include: literature, mythology, festivals, religion, character and etc.  So that is my take.  Yes, majority of Azeris are probably descendants of former Tati/Talysh people, specially in Iran.  But again, perception is the most important thing although perception can change by different factors.  On Ildiguzids, Atabek  is incorrect.  "Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan" is a name later historians used for Ildiguzids just like Atabekan-e- Lorestan, Atabekan-e-Yazd, Atabekan-e-Shaam, Atabekan-e-Mosul, Atabekan-e-Fars and etc.  Mosul or Yazd or Shaam are not for example ethnic identities.  Nothing unique, an important geographical area had a dynasty and the most important geographic area under Ildeguzids was parts of historical Atropatene.  The actual differentiation between Arran and Azerbaijan is present during the time of Ildiguzids though as mentioned by Mongol sources and since they are used as separate territories.  For example, the Khwarizmshahid historian Mohammad Zeydari Nasawi differentiates between Arran and Azerbaijan clearly and this is right in that exact same era.  And in the 19th century, again Bakhinaov mentions Azerbaijan separately from the Caucuses.  The Ildiguzid kingdom is mentioned as Molk-e-Ajam(Iranian realm) by their own poetswhich means it had an Iranian character although the ruling elite were Qipchaq Turks(but the main culture was Persian) and did not include all of historical Azerbaijan (Atabekan-e-Maragheh controlled the area of Maragheh) nor modern republic of Azerbaijan(Shirwan was controlled by Shirwanshahs), but it did contain parts of the country of Armenia today.  The name Azerbaijan took an ethnic meaning in the 20th century, (along with political invented terms like "South Azeris" and "North Azeris") because before the late 19th/early 20th century, Turcophone speakers of Iran and Caucuses were not called Azerbaijanis and the term is actually an Old Iranian term etymologically and historically.  So all the modern ethnic connotations go back to no more than 1 century or so.  Swietchowski mentions the name Azerbaijani in the republic of Azerbaijan was accepted in 1930 as an ethnic term.  Before that, the only time the term took an ethnic meaning was when an Iranian language/group which in some sources are called "Azari" and it is remnants are Tati/Talysh.  So to connect an ethnic meaning with Ildiguzids is really not factual.  For example, the Turkic elements during the Safavids were called Turkoman/Turks but not Azerbaijanis.  A historian goes with the overwhelming majority of sources not by few statistical outliers.  The majority of sources before the 20th century differentiate between Arran, (Shirvan)Albania and historical Azerbaijan/Atropatene which is an Iranian name actually.  For example the number of geographical maps that are available show this clearly.  Some sources actually consider Arran/Shirvan as Western Armenia (if we are to consider outliers)  but again they are few relative to those that differentiate it from Azerbaijan/Atropatene.  Else one can claim Egypt is Iran because it is mentioned as part of Achaemenid empire.  As per the "phobia" I think it is best not to discuss politics in Wikipedia between Iranian and pan-Turkist nationalists, but obviously since the 1946 USSR intervention and even pan-Turkism introduced by Ottomans during their occupation of Tabriz in WWI in order to wrest away Irans Azerbaijan, there is some justified concern.  I think a much worst phobia actually exists in other places with regards to Talysh, Lezgins, Kurds, Armenians.  For example in Iran, there is a Kurdistan province but other countries do not use this term.  Or Turkey's phobia with respect to its Kurdish population is much worst.  In Iran no one is forced to say"Happy is he who can say he is an X", but in Turkey, such phrases are written in Kurdistan's mountains.  Or in Iran, no one is arrested if they claim Elamites, Babak Khorramdin, Avicenna, Biruni was of a different ethnicity (say Turkic) but according to one source, a Talysh editor committed national treason for calling historical cultural figures easily associated with Iranic world as a Talysh rather than state view.  So indeed "phobia" is not limited to one country and it is more severe in other places in the regions.   Lets just put sourced items and move on.  I just felt it was obvious I had to correct the perception with Ildeguzids since the term Azerbaijan was not used in the ethnic sense then and actually sources in their own time do differentiate between Arran and Azerbaijan (Nasawi at least 4 times and I can provide the original Persian).  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, in 21st century the reality relates to "what has happened", not "how and why it happened" and whether it happened right or not. The interpretation of what has happened from overly positive or overly negative connotation is part of ideological POV. So you agree with the fact that Ildeguzids combined Atropatene and Arran into one Turkic kingdom and ruled it as Atabegs of Azerbaijan. Right or not? Hence the development of common Azeri Turkic-speaking ethnos in both Azerbaijans happened, it's a fact since 12th century!

Turkism was not "introduced by Ottomans upon taking over Tabriz early 20th century", it was an ideology which started in late 19th century, by such linguists as Max Mueller and writers as Hasan Zardabi for example. You may dislike them, and in fact your tireless edits at Turanian tribes trying to undermine the very application of word to anything Turkic, show that you do. But done so by an Iranian editor, they only imply a non-neutral agenda as cited by Babakexorramdin above.

In fact, the Turkism in the works of Ismail Gasprinsky, Ziya Gokalp and Ahmet Ağaoğlu was promoted as ideology of unity and liberty of Turkic-speaking peoples of Russian Empire. The idea became popular in Ottoman domain only during Young Turk revolution in 1908, but preceding to that there were some 50 years of research in Turanism and Turkism as linguistic theories. Interestingly an article of Turanism is referencing only 3 authors, one of them a well known Turcophobe Kaveh Farrokh with his amateur original research from Rozaneh Magazine. So before even talking about neutrality, one has to be neutral in terms of cited sources.


 * "Else one can claim Egypt is Iran because it is mentioned as part of Achaemenid empire." - I think this is a self-defeating argument for Iranian POV push in regards to Azerbaijan. Iran was part of Caliphate for few centuries, does not mean Iranians are Arabs, neither does it mean Azeris are Arabs or Iranians for that matter too. Atabəy (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Turan theory is a dead theory, but you need to stop talking from the mouth of people who disagree with your point of view. I have specifically mentioned in which epoch the term Turan was applied for which group. The Turanians in Shahnameh do not have anything to do with Altaic people and the Turanians in Avesta are considered an Iranic group. The Turan language theory created in the 19th century(which includes almost all non IE, non semitic and non Hamitic languages) is well dead today and it is mentioned also in the same article. If you want us to believe Avesta Turanians were Turkic, then you are going against scientific conventions. As per Turkism/pan-Turkism (ethnic-type ideologies will eventually lead to fascism even if they were defensive initially much like pan-Arabism against Ottomans which lead to Ba'athism of Saddam), again read what I wrote. I said it was introduced by the Ottomans in the 20th century during their occupation of Tabriz. Yes the founding of that ideology might have started in Hungary or by Crimean Tatars or etc. But in terms of Ottoman occupation(whom introduced it in Iran) of Tabriz and Iran, it was an aggressive ideology and not defensive against Russians and was meant to detach Iran's Azerbaijan but it did not have success and it was introduced in WWI and is well sourced.

Also "Azaris" in the 12th century were Iranic speaking group and the term in the 12th century denotes an Iranian language. And today majority of Azerbaijani Turkic speakers are Iranian citizens, hence they have Iranian nationality and many of them feel culturally part of the Iranian state. Not sure where you are going with arguments, but the point is couple of statistical outliers and sources do not negate the overwhelming majority of sources and the Qipchaq (which are not Oghuz and it is like claiming Ossetians to be Kurds since they both speak Indo-Iranian languages) Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan is a later name historians used to denote the Ildiguzids who ruled parts of Arran (did not rule Shirwan which is a good portion of modern republic of Azerbaijan) and Azerbaijan (did not rule Maraqeh and surrounding areas controlled by Ahmadilis) and parts of Jebal (around Tehran, even perhaps far as Isfahan) and the term "Azerbaijan" at that time did not have ethnic connotations. So unlike what you said: "the name Azerbaijan was applied commonly to both North and South" during the time of Ildiguzids, this was not so (at least I have Nasawi which distinguishes the two regions and he actually visited the area and gives details), and their realm did not contain Shirwan(under Shirwanshah) nor parts of Iranian Azerbaijan (Atabekan-e-Maraghe or Ahmadilis). Here for an example is a quote from Nasawi who lived in the Khwarizmid shah era and visited the area when the Khwarizmshahs took it over from the Ildiguzids. "Atabak Ozbek ibn Muhammad Saaheb Araan o Azarbaadegaan raa tama' dar Molk-e-Araq Mostahkam Shod", "Chon Soltan Jalal al-din Azarbaadegaan o Araan raa begreft" and etc.. note "Azarbaadegaan"(that is how it is spelled) and "Araan" are distinguished during that time according to this source which is from that era. That is my point and if you disagree with it, then it is due to other reasons which is not my concern, but I had the responsibility to point what I saw was an inaccurate statement. Also I remind you about Wikipedia not being a battle field, specifically this statement:"But done so by an Iranian editor, they only imply a non-neutral agenda"..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As per this statement: " Nepaheshgar, in 21st century the reality relates to "what has happened", not "how and why it happened" and whether it happened right or not. The interpretation of what has happened from overly positive or overly negative connotation is part of ideological POV. So you agree with the fact that Ildeguzids combined Atropatene and Arran into one Turkic kingdom and ruled it as Atabegs of Azerbaijan. Right or not? Hence the development of common Azeri Turkic-speaking ethnos in both Azerbaijans happened, it's a fact since 12th century!"

Agree with the first sentence, 21 century reality is what is reality. In fact as I point out, culture and perception is the main factor of identity. History is of course part of it as well. But how a group collectively feels has primacy in my opinion although one should not take few to be representative of the whole group. Second sentence, no it does not have to do with ideological factors if we discuss facts based on sources, we can get answers. Third sentence and fouth sentence totally disagree. Ildeguzids combined parts of Atropatene (not the area of Atabekan-e-Maragheh ruled by Ahmadilis who were also Qipchaqs) and parts of Caucusus (parts of Arran and Armenia but not Shirwan and not parts of Arran/Armenia ruled by Christian/Georgian/Armenian Kingdoms). They also extended their realm to parts of central Iran at their peak (which again does not mean a common ethnos was formed). As per "Turkic" yes they were Turkic but they were Qipchaq. For example Kurds are Western Iranian speakers and Ossetians are Eastern Iranian speakers. Same with Oghuz who are Western Turkic speakers and Qipchaqs who are Eastern Turkic speakers. So the ruling language although in the same family (Turkic) is not directly related to Oghuz Turkic (which modern Azerbaijani Turkic is a deravitive of) although it could have influenced Oghuz Turkic (like other languages). But I do not consider an Azeri Turkic-speaking ethnos to be have developed then, since culturally both Seljuqs and Atabaken-e-Azerbaijan supported Persian culture and literature and did not support Turkic, so culturally they were not Turks or did not support Turkic culture. They supported the common Persian-Iranian culture which was the culture of the Muslims of the Caucasus, specially urban ones at the time. So culturally, no Azerbaijani-Turkic ethnos in my opinion was not formed then  unless you can show some books and cultural relics from that time which are Oghuz. For example the book Nozhat al-Majales clearly shows even 100 years after the Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan, the culture of the area was Persian (consider 114 poets from Azerbaijan and Arran,Armenia, Sherwian, Tiblis and zero poets in Turkic). And from the documents we have, it is show major cities had Iranian languages (like Tabriz during the Ilkhanids). Shirwanshahs were also again culturally Persian despite their mixed Arabic/Iranian origin. The common Azeri Turkic speaking ethnos in my opinion started its development during the Aq-qoyunlu/Kara-koynlu era and really accelerated during the Safavid era, when Turkmen supporters of Safavids(Shamlu, Istajlu, Rumlu...) moved from Anatolia to Azerbaijan and etc and by assimilation of Iranic speakers, we have the current group. Other factors played a role. Nothing ideological here or to be proud or ashamed of, I am just stating facts based on sources. Actually, one should be proud of someone like Fizuli and other cultural icons of Azerbaijani Turkic, but again dating it back to Ildiguzids seems unlikely. If I am wrong, fine, as long as I can see good documentation/sources I can change my opinion. But I have a good deal of the rare sources: Nasawi, Nozhat al-Majales, Safineyeh Tabriz and I can read them in the original form.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nepaheshgar, Wikipedia is not a place for defining national identity or redefining someone else's by pushing POV (please read the title of the page you're editing - it's called Azerbaijani people - meaning today). Azerbaijanis today call themselves Azeri or Azerbaijani Turks both in North and South Azerbaijan, and the latter title SOUTH AZERBAIJAN is used by majority of Azeris from Iran often calling themselves "junubi". So while it's useful to know that Azerbaijani Turkic kings of Azerbaijan in 12th century used Persian language as lingua franca, just like Russian aristocracy at the end of 18th century used French, and encouraged court poet Nizami to compose poetry in it, it's history and not a basis for claiming Azerbaijani people are not Turkic. There is an imminent need to separate issues of anti-Turkic Iranian political propaganda against Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis in general from editing on history-related articles in Wikipedia, prior to any claim of neutrality to be made. Again recall the title of article you're editing, it's not just a historical subject. Atabəy (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a history section in the article, so it is not just contemporary and the history section touches upon ethnogenesis. It is the first part of the article.  If a group of people today call themselves Turkic or another label, that is not my issue and if it is based on valid sources today, then I am not here to oppose it.  Infact what a group considers itself has primacy for me and is respected.  My viewpoint on the issue of Azerbaijani's today is like that of Professor Xavier Planhol, but other viewpoints as long as from reputable and non-biased scholarly sources are fine.  My issue was with something historical you did not source and has to do with historical component to the article.  Your historical statement about Eldiguzids in the talkpage were not correct, for example claiming the area was called "South/North" or they/sources at the time did not distinguish between Arran/Azerbaijan in the 12th century when they did and neither they ruled the whole of Azerbaijan or the country in the Caucus today.  Also Nezami Ganjavi was not a "court poet" and throughout his lifetime, he showed up in the court once (after many requests), although he did send his son to the court of Shirvanshahs voluntarily whom were not Turkic(ethnically or culturally) and entrusted his son to the Shirvanshah's son care.  This is all basically he had with court life.  Neither did he need any encouragement, since he specifically chose some of his stories voluntarily (Haft Paykar or Khusraw shirin were chosen by him and he considered Khusraw and Shirin to be the sweetest story in the world) which were Sassanids/Persian stories and if those Turkic kings wanted to encourage him, they would have probably chosen Turkic topics, but again they did not have Turkic culture nor did he, since he was immerested in the Shahnameh and not Oghuz topics.  So it was not the Turkic kings who encouraged initially, rather it was the culture of the common folks/urban muslim population and the lasting Sassanid civilization married to Islamic civilization which was imposed on the new rulers who became Persianate in culture and thought and manners.  We can see that before Seljuqs, Shaddadids and Rawaddids and Justanids and others were supporting Iranic/Persian culture.  It is not like the Qipchaq Ildiguzids brought such a culture to the area, rather they needed to make themselves native and became absorbed in the common culture of the time.  And again Azerbaijani was not used in an ethnic sense then.  Khaqani Shirvani is a court poet of the Shirwanshahs, but Nezami was not a court poet and he dedicated his works to rival kings (Shirwanshahs, Ahmadilis, Ildiguzids whom all fought battles against each other, were major rivals during his lifetime and had numerous life-taking battles against each other) and was not attached to any court.  Culturally, the Persian language was not only for the aristocracy but it was the language of the major cities which is shown by the topics of say Nezami's epics (taken from the Shahnameh) and cultural items from that era which have no relationship with Turkic culture.  Or the mystical poetry of the region which was recited in the Sufic prayer houses or Bazaars is recorded in Nozhat al-Majales.  As Istakhri says, the language of Muslims of Arran were Arabic and Persian at that time.  Remnants of that once prevalent Iranic culture can still be seen in Kurds, Talysh, Tats in Arran, which were the majority Muslim population in the 12th century and were fairly numerous even in the 19th century.  For example when Anatolia was Turkified, there was a discontinuity.  It is of course up to individual Azerbaijani Turkic speakers to see if they want to associate themselves with the Persianate/Iranic culture at that time or not or claim to be exclusive Oghuz Turks or whatever, but the Persianate/Iranic culture was the main culture in the 12th century.  Where-as the analogy with the Russia you are talking about, many Russian cultural items have been produced by both court-related/non-court writers of that era, yet we have nothing in Oghuz or any other Turkic language from the 12th century from that era from that area under Seljuqs/Shirwanshahs/Ahmadilis/Ildiguzids.  So you can not claim really an Azerbaijani Turkic ethnos at that time, unless you show proofs of an existence of a high or common Turkic culture among either the court or non-court people of the major cities.  If I am wrong, then please provide some cultural items.  This might be the case say with Aq-qoyunlu but not the case in the 12th century.  So that is exactly my point with regards to the historical stuff, or else the Seljuqs controlled all of Iran, but culturally the common people in Iran did not have Turkic culture at the time and they imposed their high culture on the newly arrived Seljuqs and made them encourage the high culture.  So that is the history stuff, and I have nothing more to add here. Sometimes after many months we can agree on history sutff (like Safavids) and other times, we can't. As per the political stuff, I have explained my opinion  and I am not interested in continuation behind a silly monitor.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To Atabey: You again are here talking big things which are not true, without evidence and in simple words you are lying again. Who syas the majority of Iranian Azeris call Iranian Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan? This word is not used in Iran and most of Iranian Azeris do not regard republic of Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan at all. I am Iranian Azeri and have been there for long. So please do not lie. South Azerbaijan is just an invention of some political agendas.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

follow up.
Look Atabek. I do not have much to offer, if you or your buddies do not cooperate in a civil way. You know what I mean. But two things: 1- any one with geographical knowledge can see how inaccurate is the discription by Chardin which you offered. he clearly misplces Araxes. etc... says Hyrcania (province of Golestan, Gorgan) is to the east of Azerbaijan and Parthia (Khorasan) is to its south. Is it not funny? And I do not know why you still target at Kaveh Farrokh? His writings are among the best sourced writings. Talking about POV, you are accused to push your pov aboiut Karabakh. It seems you may have a point but I cannot do any thing if you and that buddy refuse to share with us the sources. So ...--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets just forget this whole episode since most of what has been debated really is not related to the article and has been debated much outside of Wikipedia. In the end the best approach to follow wikipedia rules, specially with users which one usually disagree with 80%.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is of no use to talk rationally and logically to people like Atabek. Don't waste your time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just ignore this political stuff and edit based on wikipedia rules when approaching people whom we disagree with. I had what I believe was the responsibility to respond to this sort of threat once, and from then, I will ignore the behind the monitor empty rhetorics.  Some people are respectful but others make disrespectful rhetorics behind monitors and etc..  There is no point to the sort of battle-ground talks in Wikipedia which will simply lead to bans.  It is one thing to disagree respectfully and another to to make Wikipedia a battle ground.   If someone break the rules or makes it a battle ground, then report them to admins, since there is not anything else that can be done behind the monitor in virtual world.  If a person can be disagreed with, but is respectful, then that is fine and respect is mutual.  Thankfully with two arbcomms, Wikipedia has more stringent conditions on these issues and users who have taken wikipedia as a battle ground are dealt with as they should be.  I had to response to this sort of threat to Iran's territorial integrity from the pan-Turk viewpoint once (above) which we know who supports and etc.  I think one time response is sufficient.  But lets not fall in that trap and keep the cool (I know it is hard and requires a thick skin) and as soon as you see a violation with a battle-ground overtone, report to admins like Moreschi or others.  The guidelines provide a law for the virtual jungle, without which there would be endless bickering.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a basis for such personal attacks, but that seems to be a pattern of Babakexorramdin's disruptive behavior in Wikipedia. The best example of that is relentless removal of Azeri Latin spellings from Azerbaijan related articles, which is not quite an expression of neutrality but simply extreme POV. As a note, I don't want to mix such behavior with Nepaheshgar, who despite non-neutral POV, remains to be a constructive and cooperative contributor in general. Atabəy (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to response to this sort of threat to Iran's territorial integrity from the pan-Turk viewpoint once (above) which we know who supports and etc
 * Wikipedia is not a place for perceiving discussion messages or responding to someone's viewpoint from position of "threat to territorial integrity" of some country. On a separate note, if you expect a respect the territorial integrity and nationhood of your country from neighbors (see my user page), then respect theirs as well at least. Regards. Atabəy (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look Atabek, are you trying to threaten Iranian territorial integritry? Ok. I am not a general of the Iranian army. But good luck, if you and yours declare a war to country of 10 times of yours. But your talk suggests that I should not answer to you again. You had your chance but you and your friend lost it. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is he trying to threaten Iranian territorial integrity? Is this a joke? You seem to be the one claiming that Azeri's are not Turkic...Which unto itself is laughable. The Scythian 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not intermingle with this. I do not want to say much but think on an organization, which is politically active and lobby for bombing Iran. Do you want to laugh? You are welcome, go laugh as long as you want.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will intermingle wherever I want to on Wikipedia. That's just the beauty of it. Oh, and nobody is bombing this article, I don't think. The Scythian 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have either connections to the organization in which Atabek and co. are working or you have difficulties in understanding English. I do not know if your are Iranian or not. But shame on you if you are Iranian. because you deffend a guy (Atabek) who is lobbying in the real life to bomb Iran--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow...That is one tall claim. You still think the Azeris are not "Turkic Speaking"? That's my only issue here. The Scythian 09:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said you have difficulties to understand. You can see from my edit that I wrote that they are Turkic speaking. But what you did you have hiden Turkic peoples under the Turkic speaking. Which is a .... ok never mind.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The Scythian 09:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A note to jeroen
I have not reversed your edit. Article as it is here says that Azeris are of mixed origins. However this is truue only if one accepts the rep. Azerbaijan as a legitame name. Iranian Azeris are of Iranian origin, and Äzeris"of the republic of Azerbaijan are partially Iranian and partially Caucasian (Lezgic, Udin) origins. I am not here to discuss it. But I found your accusation of Iranian natioanlist very out of its place. Thougfh you said that to another user, with whom I have had problematic relations, I too am offended. It seems thatwhatever Iranians say is bad. It seems that every one should accept the nonsense is written about the Iranian history. While everything written also by the western scholars, is not valid, when Iranians come up ith. Moreover I want to remind you to know as you are Dutchman, that Holland is not the tolerant country as it is said everyday. Nationalism is how millions of people trat a small minority in Holland. Even after his death, Pim Fortuyn's xenophobic party becomes the second largest party in Holland, that Is indeed nationalistic! Exzcluding the Students of Iranian background (even hey possess the Ducth nationality!) from university, that is Nationalistic or even more --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin's unexplained reversion
Regarding this, I'm placing the Republic of Azerbaijan first due to related demonym and alphabetical order as well. Secondly, I doubt whether Caucasian Albanians could be classified as invaders, so their mention in the relevant place should be either challenged or removed IMO. --Brand спойт 13:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your notion on the Caucasian Albanians ( but nevertheless while Iranian Azerbaijan has always been Azerbaijan, Caucasian Albania? Arran was not called Azerbaijan (see the debate on this). But any way the Azeri population in Iran is at least twice of that in the republic of Azerbaijan, so Iran should come first and then the rerpublic of Azerbaijan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I expected you to do this :) --Brand спойт 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most racial-obsessed article in Wikipedia! We Azeris are Turks why can't you accept it
This article is loaded to the brim with silly racialistic ideas, theories and mumbo jumbo. You don't have the people of Turkey page have, "The Hitite Origins of Turks", or the "Assyrian origins of Iraqis" or the "Elamite origins of Persians". So why is half this article about racists trying to stick us into a category.

There is a Caucasian "history" which existed in the lands of Azerbaijan, there is Iranic "history" which has existed in the lands of Azerbaijan and there is also Turkic "history".

However, the identity of Azeri Turks today is not a matter of rocket science. We are speakers of "Oghuz Turkic", our language is a language continuum of the Turkish spoken in Eastern Turkey, its not a different language, how can we magically understand "foreign" languages, are we just natural born linguists. We are known as Turks according not only to ourselves but our neighbours aswell, Georgians, Persians etc refer to us as Turks. We have a Turkic history in the region and had a large influx of Anatolian Turkmen tribes during the Ottoman-Safavid conflicts.

We are not Iranic or Caucasian, we don't speak an Iranic or Caucusus language, we don't identify as being either of them.

Could we focus more on the "realities" rather than ethno-central theories which only exist for pollitical reasons.

Do we really need half this article to be about what foreign pollitical powers would rather we be and focus a little more on our people please.

--Torke (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be the case with Azeris from Republic of Azerbaijan, but in case of Iranian Azeris we very much identify with Aryan history. We don't necessarily call ourselves Fars, but Aryan/Iranian origin of us is undeniable. You can see it here as many of the editors here are Azeris from Iran arguing over Iranian identity with Azeris of Rep. --67.208.6.119 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As my experience shows -(as an Iranian Azeri)- our Azeri co-ethnics in Turkey(Iğdır,Kars and etc) and Azerbaijan Republic don't know much about our Iranian heritage .A very large portion of our language is Iranic and almost all of our culture and history is also Iranian . The policy of "language first " is a new one in national items and is not important in identification of Iranian Azeris . I'm sure without knowledge of Persian language and Iranian history (culture), the person can not understand significant items in Azeri language and history(culture) . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Turkic vs Turkic-speaking", "Azeri Turks" -- I don't understand
I really do not understand why Azeris are mentioned as "Turkic-speakers" instead of just "Turkic" when it's admitted that "Azeri Turks" is a synonym of "Azeri"?--Mttll (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the origins of Azeris is discussed in the article. The article says that they are a result of lingual Turkification of Iranian and Caucasian Albanian (only in the republic of Azerbaijan) tribes. The article says that they are called Azeri Turks, because in Iran the language is often called Turki Azari (in contrast to the Older Azeri which was a northwest Iranian language) while in the republic of Azerbaijan it is called Azerbaijani. Also what a role is played by persistent vandalism by panturkist Ips/ editors to push for the word Turk. So I propose to have in the intro just "ethnic group" one can read about the process of Turkification later in the article. In that I agree with Parishan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what "Turkic" means? It doesn't have anything to do with race or genetics, it's an ethno-linguistic concept (see "Turkic people" and "Turkic languages" articles please) which definitely includes Azeris.--Mttll (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not speak in an arrogant way to me, as if it is up to you to teach me, what is what. "Do you know..."? For your info. Of course I know. And the very word ethno-linguistic concept is very ambigous. Ethnic or linguistic. And what makes ethncity? All these are subjects upon which many scholarly discussions is discussed and many books written. I know there are people who equalize ethnic groups with linguistic groups, mainly because of political motives. But that is not correct.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean it.--Mttll (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its ok, but meanwhile what to do with the article? I propose to revert it back to Parishan's suggestion of making it a neutral intro.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that would be something neutral. One could question Turkicness of Azeris only through not accepting the term, "Turkic people" in the first place. But, you see, Wikipedia has an article on Turkic people. Now, why should Turkish, Kazakh, Tatar people be considered Turkic whereas Azeris are left out? Is it because they're genetically Iranian & Caucasian? But we all know being Turkic has nothing to do with race or genetics. Turkish people are usually Anatolian or Balkan in terms of genetics. Some Tatars, Chuvash etc are indistinguishable from NE Europeans. Yakuts, for example, are also closer to East Asians, not Central Asians. Yet all these people are Turkic, why should Azeris be considered any different?--Mttll (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * in the article Iranian peoples, was a fragmnent speaking about the Case of Azeri and to some extent Uzbeks. many studies were shown that they are Iranian. In fact their Turkicness is contested. Also in the sense of self identity: Many Iranian Azeris do not consider thesmelves Turkic. Of course they see this category called "Turkic" as racial and not as linguistic. Also Panturkists who push for a Turkic definition define Turkicness as something racial. A solution would be to define them asa Turkic people in language terms, another would be to call them an ethnic group which speaks a Turkic language. Which is now the case. (However there are still of rural pockets of speakers of non-Turkic, Iranic old Azeri language in Iran, so defining Azeris as Turkic speaking was a major concession to the Panturkists at the firs place. But in any case they are generally Turkic speaking) Moreover Turkicness in cultural terms is an empty concept. It is not a mystery that Azerbaijan republic is under the Iranian cultural sphere as it has a long historical tie with Iran, and not with Turkey (or Russia for that matter).--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I thought I made it clear that genetic studies have nothing to do with this discussion? Azeris (in Azerbaijan, Iran etc) are basically Turkic people, just like Kurds in Turkey and Iraq are Iranic people. Saying these doesn't make anyone pan-Turkist or pan-Iranist.

2. As for old Azeri languages, I'd welcome more info. I'd also like to remind you of how ancient Bulgars were a Turkic people and gave modern Bulgarians their names. Yet this doesn't make Bulgarians any less Slavic people than Serbs or Croats. (This may not be 100% accurate analogy, it's just an example.)

3. What do you mean Turkicness is an empty concept culturally? Who are you to decide that? You use pan-Turkists as scapegoats and make such biased/chauvinist statements?

From "Turkic people" article:

'''The Turkic peoples are Eurasian peoples residing in northern, central and western Eurasia who speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Azerbaijani, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkish people, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks and as well as past civilizations such as the Xiongnu, Cumans, Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottomans and Timurids.'''

This is a very accurate and fairly brief explanation.--Mttll (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an aticle on the Iranic Azeri language. The Ancient Bulgarians were a different people than the Balkan Bulgarians. But as you said this is another case. AND PLEASE bring evidences that Turkic is a cultural category. it is not. And why I am chauvinist? This word is used of course overtly by Oanturkists and some anti-Iranianist pseudo-Scholars. I am not saying that you are one, but in chosing such an accuation to someoen who is trying to prevent that you engare in another 2revert edit war, was not a nice idea.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I am afraid the burden of proof is on you. If you think "Turkic peoples" is an inaccurate term, then the only thing I have to do is reminding you of the fact that Wikipedia has an article on "Turkic people" (apart from "Turkic languages") with this exact title. If you think that "Turkic peoples" is a valid term, and that Turkish, Kazakh, Tatar, Yakut, Uzbek, Gagauz etc people should be lumped together as Turkic whereas Azeris should be left out, then be my guest, prove why it should like that. 2. You were saying some Azeris (who?) in Iran don't identify as Turkic. Well, what are we going to do about a president of Azerbaijan who said "Azeris and Turks (Turkish) are one nation and two states" ? (I don't agree with him by the way, Azeris are a distinct nation from Turkish people) This is not a very good base for this discussion, let's not go deep into politics which is biased by definition. 3. What exactly do you mean I should bring evidence that Turkicness is a cultural concept as well? How can you underestimate language factor like that? Many cultural activities (like poetry, music etc) are mostly derivatives of language. Not to mention self-identity and common history.--Mttll (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. No matter how bold is the text. Are you saying that Azeris have more in Common with the Yakuts than they have with Persians. Or are you saying that Anatolian Turks have less in common with Kurds than they have with the Chuvash? Be sincere. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, people who live next to or close to each other will have similarities in many ways. However, it doesn't effect ethno-linguistic identities. Turkish, Yakuts and Chuvash are Turkic, Kurds and Persians are Iranic. Similarly, the English and the Dutch are Germanic people, whereas the Welsh who live next to them are not Germanic, but Celtic. The fact that English and Welsh people are culturally similar in some ways doesn't change this.--Mttll (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnolinguistics as you see the scietific concept of ethnolinguistics has nothing to do with its popular usage. Ethnicity is not all about language. If you ask me the concept ethnolinguistic group is wrong and used mostly for poltical goals. This is also vey  obvious in the article about Kurds. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Azerbaijanis are Turkic people, because ethnicity is based on the language. I agree that Azerbaijanis have mixed origins and are for the most part descendants of aboriginal people who adopted Turkic language as their native tongue some 1000 years ago, but that does not change the fact that Azerbaijani people speak a Turkic language, which makes them a Turkic people. Turkic people, Iranic people, Slavic people, Germanic people etc are just groups, formed on the basis of the language, and nothing else. Grand  master  05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong that language makes the ethnicity. Other factors are also important. race, religion, but also believe in common ancestry are important.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about other ethnicities/meta-ethnicities, but Turkicness has nothing to do with race or genetics. Belief in common history and presumed common ancestry are important though, and Azeris qualify.--Mttll (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Common history of Azeris and belief in common ancestry with other Turks? Are you sure about that? Common history and belief in common ancestry with Yakuts, Chuvash, Kyrgyz. Big words. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say Turkic people are genetically close to each other, far from it. Hmm.. How should I tell it? Okay, here is an example: African-Americans are mostly an English-speaking people, but they certainly are not ethno-linguistically English or Germanic. Saying that Azeris are Turkic-speaking people instead of just "Turkic people" gives a false impression. Azeris (like Turkish people) are genetically mostly local, but they also have, after all, ancestries from Turkic people who came to the region centuries ago, and that's their ethno-linguistic identity.--Mttll (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you say that they have ancestry from Turkic peoples who came to this area, if you say they are descendents of local people? There have been genetical testing and Azeris were no different than their non-Turkicspeaking neighbors in Iran. I do not say that there is no Turkic genes in Iran, but the amount of these are not more among Azeris than is among Persians. In fact you can find Turkic genes among the Persians of Khorasan more than you can ever find among Azeris. I am not an expert in genetics but they have technics and their results seemed conving for a lay person.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is this is a very different case from "African Americans are English-speaking people". Because the concept of ethnicity is involved.--Mttll (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now getting interesting. African Americans do also have ethnicity as well as the Turkic peoples. In fact the term ethnic was often used in north America especially for the black Americans (which later were called African American !). But the thing is they are not called Anglo-saxons but different people of non-Turkic ancestry are called Turkic only because they speak Turkic. What I think is this is because of white American racial supremacy and arrogance not wanting to include blacks, and by western Geopolitical agenda which wants to weaken the Iranian legacy or both. In any case there is a double standard here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for information of the Panturkist vandal here. I am not Fars. I myself am Azeri Iranians. Thanks to Khoikhoi who deleted that vandal.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still some Azari population in repulic of Azarbaijan who speak the Iranian Azari languages (Tats,Taylesh, etc). So I'm assuming as long as there are Iranian speaking Azeri, all Azeris won't fit into Turkic description. Ddd0dd (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mttll, the African-Americans are in fact a Germanic people, since terms like "Turkic", "Iranian", or "Germanic" etc are usually linguistic designations. Yet, I think that saying "Persian-speaking", "English-speaking", "Indo-European speaking", etc is better, since it avoids misinterpretations. Like in the case of Hazara people (who are in fact not only Iranian, but ethnic Persians), I would prefer "x-speaking", in this case "Turkic-speaking" and in case of Hazaras "Persian-speaking". Most of all, because "Azeri" is a historical geographical term that has been used for various peoples in the course of history. It's not a defined ethnic designation (like Rus --> Russian; or Basque). As for the ethnic component: the Azeris are aware of a distinguished "Azeri identity", although many - especially nationalistic fractions - misinterprete this Azeri identity as a pure Turkic identity. For example, Azeris acknowledge the Khurramites and Babak Khorramdin, the very name "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" is pre-Turkic. Azeri's also cherish the poetry of Mowlana and Nezami, alongside Oghuz Turkish poetry. Because Azeris have a very distinguished identity that is to a large extent pre-Turkic, I would refrain from using the term "Turkic", and instead use "Turkic-speaking". That would avoid misinterpretation and future edit conflicts. Regards. Tājik (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The most important problem (for you) is that Wikipedia happens to have articles on Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples etc with these exact names. Wikipedia (accurately) describes these terms as ethno-linguistic as opposed to merely linguistic. Because these terms have their ethnical (as well as cultural, historical and political) aspects. Describing them as merely languages causes many problems.

For example, let's take it literally: "Kurds in Turkey are an Iranic-speaking people" Well guess what, not all Kurds in Turkey speak the Iranic language (Kurdish). Many speak Turkish as mother language, quite a few of them do not know a single word in Kurdish. But if they choose to identify themselves (ethnicity) as Kurdish, who's to say they are not Kurdish?

As for the word, Azeri, well that says little really. Unless you think that Bulgarians and Russians are not completely Slavic, but are a little Hunnic/Turkic and Viking/Germanic respectively.

I won't comment on cherishing Mowlana, that's a non-issue.

Anyway, the point stands and don't forget my initial arguments:

(1) ''One could question Turkicness of Azeris only through not accepting the term, "Turkic people" in the first place. But, you see, Wikipedia has an article on Turkic people. Now, why should Turkish, Kazakh, Tatar people be considered Turkic whereas Azeris are left out?'' (remember genetics isn't an issue, not in the slightest sense)

(2) I really do not understand why Azeris are mentioned as "Turkic-speakers" instead of just "Turkic" when it's admitted that "Azeri Turks" is a synonym of "Azeri"? -- Mttll (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contemporary Azerbaijani national and cultural identity has a mixture of Turkic, Caucasian and Iranian elements. So there is no need to label one as different from others. Atabəy (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to ignore cultural richness of Azeris. Azeris are Turkic just like Persians are Iranic or Poles are Slavic, but none of them are culturally "pure" -- Mttll (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable. The article says that "Azeri is an ethnicity". That's it. What is the problem?--Xashaiar (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What's unacceptable? Azeri is of course an ethnicity and is distinct from, let's say, Turkish people, but they're still Turkic (the larger group) just like Kurds are distinct from Persians but both are Iranic (I'm really tired of repeating this) -- Mttll (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think using "Turkic-speakers" is less controversial because the Azeris in history has not been Turkic language and in process of Turkification changed their language to a Turkic one . Thus there is a section on article Iranian peoples in whether count them in Iranic peoples or not.Anyway, by using "Turkic-speakers" , there is no controversy and anyone can follow the link to the Turkic and Iranic articles and find out if they are of which group . Using Turkic-speakers bypasses conflict.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Why don't you ever address the overwhelmingness of the term, AZERI TURKS ?

2. The thing on the Iranian peoples article is just nonsense, frankly (I won't attempt to remove it, because its ridiculousness is too obvious to mislead anyone) Just look at it: Azeris, Uzbeks, Bulgarians, Croats, Serbs

3. What's Turkification ? This isn't about genetics, please, why can't you understand it? What's more, people say that about ALL Turkic groups. Like Turkish being Turkified Greeks, Tatars being Turkified Russians, Kyrgyz being Turkified Mongols etc etc. Really boring.

I have sympathy for citizens of Iran (be they Persian or Azeri) who are sensitive about their national and territorial integrity, but this is no excuse to deny obvious facts, sorry. -- Mttll (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you do not learn how to indent? 1. "Azeri Turks"? what is that? 2.... 3. Read this article Turkification. --Xashaiar (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Azeri Turks is a synonym for Azeris. As for Turkification, you can say the same for Iranic people. If you back in time far enough, you can say Persians are Iranicized Elamites, Kurds are Iranicized Assyrians (these are just examples, not main argument, don't discuss them further) etc etc. Actually you can say this about ALL ethnic groups in the world. Why pick on Azeris? Whatever Turkification is, it's discussed in the article. I'm not removing it. -- Mttll (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1.(and 2.)The term Azeri Turk is in wide use, but understanding whether it is a language or ethnic term is different. In old world, in many times , the concept of ethnicity is not solely built on language but in many other cultural factors , as an example the Jewish ethnicity have nothing to do with language but maternal bloodline .I don't have any problem in using the linguistic term Azeri Turk , but interpretation of that word as an obligatory ethnic term is under the question. You may or may not consider the debate on the Iranic peoples as "nonsense", but you are not allowed to push for your POV in editing. 3. Turkification, is a well known historical process. In comparison between Persian and Kurdish Iranized indigenous peoples and Turkified Azeris, the time matters. The Iranization of Elamites(or Assyrians) took place in about 30 centuries ago, and neither are well documented nor well defined in comparison with Iranic Azeris. If we were going to extend the including time to an unlimited period, then according to the theories like Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, all ethnic groups are one (although correct in ethical sense , but incorrect in applied classification ). I do appreciate your sympathy with my my concerns about Iranian national and territorial integrity as an ethnic Iranian Azeri, but my motivation in participation in this dialogue is neither nationalistic nor directed towards ethnic unity of any language group(Pan movements ) ; my concern is educating readers about different understanding of a concept in light of different cultures(ethnicity :a linguistic or cultural term). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When are you going to learn indenting? 1. you say "Azeri Turks is a synonym for Azeris". Who advocates that? 2. Your ''examples" are no examples. I do not know what is "Iranicization".--Xashaiar (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think modifying the tone of discussion is a necessity here (Mttll).But about the points you mentioned :

1. Jews are not a good example. It became something like an ethnicity as well, but it was essentially a religion. You can talk Hebrews as an ethnolinguistic group which is nearly synonymous with Jews. Sure, there have Turkic people in history like Khazars who practised Judaism, or a German language like Yiddish of Jewish origin, but none of these are going to change the fact that Hebrews are ethnolinguistically Semitic.

2. Ethnicity may have different aspects, but it's essentially about language, especially when we're talking about ethnolinguistic groups. For example, Montenegrins are probably culturally closer to Albanians than to Russians, but this will never change the fact that they're not related to Albanians (apart from being Indo-European) and that they're a Slavic people like Russians.

Now, in my opinion, there are two overwhelming facts:

- Azeris are also referred to Azeri Turks in this very article.

- Wikipedia has an article on Turkic people (apart from Turkic languages), in which Azeris are just another ethnic groups. They're no more unique than any other. For comparison, in Iranian peoples article, it's just speculation about history, completely oblivious to the real world. I mean, can whoever wrote that there go to Serb or Croat article and argue they're not Slavic? -- Mttll (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The "facts" you mentioned, have to be seen in the light of previous paragraph : The term Azeri Turks, is a linguistic term , and not an ethnic one .Wikipedia's article on Turkic people is about a linguistic group and the existence of an ethnic group called Turk is in doubt (same as Iranic ethnicity) : neither of them are a homogeneous ethnic group .In brief, I advocate to omit the controversial section from the article and replace it with a word that has no problems at all. Turkic-speaking is obvious, but Turkic can be read as linguistic (right) and ethnic (wrong). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Point Of View about the ethnicity of Jews is one of the several alternatives, but the main stream and dominant idea is that the linguistic aspects does not defines the Jewish ethnicity .Anyway , by mentioning that example I just wanted to show you there may be other POVs that are debatable , and so the text may also considers them. By using the term ethnolinguistic group, you yourself are pointing the fact that ethnic group and ethnolinguistic group are not necessarily the same .Talking about the ethnicity, I don't think language is always the single most important determinant in ethnicity . In new communities (like USA) , because of the relatively new foundation of the society and lack of long history , the immediate aspects of persona (language and race ) , becomes more important in identification with others , but in old societies like ancient countries of the Middle east , the culture (common history, religion and etc) is more determining in identification.

Alborz, nobody said Turkic is an ethnicity, it's the larger ethnolinguistic group. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but..

Turkic people: Turkish, Azerbaijani, Tatar, Uzbek, Kazakh etc

Iranic people: Persians, Kurds, Zazas, Pashto etc

Slavic people: Russians, Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs etc

Germanic people: English, Germans, Swedes etc

Kartvelian people: Georgians, Lazs etc

Azeris can't be singled out. Sure, there are some issues with them, but then there are issues about every single group here.

Now if you move from Turkic to Altaic or Ural-Altaic or from Iranic to Indo-Iranian or Indo-European, ethnolinguistic groups can be reduced to mere linguistic groups. But that's beside the point.

Surely you can see the rationale? Saying these things will not make anyone pan-something or ultranationalist or whatever. -- Mttll (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

THIS ARTICEL IS WRITTEN BY IRANIAN PEOPLES WHO FRIGHTENED 20 MILLION AZERIs IN THE COUNTRY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.187 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm Iranian and I'm Azeri : As your page shows, you are posting from ANKARA.A glance to the article Shah Ismail will inform you more.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranification of Azeri people
As some numbers says 15, there are app. 22 million Azeris living in Iran. These people can only speak-write Persian, their Turkic identity is banned, removed(or removing) by Iranian goverment and this page of Wikipedia says it all. They cant evet watch Turkish TV channels. "Some" Persian groups of wikipedia are working day and night to convert them into Persian population(even by using this god damn internet). These people are the original Oghuz Turkic people. Like the example of the massive interference of "Qashqai people", they would be faced double converting in both real life and wikipedia.--195.174.9.187 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. The Azari identity of Azaris of Iran is not denied. You may want to compare the situation of other minorities in neighbouring countries. 2. You say "These people can only speak-write Persian". This is wrong. not banning Azari music in TVs+Offering University degree in areas related to their languages+ news papers + constitutional recognition of their language are not enough to disprove you? None of these are, unfortunately, common practices in most of the countries of the region. 3. In Iran they do not have Iranian-ness law. 4. What is "converting".--Xashaiar (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)