Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis/Archive 3

History
Right now the article has three headlines (20th century; Pahlavi era;Islamic republic era and today). These should be put under the headline "history". Its logical and would make it easier for reader to navigate this article. Neftchi (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, currently the article is in a mess we need a clear body where relevent topics are linked and a title of History would be a start. It would make it easier to navigate.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be much easier if the protection on this page was lifted. I believe we can all discuss things before making edits?Neftchi (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more links
Just wanted to suggest adding links to various things in the contested areas - allowing people to look for more information across wikipedia allowing people who know almost nothing about this subject (like myself) a chance to form an opinion. Here are the things I would have added links to if the article was not protected EdwardLane (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Xavier de Planhol
 * Turkish language
 * Oghuz
 * Turkic
 * Olivier Roy
 * Amu Darya
 * Iranian plateau
 * Anatolia
 * Ottomans
 * Sunni
 * Turkmens
 * Shiite
 * Alevi
 * Rybakov
 * Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Masudi
 * Christianity and Islam
 * Good idea. The article is currently protected indefinitely. I wonder if we could try lowering the protection level to see if it works? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I too belive it is a good idea.Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have lowered the protection. I would be grateful if editors here could add the article to their watchlists and help combat vandalism and biased edits. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Azari to Azeri
I changed the usage of Azari to Azeri. We had agreed on this in earlier talks. Neftchi (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Watchdogs
I think we should decide on how to incorparate the Human Rights reports to the article. The reports I stated before, the ones we discussed in a very long and circular maner. If everyone agrees I shall write a draft and we will go from there. Regrads, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template
Recently Khodabandeh removed the Azerbaijani template without a good reason. Wikipedia templates are added to relevant articles and when the members of that Wiki group have contributed to the page. It has nothing to do with countries borders. For example the template of Iran is also added in the Azerbaijan discussion page, see here. Neftchi (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Azerbaijanis as the artile is termed in Iran are infact releated to Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan as these two are releated to each other adding the Azerbaijan template is a necessity not a wrong-doing.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am agree too.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful before making such comment. He gave his reason in his edit summery. Try to understand the article is not about a sovereign state.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a good enough reason that members of one project are part of another project. For example the reasoning: "when the members of that Wiki group have contributed to the page".. what wikipedia rule is that? The template Iran should also not been in Azerbaijan in my opinion as this is Iran, not the republic of Azerbaijan. Else that is like having Wiki project Russia or Georgia or Iran or or Kurdistan or Israel because there are Russian, Georgian, Talysh, Kurdish or Jewis minorities in the republic of Azerbaijan. I think we can ask 3rd pary (not involved) with this regard, and I'll abide by their decision. For example Golbez or another 3rd party. Till then, I have restored it to the previous version and by the way Wiki project Iran should be first on the list (in case there is a decision to put it back by say Golbelz or another 3rd party). Please note that one needs to follow guidelines in putting a project. Unless a specific guideline is stated, then coming up with "reasons" is not sufficient. As I said, I'll abide by a 3rd party rule. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal/Renaming of this article and similar articles created by this group
This article, and similar articles have been created by a fringe Turkey-based nationalist group. There is no such thing as an Iranian "Azeri" - and the the word "Azeri" is incorrect as it implies the country of "Azerbaijan" which was a former territory of Persia that was later annexed to Russia. Azarbaijani is nothing more than a language in Iran and Azerbaijan(the country) and there is no cultural distinction otherwise.Zenbb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

Sir I wish to take no offence, but I can not help myself. You are currently denying the ethnic identity of millions upon millions of people, you have no right to do. This claim is ludicorous and I feel as though I will insult myself if I go to present any scholarly "evidence" for it would be like trying to prove the earth is round to someone that does not think so. Please stop pushing your own point of view.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for Persian Azeri terminology being correct
http://books.google.com/books?id=RSxt-JB-PDkC&pg=PA21&dq=persian+azeri&hl=en&ei=28LATYT0KeTo0QGQ_Om2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CHcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=persian%20azeri&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zu5GpDby9H0C&pg=PA1768&dq=Persian+Azeri&hl=en&ei=7sHATe38H-rq0gGa1aS3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAY#v=onepage&q=Persian%20Azeri&f=false

etc.

Also inclusion of data from sources (even if they are not seen or even if you "cant afford" it, which is a ridiculous excuse for not reading it is irrelevant.) I believe that Tugrulirmak needs to yet familiarize himself with some of the foundation Wikipedia rules particularly WP:NPOV. I propose to remove the locks on this article and to write it using the credential articles by personages such as Dr. Frye and other existing sources. Locking it down and turning it into a nationalistic battle is of no good to any reader. Thank you. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Persi I welcome you to the article and I hope we can discuss changes that are to be made on a stable foundations reached and accepted by all alike. Thank you for the caution on NPOV but I insure you I do indeed have a nuetral point of view. Me correcting POV in the article does not warrant the fact that I have a POV it proves that I am a follower of Wikipedias rules and "laws" if we may say. Now we have put that slight side note behind us I would like to touch upon the sources you have provided me. I, myself have presented sources produced by James Minahan himself but other editors have denied it due to him not being an "expert". I have also read the sources you have provided and none of them actualy say "Persian Azeri" they read "Azeri" instead. They do however feature the word "Persian Azerbiajan" however this is not a link to ethnicity due to the fact that Persian Azerbiajan is a geographic location known now as Northern Iran or to some as South Azerbiajan. To add to this the term was used before the Pahlavi era, in 1909 if the book provided is correct. This is where the term Persian was in use and the term Iranian was not or not so widely used. So thank you for joining but yet again I see no part of the book which take Azeris as Perisan Azeris. Regards, Tugrul Irmak. Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. I dont see why we can not just work around these terminologies. I do not get however why there is a whole page where you and other editors are warring over stuff that should not even be here. This is not a forum, this is a page for discussion relevant to topics of the article. I believe we should 1) unlock the article 2)pool all the sources 3)check credentials of the authors, 4)create a false page where we can discuss various versions 5)agree on one, and 6)publish it and remove all the unnecessary tags. I appreciate your income, and I like to ask you a sincere question and I will hold on to your response as the truth and would not dispute it. I looked at your page and there is a lot of Pan-Turk icons. Are you, by your own admission, free of any pro-Turkish point of view? If you say you are, then lets work together and move past this hurdle. Otherwise, we need to work that out. Thank you for your response! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the points you have mentioned, we do need to sanbox another article to which all parties can reach a consensus about. I do not however agree that pages of sources debated by both parties were a part of a war, on the contarary they were a step to improve the article. I, or they state sources and we discuss them. This is exactly what we did in releations to the HUman Rights Watch Dogs on the reliable sources noticeboard and all the nuetral parties agreed to their use but I was still blocked in adding them in. We will discuss this later. Refering to your comment on Pan-Turk icons. The icons in my user page are indeed not Pan-Turk, they are just a show of my Turkish nationality and if you look I am a supporter of the party CHP which is indeed a left wing party so I would not call myself a pan-Turkish at all. Again I thank you for your offer about creating a fresh article to which all parties can agree to. Take care, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also want to add that source 5 is untrue. There is no mention of Persian Azerbaijanis, in fact in the sentence there is no mention of any ethnic group. This all should be correctly reflected in the article. Neftchi (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is somebody going to give some feedback on this issue? Or, since nobody replied, should we remove the usage of Persian Azerbaijanis from the lead? Neftchi (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source from Swietchowski is true, perhaps the link you used was wrong previously.  I fixed the link.  Also it is used by the book of Richard Frye. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no hassel using the term Persian Azeris, I don't approve of it seen as there is just one source presented but nontheless thats one source. However I belive we should also insert the phrase Azeri Turks also, for I have provided numerous sources which can be seen in the archives.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is not a nation such as azeri. they are turkish people. and their population is 35 millions in iran. this page is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.98.40 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tugrulirmak, the word Azerbaijani Turk or Azeri Turk is even more used for Iranian Azerbaijan then Persian Azeri or Persian Azerbaijani. So I also believe that the phrase "Azerbaijani Turk" and "Azeri Turk" should be included in the lead. Tugrulirmak if you could provide your sources we could further handle this issue. Neftchi (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure Neftchi 1 2 3 4as you can see there are enough references to add the phrase in to the article. Regards, T.Irmak - Give a lie 1 day head start, it will take the truth 100 years to catch up- (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the sources and they seem pretty solid. The phrase Azeri Turk and Azerbaijani Turk is well used to describe Iranian Azerbaijanis. I see no problem why this phrase shouldnt be added in the lead. Neftchi (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

3rd party opinion
I have asked Golbez for his opinion with regards to the discussion above about relavent templates.

I have asked Golbelz for his opinion, and I'll abide with his 3rd party decision. The issue is nothing to edit war against, since it is a talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And let me summarize my decision for the third party: "Putting a wiki-project Azerbaijan on an ethnic group in Iran does not make sense, since wiki-project Azerbaijan is about the country of Azerbaijan. ". I mean, if we want to play without rules and use various connections, one can put a wiki project Iran on all Armenia and Azerbaijan articles, since these regions were usually ruled by dynasties from Iran.  Infact they were divided from the larger Iranian empire fairly recently (recent in terms of relative history of the region).   For example Baku, Darband, Ganja, Lankoran, Absheron, Bailaqan, Paytakaran etc. are all Iranian-linguistic names or anyone can come up with their own reasons, etc..  If there is a "Wiki project Azerbaijanis" (about the ethnic group), then that makes more sense to have it here.  Of course I do not see a firm policy and I have asked for a 3rd opinion.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have picked the wrong person for a third opinion, as I must defer to a comment I made elsewhere a few weeks ago: No one really cares what articles are in what WP, as it has zero bearing on the article, except perhaps as a method of defining standards or collaboration, both of which can occur outside of the argument over which WP(s) an article belongs in. Wasting time arguing over if an article belongs in a certain WP is perhaps the worst possible waste of time on WP - it's the ultimate in rule wankery, and we have a rule against that. I look at a Wikiproject link as simply, "I see a deficiency in this article, and this is the group of people who have tasked themselves to resolve such things, and I will contact them", or, "This is the group that has crafted the standards for this article." It's not about ownership, it's about being able to assist. Since this isn't about standards, if WP:AZERI thinks, as a group, that they can assist in this article, then by all means, add the WP. If WP:AZERI's scope is specifically the republic of Azerbaijan, its history, and its people, then it shouldn't be added. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"This project has been created to better organize information in, and improve articles related to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people. This page and its subpages exist to help focus the efforts of other Wikipedians by being a central directory of articles, with specific and general tasks." As you can see WP:Azerbaijan covers the topic of Azeri Peoples and we can clearly see the group in question are the Azeris in Iran. In addition to this the Azeri peoples article which features Azeris in Iran has a WP:Azerbaijan lead to it, therefore it is only logical to place this link here as well.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Golbez, whats the big deal anyway. The description of the Wikiproject clearly states all articles related to Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people. Neftchi (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

cf. Talk:Greeks in Turkey, Talk:Armenians in Turkey Takabeg (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

History merge
This article has alot of seperate headlines regarding the history. I suggest we merge these headlines and create an actual "History" section. The sections 20th century, Pahlavi era and Islamic republic era and today should be merged into one history section. Right now we have really short sections like the Constitutional Revolution section, which is only 3 sentences long. It would add to the quality of this artice to have better navigation and sections. Neftchi (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In an unrelated matter, the picture selection and description is very poor. Better pictures and better descriptions are required. I also ask that the picture in the infobox be changed. Neftchi (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "Southern Azeris" is politically motivated and should not be used
Some scholars and sources, view the term "Southern Azerbaijan" as being irredentist and politically motivated.


 * 1) Michael P. Croissant, "The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications", Praeger/Greenwood, 1998. excerpt from pg 61 : "'During the Soviet-era historical revisionism and myth-building intended to denounce imperialism, the notion of a 'northern' and 'southern' Azerbaijan was created and propogated throughout USSR. It was charged that the 'two Azerbaijanis' once united were separated artificially by conspiracy between imperial Russia and Iran.'"
 * 2) Michael E. Brown Ethnic Conflict and International Security, Princeton University Press, 1993Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia ’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001. Excerpt from pg 24: : "'Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as 'Southern Azerbaijan', with demands for liberation and, eventually, for 're'-unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direction, as in 1945-46 etc. The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union.'"

So I think using the terms that may be considered against the "pillars" of Wikipedia, (I mean WP:NPOV) should be avoided .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am disagree. This is as far from the recent political views, and widely useded in Sothern Azerbayjan .--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I too disagree, what we call the Azeri heartland which is northern Iran was divided in two by the Turkemchay which formed what people call northern and southern Azerbaijan, there is also wide scholarly use of the term "Southern Azerbaijan". Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed the term of “Persian Azerbaijanis” is nationalistically motivated. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people. It is impossible to call Germans lived in England as English Germans.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we may ask for the third party opinion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Melikov and you may feel free to ask a nuetral, third party.Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * According to google books, Iran + "South Azerbaijan" -Llc minimum 142 results. As long as I understand, South Azerbaijan is used not only as politically motivated term but also as normal term. So this term can be used. But it's not common name. Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijani is best. Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Google test shows only the times that the word has been in use . For rejecting the political motivation, we need sources . I show two sources that say the term is a propaganda . i can show other sources . Can you show any reference that show the opposite opinion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You (We) can find many sample for the neutral usage of South Azerbaijan. For example, "South Azerbaijan (or Azarbaijan in the accepted Iranian pronunciation". Takabeg (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That one was not the source we need . Can you show me an example like this "South Azerbaijan is not a political term and it is in routine use " --Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Southern Azeris" and "Southern Azerbaijani" and "Southern Azerbaijan".--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Google test shows only the times that the word has been in use . For rejecting the political motivation, we need sources . I show two sources that say the term is a propaganda . i can show other sources . Can you show any reference that show the opposite opinion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We live and talk in recent time, and your refrence about old time.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael P. Croissant is from 1998, Michael E. Brown 1993 and Schendel is 2001 . Iranica is August 18, 2011 . Please read my comments ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject time is old!--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The subject time is old ?! What do you mean? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alborz you yourself, if I remember correctly marked Iranica as an unreliable source when I wished to include what it promoted in the article. Now giving Iranica yourself as a source is a testament. Emir has condcuted a search on google books which clearly show Southern Azeris as a well recognised peoples. I believe wiki common name stands with the notion that the term Southern Azeri be continued to be used. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Iranica tends to be one of the best sources that can be used in Wikipedia . Although that is the editors name that stands at the top and is the most important factor, but generally the editors of the Iranica are among the bests . Anyway, I would be glad if you show me when did I said the Iranica is unreliable . And again , we are not talking about " well recognized " or not being recognized , to go after Google searching , we are talking about the political meaning of that term .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion response: Thanks for making use of the 3O process! Unfortunately I must decline this particular request - the 3O process is intended to help resolve disputes specifically between two editors, but it appears there are multiple editors involved in this dispute. We do have processes that are better suited to disputes involving multiple editors, and I recommend you make use of the Request for Comment (RFC) process if you're still having trouble here. RFC is designed to attract opinions from a broad range of editors that should help you determine consensus.

For my part, I think that it's worth remembering that even if a term is politically charged or motivated, it can still be included in Wikipedia as long as it's presented in a neutral and verifiable way, usually by presenting both sides of the argument. I'm not well versed in the Azerbaijan situation but a similar situation might be a dispute on whether or not apples are good for you, that could be worded 'Apples are widely considered to have health benefits, however some critics believe these benefits are overstated', along with appropriate sources. I'm not sure if this sort of compromise is possible here but it's worth considering. And of course, please do consider making use of RFC if you're not able to come to a consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It can still be included but it should be noted that "Southern Azerbaijan" is a recent, revisionist, nationalistic and politically motivated term. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * New terms and phrases emerge and grow the fact that they are "new" (even that I do not believe)does not make them neither nationalistic nor revisionist. The terms are developed to suit the political and historical context of the time, inclusion of them is necessary. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @TechnoSymbiosis : I'm not asking to delete the term from whole Wikipedia. As I had no objection in mentioning the word in articles such as Azerbaijan (Iran) . But I am saying routine use of a political term, that is not directly relevant to the subject of article is against the NPOV .That is ironic for me that less important Wikipedian rules such as using the dominant English names are better applied in articles , but the essential rule of NPOV , that is of the five most important Wiki rules , is less considered ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would avoid the term "Southern Azeris" in this article, not because of any irredentionist connotations, but because it is not clear. The text should make it clear in each case whether those from the south of the republic of Azerbijan are being considered or those of Azeri ethnicity from the south of the Azeri ethnic area, or those whose ethnicity is rooted in the souther part of the repbulic, or... Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Avoid, but use (with qualification) if the sources do - If "Southern A" was an artificial concept invented by the Soviets, then POV and UNDUE policies suggest that it should generally be avoided. However, if the sources being used for a particular article use the term "Southern A", then WP can reflect that, and the term may be used.  If the usage in that situation is politically motivated, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that the source should be identified (as in "Historian ABC writes that Southern A's ..."), so the reader is notified of potential bias.  Also, WP:UNDUE suggests that, when "Southern A" is mentioned, a parenthetical note (perhaps a footnote) could be included to explain the history of the term. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you!And how can we save this result for coming discussions?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but my opinion is just one editor's opinion. My opinion is not final, or more important than anyone else's. The RfC is a way to get several uninvolved editors to provide input.  RfCs normally last for 30 days before they are finished.    At the end of 30 days, usually there is a consensus that emerged.  If, after 30 days, there is still no clear consensus, you can ask an admin to "close" the RfC, which may include a formal decision one way or another.  When the RfC is finished, it is kept in the Talk page archives forever.  If it is a BIG issue that comes up a lot, you can add a permanent comment to the top of this Talk page (usually in a "FAQ" box) summarizing the RfC decision.   --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC Comment. Noleander is correct; I would add that if Southern Azerbiajan is used in the sources (and checking sources suggests that it is), it really has to be mentioned and explained here; where else are readers going to find out what the phrase means? I would avoid using it as a name for the Iranian province; it is too likely to be misunderstood as the southern part of the province, or even the southern part of the Republic.

On the other hand, some of the discussion here comes all too close to claiming that Baku is not an Azeri city; this is not what Croissant is saying. The sentence quoted is here; it immediately follows the observation that there was no historical Azerbaijani state (in 1826; Media Atropatene is another matter), and that there were Azeris on both sides of the new frontier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica
Name of the Azerbaijan Republic itself, has not been a historical term and adopting that name for that region had political basis. But as a accepted international name, it can be tolerated , but changing the historical place of real Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan ) with the new Soviet nomenclature and applying the term "Southern Azeri " to real Azerbaijani's of that region , is wrong. Let us read more about the name of Azerbaijan : Encyclopædia Iranica, 2011, :

AZERBAIJAN (Āḏarbāy[e]jān), historical region of northwestern Iran, east of Lake Urmia, since the Achaemenid era.

The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia.

After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

user Orartu changes
Recent changes :, done by user Orartu , should be discussed here. I think this user believes Ali Khamenei and Farah Pahlavi can't be considered Azeri because they are not pure Azerbaijanis (According to this edit : ). Because the definition of so-called pure Azerbaijani is not clear, I think this edit is controversial and should not be done before consensus is reached. In using the word Azerbaijani versus Azeri, I think the term Azeri is more correct , because it shows the ethnic status of the person , but Azerbaijani is a geographic name that can only show the place of birth or residence , but can not show the ethnicity : As an example many Kurds are Azerbaijanis , but are not Azeri's. This article is about the ethnicity, so then it shall use Azeri , and not Azerbaijani. And about the languages that Azerbaijanis use, it is undeniable that the writing language of Iranian Azerbaijanis is Persian , and using the Azeri script is not so common in Iranian Azerbaijan , so adding that language to the information box seems to be reasonable. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Undoing the changes, without discussion is disruptive ! Please write down your point of view . Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Alborz (yet again!) Ali Khamenei and Farah Pahlavi are ethnically are Azeris. However I believe we should also make a note within the article as to how much they themselves see themselves as Azeri. Regards,Tugrul Irmak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I think if they don't want to be identified as Azeris, their feeling should be mentioned in their own article , and not in this topic . Anyway , I do know that Khamenei in several concussions has used Azeri Turkish in his speech and it can be found easily in web . My information about Farah Pahlavi is not complete and don't know she knows Azeri Turkish or not , but I don't think that is so determining at all ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

UNPO is not a Reliable source
According to Reliable sources Noticeboard, UNPO , can't be cited to replicate UNPO's claims. So this edit : have to be changed .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I think it's reliable sorce for this purpose. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With full respect for your point of view, the determining decision is the opinion of the admins in Wikipedia . Please read this discussion again :Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My reading of the RSN discussion as well as my understanding of Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY, is that Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization can be used as a source, though used with care, and if appropriate use a phrase such as advised on RSN - "UNPO alleges that..."  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we look at, I think UNPO is only a source for reporting the claims of one side of conflict , but may not have the independent value as a RS . And also please look at this conversion that we previously had about the UNPO , and the result (Third opinion) was :"'The UNPO is probably not a reliable source. It seems to represent extreme minority positions and also appears to be a questionable source. It does not appear to be received as credible or widely acknowledged as a credible organization. I strongly recommend sticking to what's been reported about the organization's statements and views by traditional reliable publications (if they're to be included at all)'"

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And also please look at : and .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Persian language, second language ? what does it means ?
In this edit :, user Orartu changed the languages in use in Iranian Azerbaijan as Persian language , second language written in small font. The oral language in use is sure Azeri Turkish, but Persian as the written language has a great dominance. I think changing it to the new edit, needs a reliable source , and previous version was more correct .Terms such as Second language , first language , is not clear : first language in talk or in writing ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Iran Persian-speaking Azerbaijanis(assimilated Azerbaijanis) are considered as Persian ethnics in statistics, then they are Fars not Azerbaijanis(according to Iranian sources),, .This article is about Iranian Azerbaijanis not assimilated Azerbaijanis, if you want, you can create an article about this disaster.In addition,was there any referendum, when forcibly farsi language was determined as only official language of Iran?Do Azerbaijani people of Iran have any right to use their language freely?More than half of Azerbaijani speakers are monolingual. The social situation of

the varieties of Azerbaijani spoken in Iran is quite different. There the languages have not been promoted; on the contrary, their use has been discouraged. Despite their large numbers, the Iranian government has retained a ban on the use of Azerbaijani in official venues, such as schools, courts, government offices and the military as part of a policy of cultural assimilation that stems back to the rise of the early days of the Pahlavi Dynasty. Azerbaijanis believe that Tehran’s emphasis on Persian culture and language comes at their expense and is designed to subjugate them,... The central government in Tehran associates Azerbaijani calls for greater cultural and linguistic rights with separatist or nationalist aspirations...Azerbaijanis and Turkic speakers in northern Iran have been the subject of ridicule from native Persian speakers for their limited Persian language skills and easily distinguishable accent... ,,, , , --Orartu (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the above statement is irrelevant to our topic of discussion. Persian is (and has been) the dominant language of writing in Iranian Azerbaijan :That's all.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is cmpletely related.Because of mentioned issues,it must be written in small font.Orartu (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both languages should be mentioned with no differences in font, since both languages do not have sources. And, no, this "source" does not state Iranian Azeribaijanis selectively speak Turkic over Persian/Farsi. Your attempt to "cherry pick" information is rather tedious, Azerbaijan:ethnicity and the struggle for power in Iran, by Touraj Atabaki, p141; "The province of Azerbaijan always was and still is an inseparable part of Iran and the Turkish language has never been more than a local language. Whatever exists in the way of culture and literature in Azerbaijan, from olden times until now, has been in the Persian language. In Azerbaijan poets, men of letters, all administrations and books, have recognized Persian as their mother tongue." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another one, Small nations and great powers, by Svante E. Cornell, p22; "South of the Araxes, the Persian language occupies much the same position as Russian in the north. However in terms of culture and identity, it seems clear that the Iranian impact has been stronger in south Azerbaijan than has the Russian impact in the north." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these sources show Azerbaijani people of Iran despite prohibition of Azerbaijani language by Persian government of Iran and propogandas in favor of Farsi language in Iran, like their mother tongue :Iran's political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities By Keith Crane, Rollie Lal, Jeffrey Martini,Page 54; "The demands of Iran's Azeri community remain relatively modest, focusing on the expansion of cultural freedoms, such as local control over Azeri-language broadcasting, greater say in local government, and the promotion of the Azeri..."Orartu (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 15,"The Turkic dialects in Iran, of which the Azerbaijani dialect is best known, remain today as the mother tongue of most of the people of Khurasan and Azerbaijan as well as of the Qashqai tribes in the south".--Orartu (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East: L to ZBy Jamie Stokes,Page 81;"To the present day the Azeri language is banned from use in Iranian schools,courts, government organizations, and the armed forces..."Orartu (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Official report of debates, Volumes 1-2,Page 307,"According to US State Department data, Azerbaijani Turks living in Iran are an ethnic majority there.Their number varies between 30 and 35 million.Therefore 30 to 35 million Iranian citizens are deprived of fundamental education in their mother tongue and consequently to develop it.Pupils speaking Turkish at schools are severely punished and intimidated"--Orartu (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Encyclopedia of Modern Asia: Abacus to China by David Levinson, Karen Christensen,"The language spoken by the Azerbaijanis and that spoken in Turkey are mutually intelligible..."Orartu (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing about Azeris living in Iran, which makes this "source" meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:The Linguistic reporter, Volumes 1-7,"...the term Turkish is thus reserved for the name of a single language branch); Azerbaijani (Azeri), which besides being the language of one of the Soviet Republics is also mother tongue of nearly half the population of Iran."--Orartu (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Iran in the twentieth century: a political history," It is high time the government admitted that Azerbaijanis are not and have never been Persian speakers.....--Orartu (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Iran by Gareth Stevens ,"The The Persians, whose mother tongue is Persian, or Farsi, represent only a slight majority in Iran...The largest Turkic-speaking group is the Azerbaijanis, a people who occupy northwestern Iran..."--Orartu (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Linguistic authority, language ideology, and metaphor: the Czech orthographyBy Neil Bermel,Page 15;" In essence, the Iranian policy of promoting Farsi as the only national written language actually weakened calls for the North Azeris to return to the Arabic script..."--Orartu (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Iran in the 21st century: politics, economics and conflict,Page6;"Iran's largest non-persian speaking communities,the Azerbaijanis and the kurds."--Orartu (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Iran, the culture By Joanne Richter,Page 27;"....In Iran,Turkmen is only spoken,and not written.Speakers of Azari live mainly in the Azerbaijan region of northwestern Iran.They write their language using the Perso- Arabic alphabet... "Orartu (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which states nothing about Azerbaijani being their "mother tongue". Odd when I search Iran, the culture, I get ZERO results for Turkmen! --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is your problem not me.Probably your search had problem, this time search carefully, because it is necessary to judge neutrally:But here:Iran, the culture By Joanne Richter,Page 27;"....Turkic languages: The mother tongue of more than twenty million Iranians is one of several Turkic languages.Northern and northeastern Iran are home to the Turkmen people, whose language is also called Turkmen".--Orartu (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source:Iran and its place among nations ,Azerbaijani language is mentioned as the mother tongue of Azerbaijani people of iran,"Among Iran's population of 70 million, whose official state language is Persian, over one third, close to 25 million people, speak Azeri-Turkish as a mother tongue. Similarly, though in lesser numbers, Kurdish, Baluchi, and Arabic,..."--Orartu (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Azeri, is the mother tongue of the Azeris residing in Iran and any proposal as to other wise is an indication of a blind folded man. Persian is the official language but has by no means the same position as Azeri.This fact should be noted down within the article. The fact that Azeris are bilingual does not mean both Persian and Turkish have the same status. One (Azeri) is the mother language where as the other is the official language of the Islamic Republic. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest you remove your blindfold. No where have I stated that Azeri is not the mother tongue of Iranian Azerbaijanis. The sources that Orartu stated, "All of these sources show Azerbaijani people of Iran despite prohibition of Azerbaijani language by Persian government of Iran and propogandas in favor of Farsi language in Iran, like their mother tongue..., which none of the sources stated that, was what I was responding to. Also your blindfold missed this, where I stated both languages should be in the template, compared to Orartu's removal of Persian which contradicts his little speech about "neutrality". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kansas I called those who do not see Azeri the mother tounge of Azeris, in no instance was my comment aimed at you. I also agree with your proposal, the reader should be informed about the place which these two languages occupy in the lives of Azeris in Iran. Your proposal is a perfect way in which we can do this. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose, Azerbaijani( mother tongue )*line break*Persian( official ). Thoughts?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is second langugage? If Persian is the official language of Iran and Iranian powers had retained a ban on the use of Azerbaijani langugage, it's only Human rights violations, but this doesn't mean that the second langugage of Iranian Azerbaijanis is Persian--Melikov Memmed (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I utter such words? I said Persian was the official language ( I did not say second) which the Azeris are forced to adopt in their everyday lives. Their mother tongue is Azeri, and like I said, it should be noted as so in the article.Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about Human rights here . With or without the force and pressure, the Persian language is overwhelmingly the language of writing . That is so obvious that is almost impossible to find a grocery store in whole Iranian Azerbaijan to write down it's account in Azeri : then what's all these argument about ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
So shall we move forward with:
 * Azerbaijani( mother tongue )*line break*Persian( official )? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Farsi must be written in small font, and there must be emphasized that Farsi is the official language of Iran and Azerbaijanis have to learn and use it, and currently their use of Farsi language is not optional.--Orartu (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Farsi must be written in small font", No it does not. Besides, we already have 4 editors that have agreed on Alborz's version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except User:adamrce mobile, three other users (including you) are not neutral, then the admins must judge, I completely disagree with his proposal.--Orartu (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is article's talkpage not user talk page .I shortly refer to your group's enemity against me, and Azerbaijani people.Obviously, you and agreeing users with you want to make wikipedia battleground and a site for spreading ethnic hatred.You and your group's edits resemble WP:BATTLE. You have vendetta and enemity against me and Azerbaijani people.Your offensive statements here ,User:Xooon and your one-sided tryings to introduce my account as sockpuppet, ,. User:Khodabandeh14's hatred and unfounded claims against Azerbaijanis and his tryings to prevent my activities,--Orartu (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this version :


 * Azerbaijani, Persian and a large part of the population is bilingual

No personal comments
A reminder to everyone not to make personal comments, nor to rehash old disputes on this talkpage. Please keep discussion here limited to the article, and how to move forward with this topic. I have removed all comments that were personal and/or were potentially disruptive. I want to remind people that I am NOT concerned with editor behaviourthat has happened in the past. I am concerned with how we move forward now on the topic. If anyone has ideas, links, sources, information, etc, that is relevant to this discussion, please present it. But do not say "I tried to present this before, but was reverted", because that is not relevant. This is a fresh, clean discussion on a fresh, clean blackboard. I am giving no weight to past behaviour activity, as that has no bearing on the topic; I am looking purely at logical arguments and reliable sources that relate to this topic. If anyone has personal issues, please take them elsewhere.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)