Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis/Archive 4

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 8 October 2011
Please remove from line two, so that this doesn't appear at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.

LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit to this fully-protected article requested : "Diaspora ?!"
I think the label diaspora for Iranian Azeris is insulting. According to page Azerbaijani diaspora, The Azerbaijani diaspora are the communities of Azerbaijanis living outside of places of their ethnic origin: Azerbaijan Republic and Iranian Azerbaijan. Then why in the section Categories, Iranian Azerbaijanis are classified as Diaspora ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is consensus for this change, please leave time for discussion. Also, I am not sure what specific change you are requesting. So I have disabled the request for now. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asking for deleting it ; I mean deleting the category diaspora from this article . My point is Iranian Azerbaijanis are native in Iran and are not diaspora (=immigrants).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alborz, this is a very rare occasion where I agree with you. The label implies Azeris in Iran are immigrants and it is not their homeland. I too find this insulting and see that it should be removed promptly. Thank you, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected
I have fully protected this page due to the ongoing content dispute which has today resulted in an editor getting blocked. It is time we looked into this issue to try to resolve the dispute. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. Modifications can be proposed on this talkpage, and after discussion an administrator can make any changes that reflect consensus. Admins can also make minor, uncontroversial edits, such as basic copy-editing. Placing the template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.

There are various comments on my talkpage from editors of this article regarding the behaviour of other editors. I am not looking into past behaviour. What is past is past. What is important is how people behave from this point forward. I am offering my time and my patience in order to help resolve this issue both for the editors concerned, and so Wikipedia can have an accurate and unbiased article which takes into account various significant viewpoints. In order for this dispute resolution to work, it is important that people comment only on the article and the issues. I am only interested in improving this article, I am not interested in complaints about behaviour. This talkpage is only for discussing the article. Comments on other editors will derail this content discussion, so will not be tolerated. I will remove any personal comments, and warn that editor. If necessary I will block any editor who is engaging in persistent or serious personal attacks. If anyone has concerns about the behaviour of another editor, then use Wikiquette assistance, do not bring complaints to me.

My understanding is that the dispute is regarding national identity, and the language used to describe people - such as Azeri or Azerbaijani, and such as the use of "Southern Azeris" and "Southern Azerbaijan". I am willing to take this discussion in any order, and any content items can be brought up at any time, though please separate out each point so it can be discussed. You can use bullet points such as:


 * Persian language. I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]

Or list headings such as:

I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]
 * Persian language

Or level three sub-headings:

===Persian language=== I think blah, blah, blah.... [signed]

Or you can number your points. Whatever you prefer. But make each distinct point separately and clearly.

As the last edit was regarding the language(s) used by Iranian Azerbaijanis, we can start with that point.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources say they use Azerbaijani language. Do they use other languages, and if so, which languages?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What languages do Iranian Azerbaijanis use?

Languages in Iranian Azerbaijan
Thank you for your concern. Languages in Iranian Azerbaijan can be divided into two groups of very common (Major) and less common (Minor) languages.

1 Major : The vast majority use the Azerbaijani Turkic as their mother tongue in daily conversations. The official language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian language. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, is in this language and script Article 15 of Iranian Constitution. For variety of reasons, Azeri literature (writing in Azeri , in contrast of talking in Azeri) in Iran has had a limited development. Many Azeri writers are better known for their contributions to Persian literature than to Azeri. A large part of the population is bilingual. Turcophone populations in Iran that are relatively isolated in the midst of the majority language, Persian , are affected directly via their mostly illiterate bilingual speakers, thus in ways somewhat different from the literary languages.

2 Minor : Minority languages include : A - Azari language (Iranian), Despite its continued decline over the centuries, Azari has not died out and its descendants are found as modern dialects, mostly called Tati, sharing a wide range of phonological and grammatical features. Proceeding from north to south, these are: (A-1) The dialect of Kalasūr and khoynarūd, two villages of the Ḥasanow (Ḥasanabad) district of Ahar; (A-2) the dialect of Karingan, a village of eastern Dizmar in the Varzaqan district (bakhsh) of Ahar sub-province (shahrestan); (A-3) the dialect of Galinqaya, a village of the Harzand rural area (dehestan) in the district of Zonuz, Marand sub-province; (A-4) the khalkhali dialects spoken in the chief villages of the shahrūd bakhsh (i.e., Askestan, Asbū, Derow, Kolūr, shal, Diz, Karin, Lerd, Kehel, Taharom, Gelūzan, Gilavan, and Gandomabad), in Karnaq, in the khoresh-e Rostam bakhsh, and in Kajal in the Kaḡaḏkonan bakhsh of khalkhal; (A-5) the Tati dialects of the Upper Tarom (principally in the villages of Nowkian, Siavarūd, Kalasar, Hazarrūd, Jamabad, Baklūr, Čarza, and Jeyshabad); (A-6) the Tati dialects of Ramand and Zahra, southwest and south of Qazvin (i.e., the dialects of Takestan, Čal, Esfarvarin, khiaraj, khᵛoznin, Danesfan, Ebrahimabad, and Sagzabad) which are close to the Tati of khalkhal and Tarom; (A-7) the dialects of Talesh, from Allahbakhsh Maḥalla and shandermin on the border of Gilan in the south to the Soviet Talesh in the north, including the dialect of ʿAnbaran in the Namin district of Ardabil; all connected with the Tati dialects of shahrūd. This list does not necessarily exhaust the Azari-speaking villages of Azerbaijan, and there may exist villages which the writer has not been able to visit, and where Tati is still understood .B - Kurdish, Kurdish, however, spoken in Mahabad in southwestern Azerbaijan and scattered in several other areas in the region, which some have supposed to be a descendant of Median, does not belong to this group (old Azari) and exhibits some clear differences with it. .Kurdish speakers are mainly found in the border districts of western Azerbaijan. Iranian Tati (Tati) dialects are still spoken in small communities south of Jolfa, east of Miana, and in Qaradagh.

Functional Summary : The mother tongue of Iranian Azerbaijan is Azeri Turkic. The official language is Persian. The prevalent language of writing is Persian. Azeri Turkish is used, but not frequent. A large portion of population is bilingual (Turkish-Persian). Kurdish and Tati are used in special places by a minority.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment : iranica doesn't say they are Kurdish speaker, it says they are turki speakers.Harzani, kolur,Galinqaya's dialects are related to talysh language, and belonged to talysh people who were migrated to Azerbaijan, but now Galinqaya and Harzani dialects are extinct, and because they are cpmletely mixed with Azerbaijani-ethnic people, they identify themselves as Turk not Talysh.iranica doesn't say Azerbaijanis are bilingual, it says the works they have produced are bilingual, because of prohibition of Azerbaijani in Iran .This article's aim is Iranian Azerbaijanis not Iranian tats, iranian kurds, iranian talyshs, these minorities are not Azerbaijani-ethnics,and their mother tongue cannot be considered as Azerbaijani-ethnics mother tongue, then speaking about these minorities is completely irrevelant to article, and does not prove Azerbaijani-ethnics language is other than Azerbaijani. --Orartu (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alborz Fallah has produced a lucid and informative statement well supported by citation to Encyclopædia Iranica, a reliable and respected source. I have checked out the statements, and they appear to match the source. It appears to me as an outsider that the statement could usefully be used in its entirety in the article. However, Orartu has concerns that the source is not being read carefully enough, and there is a potential drift of meaning. I would like to investigate Orartu's concerns to see where they arise, and to determine if they are justified or can be allayed by explanation. It would help me if these questions could be answered: The source, Encyclopædia Iranica, talks about the people of Azerbaijan and their language. 1) Is the source talking about Azerbaijani people or Iranian Azerbaijanis? 2) Are Iranian Azerbaijanis a sub-set of Azerbaijani people, or at least in some way a distinct group? 3) If so, does the source distinguish between Azerbaijani people and Iranian Azerbaijanis?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alborz Fallah has shown different languages which are spoken in Iranian Azerbaijan,not about different languages of Azerbaijani ethnics, which is our topic.Iranica speaks about different ethnics which live in Iranian Azerbaijan.It speaks about languages of all ethnics which exist in Iranian Azerbaijan region.There are some minorities in Azerbaijan of Iran, and iranica speaks about the languages of these minorities too, but it doesn't say they are Azerbaijani-ethnics.In Iranian Azerbaijan, in addition to Azerbaijani-ethnics, some other ethnics also live:Talysh,Kurds,Tats,Armenians,Assyrians,Jews,...but they are not called Azerbaijani-ehnics, and their mother tongues are not considered as Azerbaijani Turks languages.Iranian Azerbaijanis are sub-set of Azerbaijani people, there is no doubt about it.In iranica's article Azerbaijani people means all ethnics who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, not specifically Azerbaijani-ethnics.For example in Iraqi Kurdistan,in addition to kurds, other ethnics also live like,Turkmens,Shabaks,Sarlis,Feylis,Assyrians,Arabs,...and these ethnics have their own mother tongue but their mother tongues are not considered as mother tongues of Iraqi kurds.The aim of wikipedia's article Iranian Azerbaijanis is introducing Azerbaijani Turks, as one of the ethnics of Iran, but iranica's article aim "Azerbaijani people and their language" is introducing all ethnics who are living in Iranian Azerbaijan, and their languages.One of these ethnics are Azerbaijani Turks who are speaking Azerbaijani language.In other words the word Azerbaijani in iranica's article doesn't refer to specific ethnic, it is geographical adj.Other example."Russian languages and people" can be refered to diferent languages and different ethnics in Russia, it doesn't refer to different mother tongues of Russian-ethnic people.The aim of Iranica's article is completely different from wikipedia's --Orartu (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose changing title to "Azerbaijani ethnic people of Iran" or "Azerbaijani Turks of Iran" to avoid confusing.--Orartu (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm getting there. This article is about Azerbaijani people who live in Iran rather than Azerbaijan, and this region of Iran is termed Iranian Azerbaijan. Orartu is concerned that the article is not dealing closely or accurately enough with the Azerbaijani people who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, and that the article is mixing Azerbaijanis with other ethnic peoples who live in that region. I can understand that concern because this is a complex subject, and there are varied names for the same people. From my reading of Iranica, it does appear to be dealing with Azerbaijanis as all those people who live in Iranian Azerbaijan, which would include all ethnic groups, though it does at the same time deal with separate ethnic groups: "Nonetheless Azerbaijanis, despite their insistence on their Iranian identity, generally call themselves, and are called, “Türk,” by contrast with “Kürt” (speakers of Kurdish), and “Fārs/Pārs” (Persian-speakers), the major ethnic groups with whom they have most contact.".
 * I note that other articles on this topic follow the naming convention of Foo in Foo, as in Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. Why is this article named differently?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the ethnic group that their mother tongue is Azerbaijani Turkish and is not a geographical article . An Iranian Azerbaijani ( by geographical point of view ) can be of minority ethnic of that region that are of indigenous population, but does not speak in Azerbaijani Turkish ( like Kurds and etc ) . But what about the Iranian Azerbaijanis ( by ethnic view ) whose mother tongue is Azeri Turkish ? The sources show that they are also largely bilingual : that means they talk in Azeri Turkish , but largely write in Persian . Also when encountering a person of other language group , they use Persian as lingua franca. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This title is politically motivated, and reflects and defends Pan-Iranist views. I as an Azerbaijani-ethnic use English as lingua franca with other persians.Azerbaijani in Iranian Azerbaijan is also lingua franca and second language of minorities.This article is about Iranian Azerbaijanis and all subjects related to to them (including Azerbaijanis' Human rights violations in Iran;language, ethnic, cultural, racial discriminations against Azerbaijani people, massacare of Azerbaijani people in Iran) can be written.I don't deny mandatory usage of farsi by Azerbaijanis, I say it must be written in small font, and coercion of Azerbaijanis in using farsi must be mentioned in article.--Orartu (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a citing in Information box . Do you want to include all of this in info box ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No,writing farsi as forced official language of iran with small font is enough,but before mentioning farsi in infobox, there must be a part in main body about language and cultural discriminations against Azerbaijani people in Iran especially coercion of Azerbaijanis in using farsi.--Orartu (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that means the whole argument around so-called coercion is not related to our topic of info box sentence . But why should we use the official and literary language and lingua franca (Persian) with small font ? What is it's sin?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the sin of Azerbaijani language?What is the sin of Azerbaijani people?Why Azerbaijanis are exposed to many discriminations in Iran and forced using farsi?Arguments about minorities languages in Azerbaijan were irrelevaant, and their aim was confusing other users and wasting their time.Because farsi is mandatory language of Azerbaijanis, it must be written in small font.

Azerbaijani Farsi as official language of Iran and imposed language to minorities

In Farsi article also must be a part about forcing minorities to use farsi in iran, before mentioning these discriminations in related articles, writing farsi in infobox is not neutral. --Orartu (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Azerbaijani ethnics(not about kurds, tats, farses,lurs, baluchs,talyshs ,...) and Azerbaijani ethnics language must be mentioned not others.Azerbaijani ethnics language is Azerbaijani, and official language of Iran is farsi, and because of prohibition of Azerbaijani language in Iran, and existing penalty(even death sentence) for using this language,(it can be considered as a a separatist activity)(as I mentioned)), they have to use farsi.The other minorities languages don't relate to Azerbaijani-ethnic people of Iran,these minorities are not Azerbaijani-ethnics,and their mother tongue cannot be considered as Azerbaijani-ethnics mother tongue, then speaking about these minorities is completely irrevelant to article, and does not prove Azerbaijani-ethnics language is other than Azerbaijani. Orartu (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion
 * What is going on there is not our business, and I realize it's pretty tricky editing an ethnic article and not a region. I understand your point, but we can't avoid reality no-matter what the cause is. Likewise, Spain currently has a Catholic/Christian majority even tho it was an Islamic land sometime back in history. Most Muslims were murdered and got defeated, so it erased their ethnics.
 * Similarly here, "mother tong" is what we're clarifying. I think that Alborz Fallah's proposal is the most neutral for the current situation for the infobox. Although, details can be mentioned in the article with reliable sources). Cheers     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  04:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alborz's proposal is the most neutral. Furthermore, I have yet to see any real reason/argument not to have:
 * Azerbaijani( mother tongue ) Persian( official ) placed in the template. All relevant information; restrictions, punishments, etc, regarding the Azerbaijani language can be written into the article(with the appropriate reliable sources). --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is not a Pan Iranist blog or propaganda site of Iran's government to reflect only their points of view about Azerbaijani and Iranian related articles.--Orartu (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are here to present a neutral article about this ethnic group, not complain of the wrongs imposed upon them. The template is used to indicate what languages are spoken by an ethnic group(ex.Hispanic and Latino Americans), not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To user Orartu : death sentence ?!!! are you sure ?! any reliable sources to prove it ? In fact 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, using Azerbaijani language and culture(and other minorities except farses') can be considered as separatist activity and penalty for accusations like being separatist in iran is death, if you are interested you can find these cases in reports about human rights violations in iran.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus what you are doing in here is wrong. stop it, please. In fact 12:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit is vandalism, here is not farsi wikipedia, titles can also be written in romanized form in addition to common alphabet.--Orartu (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are pushing is not right. 1- There is no death penalty for such cases in Iran. (prove it if you have reliable sources ) 2- Qozlu, Ardabil is in Iran. In Iran the official language is Persian. In the Iranian Azerbaijan, people speak in Azerbaijani, and write it using Persian/Arabic Alphabet. Please read the link in that article's talk page. In fact 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is talk page of Qozlu, Ardabil? In English wikipedia the name's romanized form can be written, this does not relate to iran's alphabet.Azerbaijanis don't use farsi alphabet, they use arabic alphabet's Azerbaijani version(Azerbaijani/Arabic alphabet), some use latin alphabet too--Orartu (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Iran using Azerbaijani language is not forbidden. You can even publish books in Azerbaijani language (Persian/Arabic Alphabets). In fact 12:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * if you read this page carefully you can find suitable sources in this case.Yes you are right, they can use but after using is important, because they will be accused as a separatist.This article will help you:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.Look at these too:, --Orartu (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A childrens bed time story was written in Azeri and had to await years for confirmation from the central government in Tehran. When it was published the demand for it was so high the puclishers wanted to publish more. This was refused by the Iranian government. This speaks for itself. Tugrul Irmak (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Human rights
I have tried to numerous number of times to include various human rights reports within the boy of the article. These reports were conducted by well recognized bodies, such as Amenesty International and United nations Human Right watchdog; ALL of which were DENIED the use of. I have discussed these sources in the reliable sources noticeboard and all of the 3rd parties there agreed on their use... Tugrul Irmak (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it appropriate to discuss any aspect of the content of the article, and of the sources used. If there are sources which are dealing with human rights issues, it would be worthwhile looking at the material and the sources. Would you please present the material and the sources here for discussion.
 * Please note that there is no need to mention previous actions regarding the article on this talkpage - such discussion is not helpful, and can lead to arguments and side-discussions (such as this one). If there are legitimate concerns about the behaviour of a user or users, please raise that in the appropriate venues - not here. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article only. I will be strict on removing or amending all potentially disruptive non-essential comments. Please follow the conventions outlined in WP:TALK. An example of a less potentially disruptive way of presenting the above statement:  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, here are the sources I have mentioned:

Human Rights Watch Report Amnesty International Report Report on Ethnic and Religious Minorities Here is the BBC report which is also present Here is the discussion we have had in the reliable sources notice board Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If I have missed something please let me know;
 * Human Right Watch Report, All I could find was this:In addition to the human rights crisis following the election, security forces systematically harassed members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Sunnis, and carried out a campaign of arbitrary arrest against Kurdish, Azeri, Baluch, and Arab civil society and political activists. Which, if you read the article, happened to everyone regardless of ethnicity. I am not sure how you would assert this is ethnically based??
 * Amnesty International, I found they were not allowed to Assemble and the Iranian government is not funding schools to teach Azerbaijani Turkic.
 * United Nations Human Rights, You need to specify which one. It is a whole list from a search.
 * BBC, Mohammad Rza Lavai states, "I strongly criticised the regime.", and is offset by Professor Ali Ansari of St Andrew's University, an expert in Iranian history, says it is seen differently by the Iranian authorities."Azeri culture was suppressed in Iran but it has been tolerated and at times encouraged for political purposes," he says."However the Iranians are understandably very sensitive to any murmur of separatism and will crack down quickly on this.".
 * Let me know if I missed anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the exact result of RS notice Broad was not clear, but third party opinion was something like this :"I would agree that the sources are reliable for attributed statements as to their opinion. Less sure that they are reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are notable advocacy organizations, but their advocacy is often very controversial. Their opinions are often noteworthy enough to be included in articles that relate to human rights issues... however discussion of their opinion should definitely be phrased as being opinion, and not stated as unqualified fact." --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

X in Y
I note that other articles on this topic follow the naming convention of Foo in Foo, as in Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. Why is this article named differently?.The brief explanation is that the ethnogenesis of Azeri ethnicity has occurred in Iran, and the population of Iranian Azeris is at least two times the whole population of Azerbaijan Republic , so as an indigenous population they may not be mentioned as X in Y. I can explain more if you think that is necessary. Thank you so much --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add to what Alborz Fallah has said, that the real Azerbaijan so to speak, is the one in Iran, the country called Azerbaijan today, actually borrowed the name from the Iranian region, just a few decades ago. If you're interested in the topic, here is a collection of various academic sources, discussing the issue of how Azerbaijan (ie Republic of Azerbaijan) came to be known by that name. This is almost an identical situation as Macedonia naming dispute if you're familiar with that topic. For example, the Azeri-Amercian historian and scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory."  In short, Iran is an indigenous homeland of Azerbaijanis, and has twice as many Azerbaijanis as the Republic of Azerbaijan, which makes the issue different from Azerbaijanis in Russia, Turkey, and Georgia, who have small non-indigenous minorities. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And the whole naming issue was already discussed in details on the talk page, and agreed upon by the consensus of all the editors involved. It's based on the most common usage in Google books/scholars and academic sources in general, which is what the standard procedure for naming is, on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Russia,... are indigenous population too, because they live in historical lands of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijanis who live out of middleeast and Caucasus are Azerbaijani diaspora.Then real iran and persia is fars province of iran,the other people's lands added to persia after conquest of kings then calling other parts iran and persia is mistake too.So according to you kurds in Turkey and syria are not indigenous population, Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Syria--Orartu (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they indigenous in Russia and Georgia ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijanis in Georgia and Caucasian part of Russia are native.Which principle of wikipedia confirms your justification about formulas(x in y=non-idigenous ethnics in mentined country;yx=indigenous ethnics)?--Orartu (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at : North Caucasus to find the Azeri part of Russia .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find Azerbaijanis here:Dagestan--Orartu (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep.That is true about that 3% !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less,they are native in Caucasian parts..Derbent was an Azerbaijani city(now belongs to Russia), and Azerbaijanis of this city are native--Orartu (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the article about the term ethnogenesis --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why?--Orartu (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis in Iran
I take the points raised above that the Azerbaijani people are indigenous to northern Iran, or Iranian Azerbaijan and so form the main contingent of the Azerbaijani people. My query now is if this article is about the main people, what is the Azerbaijani people article about? The Azerbaijani people article has sections on Azeris in The Republic of Azerbaijan and Azeris in Iran, the second one links to this article, and indicates that this article is not to be about the ethnic group of Azerbaijanis (or Azerbaijani people), but about that ethnic group living in a particular region.

If this article is about an ethnic group, then it is potentially a POV fork of Azerbaijani people. If it is about an ethnic group living in a particular region, then it should follow naming convention and be Azerbaijanis in Iran, which appears to be significantly used in sources. Azeris in Iran and Iranian Azerbaijanis are also used, though counting web, scholars and books, less in total than Azerbaijanis in Iran, and "Iranian Azerbaijanis" does not follow our naming convention for ethnic group in a particular region (Foo in Foo or X in Y).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the notion. There are many articles such as Kurds in Turkey and so and so forth. This article seems like a POV fork. I would not have such an attitude if my attempts to balance both sides were not met by blind denial even in the light of reliable sources. This article is indeed about the ethnic group called Azeris residing in Iran therefore, as you have rightly said, it should be changed to Azeris in Iran. Regards, Tugrul Irmak (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposed: The naming issue was previously discussed in details on the talk page, and agreed upon by the consensus of all the editors involved. In Wikipedia, naming is determined by the most common usage, that means the most common usage in Google books/scholars and academic sources in general. "X living in Y" format is not a universal rule or policy, nor does it override Wikipedia naming policy which says "most common usage". By SilkTork's flawed rational that this page should be moved to Azerbaijanis in Iran, then Italian American, and Irish American should also be moved to Italians in America or Irish in America, and so on and so forth. Also, if SilkTork or anyone else wish to move the page, they should follow proper procedure and request a formal request for move to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. For the record, I do not consider SilkTork to be an "uninvolved administrator" on this topic, as he's clearly taken sides here and he is now a party to the dispute. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposed: I think the confusion has a linguistic base. In the new world, the ethnic populations are mostly defined by Lingual-Racial characters , like the Pakistanis in England or etc. The countries are new, the native sedentary population (who forms the nation state) is clearly defined on lingual and racial items and history is not determining. but in the old world, the nations are not nation states and their existence is more Historical-Cultural rather than Lingual-Racial. So you can see the Jews, as an old nation , does not have lingual or racial determinants , but they have historical and cultural characters (See American Jews and not Jews in America. In the case of Iran , as an old world entity , the borders of language or race are not so important in grouping the population , and that means using the formula of Azerbaijanis in Iran is degrading for this group of Iranians and is something like Germans in Germany , Britons in England , Turks in Turkey or Azeris in Azerbaijan.

About the POV fork of Azerbaijani people, I think the mother article about the population with Azerbaijani language , can have - without being a fork - two daughter articles (expansions) of Azeris in Iran (Iranian Azerbaijanis) and Azeris in Azerbaijan (Azerbaijanis) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the rationale given here quite compelling, both for keeping the current name, and for the article being a legitimate child of Azerbaijan_people. Other views are still welcomed, though I think we might be able to move on from the isue of the title.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same problem in naming convetion, same answer
I think the naming convention of Macedonia is the guide in this article. Same problem, same result. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis or Azeris
At risk of opening a can of worms. I note that there is inconsistent use of Azerbaijanis and Azeris. The article names seem to use Azerbaijanis, while some section names are Azeris. If both names are used for this group of people, then it is appropriate and important to mention both names, though once having identified the alternative names, the main name (as indicated by the article title) should be used throughout the article, unless the section or paragraph is dealing with a particular use of the alternative name - such as historical usage. See Naming conventions (geographic names). If Azerbaijanis has been decided as the appropriate common name, then after mentioning Azeris in the lead as an alternative name (and/or in a section dedicated to alternative name usage), then Azerbaijanis should be used throughout the content, including section headings.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC
 * Based on scholarly references "Iranian Azeris" is (109 results) more common than "Iranian Azerbaijanis" (73 results) having in mind that "Iranian Azerbaijanis" could also mean something like "Iranians in the Republic of Azerbaijn"(like Greek Macedonians who could be Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia and which are not Greeks who are in Macedonian region of Greece). I think we could 1. move the article [to] "Iranian Azeris" or "Iranian Azaris" (which is rarely used) and 2. People can make a move request and discuss properly. Xashaiar (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have again removed comments on past behaviours. Bringing up past behaviour is potentially disruptive to this discussion. If you have an issue with someone's past behaviour, please take it elsewhere.
 * I am not considering altering this article to use Azeris in the title as almost all articles on Wikipedia which deal with Azerbaijani people use Azerbaijanis in the title, and looking at web, scholar and book sources, the use of Azerbaijanis is significant, and generally higher than Azeris. My point is that there needs to be some consistency, as indicated by the appropriate guideline. If the situation was that all articles on Wikipedia used Azeris in the title and content, then I would suggest that the difference in usage in sources between Azerbaijanis and Azeris would not be enough to justify a destabilising change to use Azerbaijanis. As it is the articles use Azerbaijanis, so that is what we would be using for all articles, and for all content within those articles, apart from when it would be appropriate to directly mention Azeris, as in discussing alternative names or any historical usage.
 * What I am looking for here is consensus to change usage in this and related articles from Azeris to Azerbaijanis. If there is any objection, please give a reason that relates to Wikipedia guidelines, and/or reliable sources. Personal preference for one form or another will carry little influence unless supported by reasoned argument.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About choosing between Azeris and Azerbaijanis, I think both terms are very alike and a selection between them is not so practical . Anyway , the word Azerbaijani is more geographical compared to Azeri that is more ethnical . Not all of the Azerbaijanis are of the Azeri ethnicity . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What is an "Azerbaijani" compared to an "Azeri"? If an Azerbaijani is an Azeri living in or originating from a certain geographical location, do we have a source for that, as that might be useful information to include in this and the Azerbaijani people article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The nomenclature is rather not clear . The perspective is something like what I'm going to say, but if other editors find it controversial I will do my best to find sources.The term Azerbaijani tends to present a person from Azerbaijan , either Turkic language or non-Turkic (Geographical name). Azeri tends to show the ethnic group with Turkic language (ethnic term). In Azerbaijan Republic , they pay more weight to above terminology because of two reasons .Reason one is that they are more under influence of Russian culture that is more European and modern than Iranian (old) culture and in modern ethnic studies the most important factor defining an ethnic group is language ; that is in contrast with older (Iranian) concept of ethnicity that is based on history/culture(mostly religion) , so then the language (Azeri Turkic) can and will define Azeri ethnicity and Azerbaijani is only a geographical term. The second reason is political : the new state of young republic can not define it's existence on ethnic ground and tends to define the ethnicities like Armenians ( break-away section of Karabagh ) inside the Republic as Azerbaijani (geographical and not ethnic). In Iran that is more complicated and most of our debate is a result of that conflict inside Iran . The reality is that before the modern era ,Turkic-language Iranians did not identify themselves as Azeri or Azerbaijani , but they tend to identify themselves as TURK . The word Turk in their usage meant Turkic-language , in contrast with Persian-language (That is many years before formation of the country with the name of Turkey). After new age of nation-states , and forming of Turkey , both Iranian government and intellectuals wanted to use a word that is not overlapping with neighbor nation of Turkey , and they started to use the modern term of Azeri . Then came the wave of ethnic nationalism in Iran which had two powerful sections : first (and older) wave was more attracted to Pan-Turkism and according to Pan-Turkic ideas , did not believed in any separation between the whole group of Turkic language people,so they deny the ethnic term Azeri and only recognized the word Azerbaijani , that they believed was exactly equal to Turkic (or Turkish) Azerbaijani , and any other people in the geography of Azerbaijan was not a native (and was a guest , as they tend to call ). So if you see there is a group of editors that delete the term Azeri and use Azerbaijani , that is the reason . But then came the second wave of ethic nationalism , that was more Pan-Azeri than Pan-Turkic , and based on what I said about the tendency of Azerbaijan Republic in using the term Azeri , a major fraction of ethnic nationalists payed attention to use the word . So there is no consensus in what word to be used at the end.


 * Summary : I think the regular English way of using Azeri as the ethnicity and Azerbaijani as the geographical name is the best possible solution, because the exact terminology is not only obscure , but also is still in evolution .Both governments of Iran and Azerbaijan use that terminology and a big part of ethnocentric nationalists also use that .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I find your explanation logical and helpful. It would be good to have such an explanation in the article, though we would certainly need reliable sources for that. If you could dig up such sources, we would be making very useful progress. Thank you for your continued erudite and calm approach to this dispute.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well,you know,due to political situation in Iran, the field research is extremely difficult . The topic is relatively new (Independence of Az.Republic was in 90's and Iranian Azerbaijani studies was not a popular study topic in Iran ) , the region is relatively unknown to modern(western) researchers and the changes are rapid . I think it is better not to add that explanation to the article , because many points in that paragraph can't be proved by reliable sources , but I thought it was useful to show the overview in the talk page to find out what is the reason for all this conflict . I think we can consider the explanation correct if the other users express no objection--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Open up for editing?
I'd like to open the article back up for editing. I feel that neutrality concerns have been raised and satisfactorily answered. It has been pointed out that there is going to be some difficulty with defining precise terms as there is not enough scholarly work on this topic, so some aspects of this topic may not be as fully explained or as precise as we would like - but it is a work in progress; and it is better to be opaque and cited to reliable sources, than to attempt clarity via personal knowledge unsupported by sources - our rules are "verifiability, not truth". In addition, ethnicity articles do tend to be sensitive so edits do need to be made with caution. If in doubt if an edit is going to get consensus, then please raise it on the talkpage first. Open and honest discussion is the best way forward. And while it is understandable that people get emotional about such topics, we make better progress if people do not make personal attacks. If people agree, then I will unlock the article for registered users, and monitor progress.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The calmness in editorial history seems to be more a result of administrative efforts rather than achieving a mechanism for mutual understanding ! :) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. I'll open the article, and we'll see what happens after Dec 17.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The block has expired and problems have not returned. I am taking this article off my watchlist. If problems do reoccur, please do ask for assistance.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani or Azarbaijani?
No one in Iran call the people from the northwest area of Iran as Azeri or Azerbaijani. These people refer to them as Azari and Azarbaijani either. This is funny to call them Azeri and write it so, only since in Turkey people write 'e' instead of 'a' in the words.

In any case I suggest to consistently have two separate entries, Azarbaijan and Azari for the geographical and historical Azarbaijan area in Iran, and Azerbaijan and Azeri for the subjects related to the republic of Azerbaijan, historically called Albania and Aran. Mehranshargh (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The people from Republic of Azerbaijan and from Iranian Azerbaijan are the same people who are speaking the same Turkic language. In English it is "Azerbaijan" and "Azerbaijani language". So, it is not serious argument in which way in Iran call the people from the northwest area of country. "Catalonia" also in Spanish is "Cataluna", in Catalonian "Catalunya", and in Occitan "Catalonha", so what? Azerbaijani Turks refer to them not as Azari and Azarbaijani, as "azərbaycanlı" (transcription:ˌæzərbaɪˈdʒɑːnli/"). Iranian and Caucasian Azerbaijan are the national and historical areal of local Turks, and they are named after which they were named.
 * Your last idea is not different from Pan-iranian point of view of some nationalist circles. It is absurd to separate the historical areas of the same people which was divided in 1828 by the Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Russia (modern Republic of Azerbaijan). Garapapag 20:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

=== So, Pan Turkism and the Kemalist idea that the whole world is really Turkish, is okay, but if these folks correctly observe on all historical evidence (except those cooked up in Ankara), then they are bad bad "Pan-Iranists"? What is difference between a Pan Turkist and a Pan Iranist? Nothing. They are both non-scientific nationalist stuff

West Azerbaijan
i checked the sources and according to them, the azeris comprise the majority of west azerbaijan. so, how comes the introduction reads the azeris are found "in parts of west azerbaijan"?

i will remove the suplement "parts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsamm (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014
can you please add the pictures of hussien rezazadeh and akbar abdi to the picture section. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.204.40 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014
172.218.204.40 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Empty request... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Гасан Бакинский
Blocked as a sock, see Sockpuppet investigations/Az-507. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Origins
There's an error in the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Azerbaijanis#Origins, Armenians are not Iranian people. It should be presented as "Iranian Azerbaijanis are more related to Georgians, than to Armenians or Persians." And you're welcomed to mention Qashqais as well, as is in the article's abstact. 46.241.155.36 (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Title same as the other ethnic groups
I want to suggest a new title, like " South Azeris people" or " Azeris in Iran". Titles like " British Scottish"," Belgians Flemish ", " Turkish Kurdish" or " Spanish catalan" have been never used in wikipedia. For example for page of kurdish people in Turkey, the title is "kurds in turkey". JeyranAz (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is not such a thing as south Azerbaijan. Historically there has been only one Azerbaijan and it's the lands, which is parts of iranian territory. The country, which is called Azerbaijan today, originally and historically had been called Aran before the Stalin era.  Diako  « Talk » 07:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand, I talk about the identity of specific ethnic group in 2014 not a historical name of the land. JeyranAz (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason that in the english wikipedia we don't have British Scottish or Belgian Flemish and so on is that the Scotch people live only in Britain and Flemish people live only in Belgian and Catalans live only in Spain. And the Turkish Kurdish is wrong because Turkish is an ethnic group itself, and we can't say Turkish Kurdish. Because of these two reasons, the title Iranian Azerbaidjanis is not comparable with the titles you mentioned. Because There's a country called Azerbaijan also and if we say Azerbaijanis it would be confused with the people of the country. The second reason is that the term Iranian is not an ethnic group. Iranian refers to the name of Iran, which is a country with different ethic groups. But I think the title Iranian Azeris would be acceptable.  Diako  « Talk » 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree with you, Iranian is more confusing than the other nationalities, at least turkish people just refer  to the turkic people in Turkey, but Iranian can be used as nationality or iranian people as an ethnic group  who leave in Iran plateau from Kurdistan to Pakistan. So I believe that we should eliminate Iranian. My favorite title is " South Azeri People" which shows distinguish between Azeris who leave in Iran and  in Azerbaijan, but for some politics problems, many people do not like to use it. Hence my suggestion is following the kurdish solution ( kurds in turkey) and use " Azeris in Iran". JeyranAz (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to add that Iranian Azerbaijani is more relevant to the Taleshi and kurds peoples who leave in Azerbaijan. And Iranian Azeri was an ethnic group which was extinct many years ago and Kasravi wrote about them. JeyranAz (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between new world and old world identities : Indeed Iranian statehood is older than Azeri ethnogenesis and that makes a dual identity more possible : a combination of ethnolingual entity with a national identity. Anyway the determining factor in choosing the title is the common usage in English language that is Iranian Azerbaijani .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014
205.250.224.210 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) This article is written by a persian racist and is not true. In this article, the author is written his view which is fake and against Azerbaijani Turks and in whole article, it's obvious that he hates Azerbaijani Turks. As an Azerbaijani Turk, I request Wikipedia to remove this chouvinistic article.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. if you see mistakes, kindly point them out. we're not about to delete an entire article based on one person's vague complaints. Cannolis (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is not reliable
This file Map of Azerbaijani-inhabited regions of Iran, according to a poll in 2010 has some problems in methodology of obtaining the data. In Persian Wikipedia we had discussion about it Reliable sources/Noticeboard in Persian Wikipedia and the outcome was not to use it in controversial articles as a reliable fact. It shows a very rough estimate of the big picture. I think we have to mention the weak point in footnote .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how comes people can post a map without any link to its original page or any reference to the book or report it was taken from??? Is it serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.137.184 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijanis is a misleading title - Self-designated 'Turk/Tork' identity should be added

 * The Turks, Azeri Turks, Azerbaijanis etc of Iran actually refer to themselves as Turks in Iran and non-Turks refer to us as Torks which is Persian for Turks. There is no mention of this in the introduction. We do not refer to ourselves as Azeri or Azerbaijanis in Iran in an ethnic sense. This should be changed to reflect the truth.

109.148.253.190 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

improvement of the pictures in the infobox
Some more women need to be added, its virtually only composed of men. Also, there are some notes that absolutely shouldn't be there. Naser ad-din Shah Qajar was one of the worst rulers of Iran. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015
Remove this spam link. It's just an old and outdated copy-paste of The World Factbook. The updated version already used on article.

188.159.143.223 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Mz7 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange use of numbers?
The second paragraph of the "Demographics" section reads: "Azeris have also immigrated and resettled in large numbers in Central Iran, mainly Tehran,[41] where they constitute 25%[42] — one-third of the population". A ten year old could tell you 25% is not the same as one third. Can we correct this? it challenges the credibility of the whole page. Abdul tom (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Questionable reference in Demographics
The following sentence from the "Demographics" has a questionable reference: "the Gharagozloo, the latter whom are the indigenous population of Central Iran" The reference given is: http://www.ethnologue.com/language/azb This lists Qaragozlu as being an Azeri/Azerbaijani language but there is nothing to back up the assertion that they are "the indigenous population of Central Iran", which would imply they are the first known people to settle that land. If Turkic speakers have their origin in Central Asia, as is currently believed, then this is unlikely. Is it attested anywhere? I assert this line should be removed in the absence of any evidence being provided.

Finally the use of "whom" is incorrect. In this context it should be "who". Abdul tom (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015
This section is bogus, biased and pov. ,. They were simple and small protests against that tv program, not notable riots. It always happen in Iran and not limited to a specific group. A similar case happened when Bakhtiaris protested against a TV series created by an Azeri director (Kamal Tabrizi). Or when physicians protested against another TV series. The section should be removed or editors make it npov. Because those protests were in small scale. And the word "riot" should be replaced with "protest". All of those protests were controlled by police and official governors of those cities. Even governors, parliament members and and Imam Jome participated in them. So how they can be RIOT?!?! --188.159.147.247 (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

188.159.147.247 (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Both sources used the word protest and I have changed it to match. In the future a simple request would have sufficed pointing to how the sources phrase it. Claiming "bogus, biased, and pov" is only going to make people avoid your request. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Iranian Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Iran.html#AZB
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715220624/http://www.wilsoncenter.org:80/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=1945%2D46%20Iranian%20Crisis to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=1945%2D46%20Iranian%20Crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is half Azeri.[128
Which half? Well, one of the parents might be Azeri, but counting half, quarter and so on has some bad history in the Third Reich and should be considered to be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.219.10.250 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Format/Information
The format for this page is extremely horrendous: very disorganized, scattered, various and numerous plots.

This page needs to be butchered and rebuilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.11.37 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban of Azeri publications
It would be helpful if this claim could be sourced with evidence, as to my knowledge, Reza Shah banned all languages except for Persian from official use, but did not ban the speaking of or writing literature in Azeri, Kurdish etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.199.214.116 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Iranian Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203093100/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723044939/http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf to http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121143525/http://markazi.irib.ir/about-us/about-ostan-markazi/audio-descripcostan/785-- to http://markazi.irib.ir/about-us/about-ostan-markazi/audio-descripcostan/785--
 * Added tag to http://www.ethnomuseum.ru/glossary/?%C1%E0%FF%F2%FB+1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517091025/http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/Azerbaij.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/az/Azerbaij.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430091558/http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/FireTemple.htm to http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/FireTemple.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=1945-46+Iranian+Crisis
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609094644/http://www.cornellcaspian.com/pub2/0411IRAN.pdf to http://www.cornellcaspian.com/pub2/0411IRAN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004120826/http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html to http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329005421/http://www.mirjalalmousavi.ir/?p=1828 to http://www.mirjalalmousavi.ir/?p=1828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an External Links section.Mcljlm (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing 'indigenous'
I really think it is incorrect to say that Azeris are "indigenous" here and there, since (to put it very bluntly) they are a by product of intermixing of Turks and Persians. "Indigenous" would mean they were there before everyone else -- this isn't true, considering Armenians, Assyrians, and others were there far before the Azeri identity even existed. "Local" might work better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam41ir (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what side of the story you look at it, Azerbaijani Azeris believe their culture, identity and origin is a mix of Turkic, Caucasian and Iranian. Iranian Azeris on the other hand, consider themselves as wholly Iranian, I can support this with sources as well as the logic behind how easily, specifically, Azeris so naturally "integrate" across Iran, when I mean integrate I don't mean assimilate, I mean how they can change their location to one spot and not feel or act any different than a native of that location. These two people, although sharing a mutual language, have distinct cultures and identities. One's identity is up for themselves to decide, but the scientific and historical research undertaken in the last 2-3 decades have proven that the origin of Iranian Azeris is what I have mentioned above but interestingly due to articles like this being written from one-sided perspectives of people from the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Iranian story isn't allowed to be told. That is why Iranian Azeris are now being called "Turkic speaking" and not "Turkic" as a whole because their "Turkness" strictly applies to their language. I am an Iranian, of Azeri ethnicity, if that adds to my credibility. Strictly speaking and in summary, my argument is about Iranian Azeris, as I am one and I cannot decide for another people, and how they are indigenous to Iran. Migboy123 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Special military ceremony- University of Imam Hussein -Commander-in-chief of Iranian Armed Forces (55).jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Special military ceremony- University of Imam Hussein -Commander-in-chief of Iranian Armed Forces (55).jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Special military ceremony- University of Imam Hussein -Commander-in-chief of Iranian Armed Forces (55).jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Special military ceremony- University of Imam Hussein -Commander-in-chief of Iranian Armed Forces (55).jpg

quoted material?
hi, i’m worried that the text at the beginning of the “pan-Turkism” section may be quoted, or duplicated, from the source in note 99, as it appears identical in that note. i.e., text starting from “The most important political development affecting the Middle East at the beginning of the twentieth century was the collapse of the Ottoman and the Russian empires. The idea of a greater homeland for all Turks was ...”. but, i don’t have the source cited in note 99 at hand to make a real investigation and suggestion. (at least partially a bit of laziness, i guess.) Spgggm (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)
The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Failing to understand something
The lead says of Iranian origin, while it mentions below they consist of Ayrums, Bayats, Qarapapaqs etc. What's the deal here? Beshogur (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Askik Changiz.jpg

Multiple edits that were reverted
I tried to describe my changes in detail yet was accused of "my edit summaries [not matching] the edits [I] made." Clearly, there are many sources that aren't reflected accurately:

doesn't support the claim of "However the same multidimensional scaling plot shows that Azerbaijanis from the Caucasus, despite their supposed common origin with Iranian Azerbaijanis, cluster closer with other Iranians (e.g. Persians, etc.) than they do with Iranian Azerbaijanis," because the study itself doesn't include Azerbaijanis from Caucasus as far as I remember.

"Other studies support that present-day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one." doesn't represent

First of all, who are the "eastern" people? On page 130-131, the Indo-Aryan component is found to be a minor one, and it argues against the theory of Indo-Aryan invasion. This bit is misleading.

"Despite the fact that Azeris do not share any of the most frequent extended haplotypes with Iranians, frequent HLA class II haplotypes in our sample are also common with Iranians from Yazd (Table 4) and relatedness analyses present these populations to be close (Fig 2 and Fig 3). Previous HLA studies show that modern Iranians are close to other Middle East-Mediterranean populations Macedonians, 131 Cretans and Turkish (Farjadian et al. 2009; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002). Thus, the genetic data support the hypothesis that present day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001c; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002)."

This whole part was reflected in my edit. On page 133, the study concludes that Azerbaijanis are close with Kurds and people from Gorgan. All were reflected.

"These results suggest that “turkification” process caused by Oghuz Turkic tribes could also contribute to the genetic background of Azeri people, as other genetic and historic data argue (Yarshater, 1988; Schonberg et al. 2011)."

Threre is also this bit on page 132.

I basically added bits from source. I added almost every section of the conclusion except those about health and Iranian Azerbaijanis' relation to Caucasians, which I probably should have. Nothing here is unsourced but from an already-existing source.

According to the scholar of historical geography, Xavier de Planhol: "Azerbaijani material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions…. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants".

This is a clear cherry-picking. A whole paragraph was cut with "..." And it doesn't refer to origins but culture and language. I moved that to the appropriate section.

The Iranian origins of the Azerbaijanis likely derive from ancient Iranian tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the 8th century BCE.

This is not supported by the source. The source mentions the demographics of the region during pre-Islamic times. There isn't such a suggestion.Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "because the study itself doesn't include Azerbaijanis from Caucasus as far as I remember."
 * It does. Quote:
 * "Published population data on complete mtDNA variability in Azeris, Armenians and Georgians from Caucasus, Turks and Iranians from western Asia [40], Sardinians from eastern Sardinia [54] and Tatars from the Volga-Ural region [55] were included in our comparative analysis."
 * " It is worth pointing out the position of Azeris from the Caucasus region, who despite their supposed common origin with Iranian Azeris, cluster quite separately and occupy an intermediate position between the Azeris/Georgians and Turks/Iranians grouping (Figure 1). "


 * ""Other studies support that present-day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one." doesn't represent [2]... This whole part was reflected in my edit. On page 133, the study concludes that Azerbaijanis are close with Kurds and people from Gorgan. All were reflected. "
 * Honestly, this source and the material its supposed to support can be removed IMO. The source is packed with grammar errors and stuff that's been debunked in modern-day WP:RS.


 * "According to the scholar of historical geography, Xavier de Planhol... This is a clear cherry-picking. A whole paragraph was cut with "..." And it doesn't refer to origins but culture and language. I moved that to the appropriate section. "
 * The only thing that was manipulated in that quote, as far as I can see, is that the original text uses "Azeri" and not "Azerbaijani" (I already know which user changed that), and it fails to make mention of this important excerpt from the same alinea: "The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages." I wonder why that part was omitted? There's also some more stuff about villages in the source but it doesn't seem to be important for this Wiki article.


 * "The Iranian origins of the Azerbaijanis likely derive from ancient Iranian tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the 8th century BCE.[4] This is not supported by the source. The source mentions the demographics of the region during pre-Islamic times. There isn't such a suggestion"
 * Agreed, we can remove this as it fails WP:VER.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, so for the first, I was mistaken, but surely, it must be reflected clearly, because it says "intermediate position" and not that they cluster closer to Iranians than Iranian Azerbaijanis.
 * I would support the inclusion of the third source under Culture in its full form or paraphrased.
 * So, if you were to agree, my edit will include the removal of the second and last sources and claims, the inclusion of the third source under Culture, and the better reflection of the first source. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Iranian"
Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."

This source says that Azeris are people who Turkified the Iranian population of the region. 46.2.201.91 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that. It says the Turkmen "Turkised" the Iranian population, with the people today known as Azeris being their descendants . - LouisAragon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Olivier Roy ist only a political scientist and not a historian. The other sources are from non-neutral Iranians who are known to want to Iranize anything historical.--217.231.247.219 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Paraphrasing
Well, i'm not interested in Wikilawyering, but the one who had to come here was you, not me, as per WP:BRD. Thanks for the guideline link, but i see no overuse of quote. I just think that the previous phrasing was better and the onus is on you to achieve consensus before reinstating your edit. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, this revision couldn't stay as was, since somehow, bunch of phrases were struck through, which I am not sure if it was intentional or a mistake. Anyways, I don't think it's really some sort of an issue of "phrasing," when the earlier revision read "According to Rybakov: '..." which was the same style used for other sources as in earlier revisions. This problem was even more apparent in even earlier versions. And you currently see no overuse of quote, because I edited those portions before this edit, which is why I said the page "had" such a problem. I would like to underline this quote from WP:QUOTEFARM I had linked earlier:"A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit but quotations should not dominate the article."


 * One may point out given the lesser amount of quotes in the current revision, we can have a quote there, but this is essentially a remnant of the overused quotes and there isn't a specific justification to just quote this scholar and not others. There are also some additional problems I pointed out in my edit in using a quote here. If it's really what you are concerned about instead, feel free to list here the information you want mentioned through some quotes from the source. Aintabli (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say that (Iranian) Azerbaijan's Turkification was complete at any date, Frye even says that several pockets of Iranian speaking populations still exist today, thus your edit is clearly not an improvement, rather misleading. The status quo should be restored until a relevant phrasing is found. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the XIV-XV centuries. the population of South Azerbaijan was almost completely Turkicized. (В XIV-XV вв. население Южного Азербайджана было почти полностью тюркизировано.) Try checking the source please. When you open the page, you may have the option to translate it to English through Google Translate, depending on the browser you're using. Aintabli (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am talking about Frye's source, not a Russian source. Frye says "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region". Besides, Rostislav Rybakov is mainly an Indologist, giving him an entire quote like for Frye is a clear case of undue weight, this guy is not an expert source like Frye or Bosworth about Middle Eastern history. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Next to the statement you first referred to in your first comment, there is the Russian reference, and you edited that part instead of the part about Frye. So you can't expect me to get that you're concerned about the part from Frye instead. I thought you were trying to point out that Frye and Rybakov contradict. Aintabli (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't add Rybakov. But this source was there for years and started posing a problem when I added bits from it. You're free to ask WP:RSN about Rostislav Rybakov. The first part on his page says he is a scholar of Oriental Studies. That enough makes him a relevant scholar. Aintabli (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you last edit, that's what i was talking about. I did not say that Rybakov is not reliable, i said that he's not an expert source like Frye or Bosworth about Middle Eastern history, thus, he cannot have the same weight than those prominent US and UK historians. And i'm not the one who says that, our guidelines does : "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In all sincerity, I am trying to understand your concerns and adjust my edit accordingly. Using unclear terms such as "phrasing" and "neutrality" without describing a specific change you want to make or be made is not really helpful. And I am not resisting in any way to the suggestions you make here. Likewise, I added the part you bolded in your third comment right away. If you would like to specify what kind of "prominence" you want to see, I think this discussion would be more fruitful, because otherwise, it becomes easy to misunderstand your points. Aintabli (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies if i was not clear enough. I see that you are trying to edit the article accordingly to what is said here. As far as i can see, the article seems better written and more close to what the sources say. My sincere thanks to you. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023
involed = involved 2603:8000:D300:D0F:B031:8DEA:F0DA:7F4F (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actualcpscm (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)