Talk:Iranian peoples/Archive 7

Ancient Iranian groups
1. I noted editor in our discussion about this issue. Before the inclusion, it should be seen the general ethnogenetic consideration in the respective articles to not make false balance between the listing and respective group article. The linguistic affiliation or influence solely (without ethnogenetic, cultural, politic-structural etc. scholars consideration and evidence), and especially if is just a single scholar consideration, for example in the cited case of Pannonian Avars which they language spoke, think is insufficient for such an inclusion, and quite misleading. Of the three mentioned, think that the Pannonian Avars shouldn't be mentioned at all, while the Göktürks (Ashina Turks), actually the Ashina clan which ruled over them (and etymologically is considered to be of possible Indo-European origin), the cite from the book by Peter B. Golden is a bit misinterpreted as on pg. 122 (not cited in harv) is concluded that "On the basis of available data, it is unclear whether the Ashina were originally speakers of a language other than Turkic. It is certainly a possibility that should not be excluded. [in the note 45 were pointed out some interesting points by Denis Sinor of non-Turkic segments in Türk state] Clearly, they were profoundly influenced by their Iranian and Tokharian neighbors." As already told in the our discussion, the heterogeneity of ethnogenetic and cultural influence within steppe tribal confederations shouldn't be ignored, as well the remains of previous tribes which were conquered and assimilated. However, those influences, often in minority, should not be misinterpreted and pre emphasized in comparison to the evidence in majority which lead to Turkic, and not Iranian origin. In the case of Yuezhi cannot give a specific opinion, the source Encyclopædia Britannica Online mentions them securely as Iranian people, while in their respective article the origin is widely discussed and seemingly uncertain, but one of the theories considers Scythians origin.--Crovata (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two issues
 * 1) Except the Cimmerians, I don't think groups like Yuezhi, Avars and Ashina should be mentioned. For example, Yuezhi was mostly a Tocharian faction or an uncertain Indo-European group.
 * 2) To wikify this article, some of the current content should be moved to List of ancient Iranian peoples. It's better to have an expanded version on that article. --Zyma (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WEIGHT, we should remove uncertain or weak possible groups from the lead section. Details about those groups can be mentioned on the other sections of article, or on List of ancient Iranian peoples. This article should match with those main articles. --Zyma (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Of those listed above, Pannonian Avars shouldn't in neither of case be mentioned (for now, as am working on their article and if find good evidence and scholars consideration with enough weight then will add them myself), Ashina clan could due to etymology, but due their uncertain ethnogenesis and being just a clan/tribe/dynasty it's quite insignificant portion of people (so it is questionable), while Yuezhi could be mentioned in the "Possible Ancient Iranian peoples whose designation is uncertain" list.--Crovata (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was intending to remedy this problem but you beat to it, Crovata :). I think all the possible peoples should be moved to the List of ancient Iranian peoples article. Also thanks for notifying about the wrong-page number for the Golden Ashina ref. Information about possible groups could perhaps also be intigrated into an expanded Iranian peoples section. Krakkos (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the link of the "List of ancient Iranian peoples" to the "See also" section. Actually there was no need to remove all of them from the lead, just those three insufficiently confirmed. The article still should be concentrated on the Iranian peoples of which origin we are secure (as Zyma said, per weight).
 * There was a lot of mixing and interchange of influences among the steppe and sedentary peoples that for some we don't actually know what trace to follow, ie., which is the "original" ethnic identity and other segments like language of certain ethnic groups, and which are just influental borrowings. Thus, the article perhaps could be expanded with a new section describing those blending of influences, the contacts thousands years old between Indo-Europeans (and Iranians) with Altaic people, the boundary where the Iranian Empires influence reached steppe nomads, some military titles, language, and geography (especially in the East), all in the example of listed tribal confederations of uncertain origin? Perhaps related with "Cultural assimilation" section.--Crovata (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you accept current revision? You can suggest another one (better than current rev) too. --Zyma (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly yes, I think it has a good order of topics, however, the "Demographics" table and section could be put at the bottom of the page, or even the table to be removed (with in-table text put in-section text; or to put option to "show/hide") as is somehow too much notable while the section lacks quality and amount of text. Thus after "History" would follow "Culture" and "Genetics". Some images could be re-arranged. Some statements, and whole "Later developments" and "Religion" section need cites. And as according Krakkos proposition, and my mentioned above, I would move the "Cultural assimilation" section to be stand alone, and merge the current section text to the proposed insights to the several blending of influences, eg. with Turkic, Altaic, Slavic, Indo-European, and ethnic groups, as well the section's See also articles. What you think about the infobox images of personality?--Crovata (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The work Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Türk and Khazaro-Iranian Interaction by Peter B. Golden, a book chapter in Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas. Historical and Linguistic Aspects (2006), would be both useful for creation of that new section "Cultural assimilation [or interaction]".--Crovata (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has been plagued with red links
Please clean the page of red links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Azeris
Current revision includes Azeris. It's wrong. Azeris are related to Iranians, but they are not Iranic. They are classified as Turkic peoples and their language belongs to Turkic family. Azeri should be removed from the lead section and moved to other sections (e.g. cultural assimilation section, genetics or new section if necessary). Assimilated groups or non-Iranian speaking groups with cultural similarities to Iranians can be mentioned, but we can't classify and categorize them as Iranian peoples. --Zyma (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Azeris from Iran are "Iranian" because "Iranian" when functioning as an adjectival simply means "from Iran" and these Turkics are no doubt from Iran. The real problem is with the ambiguous nature of the title "Iranian peoples" of this article. If it were "Iranic peoples" then the title would be clear and unambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really related to that "Iran+ian" and "Iran+ic" problem. It's a debate because of mixed origin (Iranian/Persian, Caucasian and Turkic) of Azeris, language shift, Turkification and cultural similarities. See Iranian Azerbaijanis. Some editors believe that Azeris should be classified as Iranian peoples because of those similarities. I say it's a WP:OR. Modern Azeris are Turkic-speaking population. Even if Iranian Azeris share 99% similarity with Iranics of Iran, we need reliable sources to prove those claims for a modern ethnicity. If we go by our personal opinions and add Azeris, why not add Uzbeks of Afghanistan (cause they spoke Dari and Pashto and have similarities to Iranics of Afghanistan)? An Iraqi Arab, Armenian or a Turkish person may be genetically similar to an Iranian, but does that make them Iranic? Obviously not. A Hazara or a Central Asian Tajik (from Tajikistan) may be genetically far from an Iranian Persian, but all of them are from Persian/Persian-speaking cultural sphere. We can't decide about ethnic groups by personal opinion-based conclusions. This current "Iranian" term is confusing for unfamiliar editors and readers, let's not to make it more complicated by adding our povs. --Zyma (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is about Iranian peoples as an ethno-linguistic group, not inhabitatants or citizents of Iran. This is carefully explained at the top of the article. Remember WP:NAD. Azeris speak a Turkic language and Azerbaijan is a member of the Turkic Council. Iranian cultural and genetic influence is already explained in the Cultural assimilation section. The Azeri part of the intro as it stands now is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCITE. It should be removed. Krakkos (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my point too. But he restored it again (with a personal edit summary). --Zyma (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

They are of Iranic origin and were Turkified. They also originally spoke an Iranian language. They were not assimilated by Iranians, but Turks. Review the citations. Also, this is on Azerbaijan's History section. "from the 13th century onwards they gradually Turkified the Iranian-speaking populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shia and the use of Oghuz Turkic. Today, this Turkic-speaking population is known as Azerbaijani." They are Iranian. I do not care for popular opinion, nor should Wikipedia. Nor should you.

A consensus is impossible due to modern nationalism clouding facts and information. This, I am sure you know. It will not be found as agreeable by all people in over 100 years. But, it is still historically factual. And that is what Wikipedia is about. Hence, the citations.
 * You've answered yourself by the above comment: "They are of Iranic origin and were Turkified." A Turkified ethnicity is Turkic. Adding them as Iranic/Iranian-speaking ethnicity is misleading. As I said before, ex-Iranic peoples and ethnic groups with possible Iranian origin should be moved to proper sections of the article. --Zyma (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The concept 'Turkified' is used in the linguistic, not ethnic sense. Read the citations thoroughly. Azeris belong in Iranian people, but Azerbaijani does not belong in Iranian languages. It is that simple. Mughals are not qualified as Persian because they were Persianized. Or, at least, Wikipedia did not think so, last I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the user pahlavan qahramani or whatever he is called is biased as he himself is an azeri persian mix and as such may display nationalistic tendencies. Azeris speak a turkic language and thus fall into the turkic sphere of peoples and language just as turks from turkey do despite turks from turkey being a mix of all sorts of ethnicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, as I am not a Persian Azeri mixed, and what I am is none of your business. However the citations speak for themselves. If you feel a Turkified or Turkic speaking peoples is automatically Turkic, then you must replace Azeris with Hazaras, and add Mughals. As these are both Persianized/Persian-speaking peoples. What you believe isn't important. If I believe you have prejudice against Iranian people, it brings no sway to a debate. Read the citations, and be about your business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't care in all honesty, I just feel like discussing and understanding your viewpoint. All of your sources indicate that azeris are turkic people as they speak a turkish language. Iranic is not an ethnicity, it's a linguistic group that also includes culture. The mughals for instance were originally an uzbek group but over time they culturally persianized and racially indianized so your example there is moot. And as already discussed above, there is already a section on the page about azeris specifically that states that although they speak a turkic language, they may be considered iranic people as at one point, they spoke an iranic language and their culture is heavily iranicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you view Iranic as 'not an ethnicity'. But that doesn't change that it is what they are. They only currently speak Turkic, however they originally spoke an Iranic language. They have no origin to the Turks, and existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people. Turkic peoples (not Turkic languages) is typically defined as 'descended from the Turks', which Azeris certainly are not. It should also be noted that the founder of Azerbaijan was Atropates, whom was Persian. Nothing about them changed before to after, aside from current language and nationalism. Based on your response, you clearly did not read the citations thoroughly, and just wished to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok :) I'm just glad you're actually putting in the effort to discuss this time around rather than edit warring like with a certain article on zoroaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We didn't reach a consensus. So please do not write such edit summaries before a "real consensus". I may call third opinion here. --Zyma (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Being unsatisfied with the result does not indicate a lack of consensus. That being said, the conversation was concluded in favor of Azeris being Iranic for a month now. I have thoroughly used the Talk, and have more than efficiently proven my point. Do not Edit War solely because you are uncontent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unsatisfied?! Uncontent?! Such a ridiculous and non-constructive comment. There is no consensus and you just push your own POV. Classified a whole Turkic-speaking group as Iranic. Ignored other the definition and related sections on article. Again, by your logic all Iranians can pass as Persian. Because they are closely related to Persian-speaking ethnic groups, and the Persian is the only official language of Iran, so most of them are actually Persian-speaking/Persian too. Or why not Uzbeks of Afghanistan? Because they're close to Iranian-speaking of that country too. Well, it looks like that you just want to do what you like. So an admin can solve this dispute. --Zyma (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks that you're the only editor who ignores their Turkic background: diff1, diff2, diff3. If they're not Turkic or Turkic-speaking, why their name exists on Turkic peoples and this template? They speak a Turkic language. They're influenced by Turkic elements. How do you ignore all of these facts and try to remove their Turkic part, and put them in Iranian-speaking category? Again, I have no problem with your sources or why you have mentioned them on this article, but you are only interested in your own POV. Ignored their Turkic (current identity) and Caucasian background. Just focused on their Iranian background. It's against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Zyma (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The first case:
 * After the survey, write the name of Azeris in the one mother article, template, Categorie, or Turkic? or Iranic? not in both.


 * The second case:
 * If Azeris are Turkic poeples, no problem in the language this peoples in template.
 * But if Azeris are Iranian peoples or Caucasian, must added Azerbaijani language to mother article. and written only Azeris in between Iranic poeples speak to language from Turkic languages.--SaməkTalk 11:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As previously shown with multiple citations: 1) They existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people and are not descended of them. 2) They originally spoke an Iranian language. 3) The founder of Azerbaijan was a Persian named Atropates. You read all of this and the citations, correct?


 * talking about my opinion?-SaməkTalk 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I was mostly just speaking to Zyma in my last post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Azeris are Iranian people but their language is not Iranian --Hosseiniran (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC) HosseinIran

The Old Azeri language was Iranian,while the modern Azeri language is Turkic language. Although genetic testing demonstrates primarily the Turkification of the region rather than that the Azerbaijani are descendants of migrants from Central Asia, it does however show that the region is a genetically mixed one. In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be PRIMARILY the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification. So Azeris aren't only Iranian and they aren't only Turkic.They are mixed.Anyways,it is IMPORTANT that the fact they are Turkified doesn't mean that they are Turkic people.Generally they have more historic ,economic,religious and social relation with Iranian people (or better said with Iran ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hop in that late, but I just noticed the infobox and lede; Azeris and Sattar Khan, really?... Azerbaijanis were all Iranian (as in part of the West Asian nation of Iran/citizens) until 1813 and 1828 when Iran ceded the Caucasus to Russia per the Treaty of Gulistan and Treaty of Turkmenchay. They got divided by Russia in the course of the 19th century, which makes this stuff a bit harder (two nations, etc) That historical point being said, out of everyone in their neighbourhood, they're by far the closest related in all ways to modern-day Iranians (people of Iran), virtually solely the Persians (incl. Mazandaranis/Gilaks, and Tats) and Talysh. They virtually have no close ties to Caucasians except Kumyks, for obvious reasons, and Turkics in general only for language. HOWEVER, I do not approve of them being added here, as you might as well just add even more famous Azeris than Sattar Khan, e.g. Rasulzade, Aliyev, Muslim Magomayev, etc etc. which is plain wrong.


 * Azeris from both Azerbaijan and Iran are very closely historically/culturally/ethnically/religiously related to the people and nation of Iran, but that's where it ends with their relationship regarding certain "Iranic peoples", who make up a portion of Iran's population. Azerbaijan used be part of Iran until recently, unlike any other they share the exact same sect of Islam (Azerbaijan and Iran are the only official Shia nations in the world with conversion in both nations stemming from the exact same time in history, and they have the highest and second highest percentage of Shia's by population) and most Azerbaijanis still by far live in Iran, far outnumbering those in neighbouring Azerbaijan. By that alone it makes them closest to the people of Iran. Culturally, Azeris and Iranians (people of Iran) are very much the same too, given that Azeris are by far the second ethnicity in Iran and comprise the largest community of Azeris in the world. Cuisine, you name it. However, they only share with Iran these things, and furthermore it's really as far as how their relationship with some of the Iranic peoples goes, and then only some of the bordering West Asian nation of Iran. They simply do not belong here on the list/infobox, though it can be added that they were linguistically assimilated, or are culturally/historically the closest to Iran, etc. They still remain a group of mixed Iranic/Turkic/Caucasian heritage.
 * My 0.02$ about this.
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well said. But as said, their origin is in Iranian peoples whom originally spoke an Iranian language and whose home and namesake was founded by an Iranian. As Turkification does not change origin. Much like how near all of the other Iranian peoples (Pamiris, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Ossetians, etc.) are as well separated from Iran. On a side note, unnecessary as it is, only a fraction of Azerbaijan was lost. West Azerbaijan and East Azerbaijan still remain a part of Iran. But again, near all Iranian peoples are separated from Iran to some extent.


 * Iran (the nation, it's history) and it's peoples (citizens) don't have much to do with Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamirs, Baluch, Sarikoli's, etc.... Same goes for some of those historical Iranics, e.g. Sarmatians, Alans, etc. They for the most were intertwined with other regions of the world or were extremely isolated. Azerbaijan (Republic) is a different story as it's whole existence, culture, identity, etc relies on its history through the modern-day nation of Iran, from whom it got forcefully separated.
 * Anyway, this is off-topic. People should remove Azeris from the list. Perhaps one day if the Republic of Azerbaijan rejoins Iran, we can re-discuss this with a relatively more use.
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You are against your own case. If you remove Azeris for that reason, you must remove Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, etc..

language of Azeris
Azeris are in this article, So the language of this peoples is not Iranian languages, if is in an article Azeris, Would have existed Their language.Zyma please Stop nationalism editing-SaməkTalk 08:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you see Talk:Iranian_peoples section?! Go to above section. I'm the editor who proposed to remove Azeris from the lead section. Just calm down and participate. And don not use personal attacks and write nonsense comments against other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and etc: If Azerbaijanis are the Iranian peoples, we putting Azerbijani language in the template. Otherwise remove Azerbijanis in this article. Enough time has been given for talking. Now need to Conclude.--SaməkTalk 10:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It was 'concluded' long ago. And again, left concluded long before that. The issue is that the evidence is strongly in favor of them as Iranic peoples. But the opinion is strongly against due to current nationalist views. Their home was founded by an Iranian. They originally spoke an Iranian language. They existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC) In the past? Now we argue. Azerbaijanis are in this article, so put the language of Azerbaijanis in this article. Now the language of Azerbaiani is Turkic, Not Iranian. If there are Azeris into Iranians, must be Azerbaiani language in the Languages part. I have waited for Zyma that was concluded, with the view other users It was concluded long ago, The Azeris are Iranic, so no problem the putting Azerbaijani language? --SaməkTalk 20:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for your response.SaməkTalk 10:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue in that is that the people are Iranic, of Iranian origin and originally spoke an Iranian language. But the current Azerbaijani LANGUAGE is of Turkic origin and made for the Azeri people. The best way to classify them is 'A Turkic-speaking Iranian people'. So, Old Azeri language could have been added, however their current language is Turkic. Though, the origin of them as a people is still Iranic. Similar to if the Persian language was completely Arabized, it would not change that Persians are of Iranic, not Arabic origin. Much like how the Mughals were viewed as Persian-speaking Turkic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Old Azeri, Middle Persian, Avestan, Parthian, Hurrian isn't language of Azerbaijanis, Persians or Armenians, Fully and only you speak from the past, Important is current language this peoples Now What is the Language of Azerbaijanis?--SaməkTalk 10:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The people are Iranic. The language is Turkic. Just as with the Mughals who were Turkic but their language was Iranic. If the Persian language was completely Arabized, the Persian language would be Arabic, but the people would still be Iranic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote my opinion already here. Yes, arbitrarily, they need to be removed no matter what. Even if we could plainly say they are just Turkic-speaking Persians/Iranians, and for the rest almost completely similar to the people of Iran in terms of culture, religion, history, etc. Today, they speak a Turkic language, and thus do not belong on this article therefore. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I said, if is supposed be ethnic group, should be the language of this ethnic group.--SaməkTalk 05:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Azeris can only be removed if Mughals are an historic Iranian people, and should be added. As should Hazaras to current people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Yitzhak Mordechai Iranic?
I see he may have possibly been born in Kurdistan, but his Wikipedia page clearly states him as Israeli. So, is he Iranic or Semitic in Origin? Pahlavan Qahremani (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

my removal of Kurdish and persian translations
I removed the Kurdish and Persian/Farsi translations from the article because these are only two of many Iranic languages. If we put in Kurdish, Farsi we should also have to put in Pashto and all the other Iranic languages to be fair. And if we did that it would end up in WP:CLUTTER so we should leave them out. I also don't see German or Turkish translations in Germanic peoples or Turkic peoples so why are we doing it here?--Boxman88 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree - we cannot single out just one language, such as Farsi, or two, or three, and all the languages would be WP:LEADCLUTTER, so none is clearly better. - Arjayay (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Azeris
(This is added once more to the Talk due to dissatisfied editors, in order to avoid repetition)

Current revision includes Azeris. It's wrong. Azeris are related to Iranians, but they are not Iranic. They are classified as Turkic peoples and their language belongs to Turkic family. Azeri should be removed from the lead section and moved to other sections (e.g. cultural assimilation section, genetics or new section if necessary). Assimilated groups or non-Iranian speaking groups with cultural similarities to Iranians can be mentioned, but we can't classify and categorize them as Iranian peoples. --Zyma (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Azeris from Iran are "Iranian" because "Iranian" when functioning as an adjectival simply means "from Iran" and these Turkics are no doubt from Iran. The real problem is with the ambiguous nature of the title "Iranian peoples" of this article. If it were "Iranic peoples" then the title would be clear and unambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really related to that "Iran+ian" and "Iran+ic" problem. It's a debate because of mixed origin (Iranian/Persian, Caucasian and Turkic) of Azeris, language shift, Turkification and cultural similarities. See Iranian Azerbaijanis. Some editors believe that Azeris should be classified as Iranian peoples because of those similarities. I say it's a WP:OR. Modern Azeris are Turkic-speaking population. Even if Iranian Azeris share 99% similarity with Iranics of Iran, we need reliable sources to prove those claims for a modern ethnicity. If we go by our personal opinions and add Azeris, why not add Uzbeks of Afghanistan (cause they spoke Dari and Pashto and have similarities to Iranics of Afghanistan)? An Iraqi Arab, Armenian or a Turkish person may be genetically similar to an Iranian, but does that make them Iranic? Obviously not. A Hazara or a Central Asian Tajik (from Tajikistan) may be genetically far from an Iranian Persian, but all of them are from Persian/Persian-speaking cultural sphere. We can't decide about ethnic groups by personal opinion-based conclusions. This current "Iranian" term is confusing for unfamiliar editors and readers, let's not to make it more complicated by adding our povs. --Zyma (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is about Iranian peoples as an ethno-linguistic group, not inhabitatants or citizents of Iran. This is carefully explained at the top of the article. Remember WP:NAD. Azeris speak a Turkic language and Azerbaijan is a member of the Turkic Council. Iranian cultural and genetic influence is already explained in the Cultural assimilation section. The Azeri part of the intro as it stands now is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCITE. It should be removed. Krakkos (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my point too. But he restored it again (with a personal edit summary). --Zyma (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

They are of Iranic origin and were Turkified. They also originally spoke an Iranian language. They were not assimilated by Iranians, but Turks. Review the citations. Also, this is on Azerbaijan's History section. "from the 13th century onwards they gradually Turkified the Iranian-speaking populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shia and the use of Oghuz Turkic. Today, this Turkic-speaking population is known as Azerbaijani." They are Iranian. I do not care for popular opinion, nor should Wikipedia. Nor should you. A consensus is impossible due to modern nationalism clouding facts and information. This, I am sure you know. It will not be found as agreeable by all people in over 100 years. But, it is still historically factual. And that is what Wikipedia is about. Hence, the citations. The concept 'Turkified' is used in the linguistic, not ethnic sense. Read the citations thoroughly. Azeris belong in Iranian people, but Azerbaijani does not belong in Iranian languages. It is that simple. Mughals are not qualified as Persian because they were Persianized. Or, at least, Wikipedia did not think so, last I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've answered yourself by the above comment: "They are of Iranic origin and were Turkified." A Turkified ethnicity is Turkic. Adding them as Iranic/Iranian-speaking ethnicity is misleading. As I said before, ex-Iranic peoples and ethnic groups with possible Iranian origin should be moved to proper sections of the article. --Zyma (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the user pahlavan qahramani or whatever he is called is biased as he himself is an azeri persian mix and as such may display nationalistic tendencies. Azeris speak a turkic language and thus fall into the turkic sphere of peoples and language just as turks from turkey do despite turks from turkey being a mix of all sorts of ethnicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way, as I am not a Persian Azeri mixed, and what I am is none of your business. However the citations speak for themselves. If you feel a Turkified or Turkic speaking peoples is automatically Turkic, then you must replace Azeris with Hazaras, and add Mughals. As these are both Persianized/Persian-speaking peoples. What you believe isn't important. If I believe you have prejudice against Iranian people, it brings no sway to a debate. Read the citations, and be about your business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC) I personally don't care in all honesty, I just feel like discussing and understanding your viewpoint. All of your sources indicate that azeris are turkic people as they speak a turkish language. Iranic is not an ethnicity, it's a linguistic group that also includes culture. The mughals for instance were originally an uzbek group but over time they culturally persianized and racially indianized so your example there is moot. And as already discussed above, there is already a section on the page about azeris specifically that states that although they speak a turkic language, they may be considered iranic people as at one point, they spoke an iranic language and their culture is heavily iranicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC) It's interesting that you view Iranic as 'not an ethnicity'. But that doesn't change that it is what they are. They only currently speak Turkic, however they originally spoke an Iranic language. They have no origin to the Turks, and existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people. Turkic peoples (not Turkic languages) is typically defined as 'descended from the Turks', which Azeris certainly are not. It should also be noted that the founder of Azerbaijan was Atropates, whom was Persian. Nothing about them changed before to after, aside from current language and nationalism. Based on your response, you clearly did not read the citations thoroughly, and just wished to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Ok :) I'm just glad you're actually putting in the effort to discuss this time around rather than edit warring like with a certain article on zoroaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Being unsatisfied with the result does not indicate a lack of consensus. That being said, the conversation was concluded in favor of Azeris being Iranic for a month now. I have thoroughly used the Talk, and have more than efficiently proven my point. Do not Edit War solely because you are uncontent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't reach a consensus. So please do not write such edit summaries before a "real consensus". I may call third opinion here. --Zyma (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsatisfied?! Uncontent?! Such a ridiculous and non-constructive comment. There is no consensus and you just push your own POV. Classified a whole Turkic-speaking group as Iranic. Ignored other the definition and related sections on article. Again, by your logic all Iranians can pass as Persian. Because they are closely related to Persian-speaking ethnic groups, and the Persian is the only official language of Iran, so most of them are actually Persian-speaking/Persian too. Or why not Uzbeks of Afghanistan? Because they're close to Iranian-speaking of that country too. Well, it looks like that you just want to do what you like. So an admin can solve this dispute. --Zyma (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks that you're the only editor who ignores their Turkic background: diff1, diff2, diff3. If they're not Turkic or Turkic-speaking, why their name exists on Turkic peoples and this template? They speak a Turkic language. They're influenced by Turkic elements. How do you ignore all of these facts and try to remove their Turkic part, and put them in Iranian-speaking category? Again, I have no problem with your sources or why you have mentioned them on this article, but you are only interested in your own POV. Ignored their Turkic (current identity) and Caucasian background. Just focused on their Iranian background. It's against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Zyma (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The first case:
 * After the survey, write the name of Azeris in the one mother article, template, Categorie, or Turkic? or Iranic? not in both.


 * The second case:
 * If Azeris are Turkic poeples, no problem in the language this peoples in template.
 * But if Azeris are Iranian peoples or Caucasian, must added Azerbaijani language to mother article. and written only Azeris in between Iranic poeples speak to language from Turkic languages.--SaməkTalk 11:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As previously shown with multiple citations: 1) They existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people and are not descended of them. 2) They originally spoke an Iranian language. 3) The founder of Azerbaijan was a Persian named Atropates. You read all of this and the citations, correct?
 * talking about my opinion?-SaməkTalk 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I was mostly just speaking to Zyma in my last post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Azeris are Iranian people but their language is not Iranian --Hosseiniran (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC) HosseinIran The Old Azeri language was Iranian,while the modern Azeri language is Turkic language. Although genetic testing demonstrates primarily the Turkification of the region rather than that the Azerbaijani are descendants of migrants from Central Asia, it does however show that the region is a genetically mixed one. In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be PRIMARILY the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification. So Azeris aren't only Iranian and they aren't only Turkic.They are mixed.Anyways,it is IMPORTANT that the fact they are Turkified doesn't mean that they are Turkic people.Generally they have more historic ,economic,religious and social relation with Iranian people (or better said with Iran ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hop in that late, but I just noticed the infobox and lede; Azeris and Sattar Khan, really?... Azerbaijanis were all Iranian (as in part of the West Asian nation of Iran/citizens) until 1813 and 1828 when Iran ceded the Caucasus to Russia per the Treaty of Gulistan and Treaty of Turkmenchay. They got divided by Russia in the course of the 19th century, which makes this stuff a bit harder (two nations, etc) That historical point being said, out of everyone in their neighbourhood, they're by far the closest related in all ways to modern-day Iranians (people of Iran), virtually solely the Persians (incl. Mazandaranis/Gilaks, and Tats) and Talysh. They virtually have no close ties to Caucasians except Kumyks, for obvious reasons, and Turkics in general only for language. HOWEVER, I do not approve of them being added here, as you might as well just add even more famous Azeris than Sattar Khan, e.g. Rasulzade, Aliyev, Muslim Magomayev, etc etc. which is plain wrong.


 * Azeris from both Azerbaijan and Iran are very closely historically/culturally/ethnically/religiously related to the people and nation of Iran, but that's where it ends with their relationship regarding certain "Iranic peoples", who make up a portion of Iran's population. Azerbaijan used be part of Iran until recently, unlike any other they share the exact same sect of Islam (Azerbaijan and Iran are the only official Shia nations in the world with conversion in both nations stemming from the exact same time in history, and they have the highest and second highest percentage of Shia's by population) and most Azerbaijanis still by far live in Iran, far outnumbering those in neighbouring Azerbaijan. By that alone it makes them closest to the people of Iran. Culturally, Azeris and Iranians (people of Iran) are very much the same too, given that Azeris are by far the second ethnicity in Iran and comprise the largest community of Azeris in the world. Cuisine, you name it. However, they only share with Iran these things, and furthermore it's really as far as how their relationship with some of the Iranic peoples goes, and then only some of the bordering West Asian nation of Iran. They simply do not belong here on the list/infobox, though it can be added that they were linguistically assimilated, or are culturally/historically the closest to Iran, etc. They still remain a group of mixed Iranic/Turkic/Caucasian heritage.
 * My 0.02$ about this.
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well said. But as said, their origin is in Iranian peoples whom originally spoke an Iranian language and whose home and namesake was founded by an Iranian. As Turkification does not change origin. Much like how near all of the other Iranian peoples (Pamiris, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Ossetians, etc.) are as well separated from Iran. On a side note, unnecessary as it is, only a fraction of Azerbaijan was lost. West Azerbaijan and East Azerbaijan still remain a part of Iran. But again, near all Iranian peoples are separated from Iran to some extent.
 * Iran (the nation, it's history) and it's peoples (citizens) don't have much to do with Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamirs, Baluch, Sarikoli's, etc.... Same goes for some of those historical Iranics, e.g. Sarmatians, Alans, etc. They for the most were intertwined with other regions of the world or were extremely isolated. Azerbaijan (Republic) is a different story as it's whole existence, culture, identity, etc relies on its history through the modern-day nation of Iran, from whom it got forcefully separated.
 * Anyway, this is off-topic. People should remove Azeris from the list. Perhaps one day if the Republic of Azerbaijan rejoins Iran, we can re-discuss this with a relatively more use.
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2015

Azeris 2
You are against your own case. If you remove Azeris for that reason, you must remove Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, etc.. (Please feel free to cross check this with Lowercase sigmabot III's removal of this to see that it has not been tampered with) Pahlavan Qahremani (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Azeris are not Persians, they are Turks, just because some body has a wild hypothesis that the ancestors of modern day Azeris were Persian speaking and they became Turks only after the Oghuz Turks doesn't make it a fact, it is just a POV, its not a NPOV. Azeris are part of the Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, it is a FACT, not a POV or a hypothesis. Barthateslisa (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, modern-day Azeris are Turkic no doubt. I always advocated from the start that they should not be added on this list, because they are linguistically Turkic and thus not ethno-linguistically Iranian. However, Azeris definitely have a strongly ethno-linguistically Iranian related past. And that's not "PoV" as you simply label it in 1-2 sentences. But that's not related to this issue and for why we're here, as what once may have been, is simply not anymore. To the main point, I absolutely don't get why Pahlavan Qahramani is still clear-cut WP:WARRING and PoV -pushing over this, and ignoring a pretty clear response from other users. I think various users were pretty clear in their response that Azeris should not be added to this list looking at the current situation of what Azeris are, and the (perhaps secondary) fact that Iran does not rule over Northern Azerbaijan anymore. Next time, I suggest just instantly reporting it as its very disruptive to the articles' content, as well as a pain to other users time. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Was this Talk even reviewed? The founder is Iranian. They originally spoke an Iranian language. They existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people. Barely any of the listed peoples are within the country of Iran, so your point is rendered irrelevant. There is nothing but their current language that is Turkic. They are about as Turkic as a Turk is Semitic or Iranic for the amount of their language that is either Semitic or Indo-Iranian. A large amount of words and phrases. But I digress. They have absolutely no qualities of being Turkic except for their current language. You may as well add Mughals to historic Iranian peoples and Hazaras to modern Iranian peoples, as they are significantly more Iranian than Azeris are Turkic. Although, I disagree with both, as would numerous citations. Though that would be a near exact reverse of your insisted claim. Equally as reasonable, in that it appears so, though it isn't. A Turkic people is not Iranic just for current language and assimilation, so an Azeri is not Turkic for the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * your position is not supported by reliable sources who overwhelmingly describe modern Azeris as a Turkic people. I list below reliable sources which describe them as such. The problem with your argument is it is based on original research not sources that state whatmodern Azeris ethnic identity actually is, and, on Wikipedia, WP:OR prohibits you from doing that. You are trying to conclude that they are Iranic because they are descended from Iranian speakers. But that is your own personal definition of what an ethnicity is. In fact, in the modern world that is considered a bogus definition as ethnicity has a wide variety of components, not just ancestry which in any case is unknowable. The other problem with your position is that it fails WP:NPOV as it is only supported by the Iranian government and Iranian oriented writers. As one reliable source puts it: "Authors writing from an Iranian perspective tend to classify Azeris as Persian and stress the similarities between the nation of Azerbaijan and the minority ethnic group in Iran." (Croissart, Azerbaijan, Oil and Geopolitics, 1998, p.15) and source no.8 below says: "The prevailing view is that Azeris are a Turkic people, but there is also a claim that Azeris are Turkicized Caucasians or, as the Iranian official history claims, Turkicized Aryans." Here are the sources below that describe modern Azeris as a Turkic people:



DeCausa (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Each and every citation I have given is from the Azerbaijani people page. And they are all appropriate for their origin.
 * They were founded by Atropates, originally spoke Old Azeri language, and existed in the region of Azerbaijan prior to the Turkic people, and therefore could not even possibly be descended of them.
 * Your post only expressed a modern identity and nothing about origin. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, you say they are officially 'Turkicized Aryans'. Turkicized is not an ethnic identity, it is a cultural linguistic history. Otherwise the Mughals identity of Persianate would make them Persian. Aryan is the term for Identity. Otherwise they would be called Aryan Turks, not Turkicized Aryans. Though, no matter how you word it, or what point of history you use, Aryan or Iranic still remains as their Identity, unlike Turkic, which must be used as Turkicized.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Atropates? A book about Alexander the Great? You are surely not serious. The fact is all of the sources you cite are completely irrelevant - except one. None of them state what ethnicity modern Azeris have. Not one says that modern Azeris are Iranian. You've just done exactly what I told you you are not allowed to do under WP:OR. The only one of the sources which is relevant is the one numbered 9 by James Minahan. But the page you reference, page 20, doesn't say that Azeris are Iranian. But four pages earlier on page 16 Minahan says "Azeris are a Turkic people". DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If none are applicant, they absolutely should not exist on the Azerbaijani people page, which, in Origins, insists they are Caucasus Albanian and IRANIAN people. Is that a joke? You said it yourself: Turkicized ARYANS.
 * Seriously... You read the fact. You state the fact. Then you ignore the fact.
 * You need to sign your posts and indent per WP:INDENT. The Azerbaijani people article does not say that modern Azeris are "Iranian". It says that most sources classify them as a Turkic people. Your level of English may not be sufficient for the English Wikipedia. Also, I did not say they were "Turkicized Aryans". It was a source saying that was the official Iranian government view. DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was raised in the U.S., and have shown no signs of difficulty to understand English. That is a highly prejudiced thing to say.

Also, it says, and I will quote:
 * "In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification."
 * I would appreciate a lack of borderline racism in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your written English is full of errors and is sometimes difficult for a native speaker to follow. It's therefore not surprising that I might think you have difficulty in English comprehension - particularly as you keep repeating statements which are against Wikipedia policy despite having policy explained to you. The quotation from the Azerbaijani article is a case in point. Nowhere does it say that Azeris are an Iranian people, yet you seem to think it does. It says the sources refer to them as a Turkic people. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. I have no idea what you are referring to. And I have QUOTED what it says. You can't just read it? Perhaps you aren't yourself a native speaker and that is how you are seeing errors. But, the quote is from the page and clearly states them as descended from Iranian peoples. Your prejudice transgressions are infuriating. You cannot accuse a native speaker of not being a native speaker knowing nothing about me save my own name. Read the quote. It is repeated because you are pretending that it doesn't exist.
 * "In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification."

It is the very first paragraph in the origins section. Don't make me have to point at it for you. Just read it. Anyone else with eyes could clearly see what it says. There must be something wrong with you that you keep missing it. Either argue with what the page said or stop talking. But refusing to believe the page is saying something that it IS saying just makes you look like a moron in denial and wastes all of our time. You aren't arguing with any validity by denying what is there and mocking my speech, so you aren't helping people who want it removed. Just wasting space on the talk with petty commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a native English speaker? No native speaker would write "Your prejudice transgressions are infuriating", even with the grammar corrected. Being "the descendants of" people X is not the same think as being people X. The wording you quote does not say "Azeris are an Iranian people". I have produced 17 sources that contain the words "Azeris are a Turkic people" or variants thereof. You have produced zero sources that contain the words "Azeris are an Iranian people" or variants thereof. You have, however, accidently cited one source that says specifically "Azeris are a Turkic people" (Minahan) because you don't understand what you're reading. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So, by your logic, descendants of Iranians (as we have clarified), who originally spoke an Iranian language (Old Azeri language), and began in Iran (Atropatene) by an Iranian (Atropates) are a Turkic people for language alone? Then please add Mughals to Historical Iranian peoples. As it is THE SAME, BUT IN REVERSE! Also, have you ever been to the U.S., or ANYWHERE??? No one is perfect at speaking even their own language. I am frustrated at your stupidity.
 * I'm not applying any "logic". I'm reflecting what it says in the 17 reliable sources I cited. In Wikipedia, you are specifically prohibited from writing something that contradicts 17 reliable sources because "your logic" tells you something else. Have you read WP:OR yet? DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So you really are intending to say that descendants of Iranians (as we have clarified), who originally spoke an Iranian language (Old Azeri language), and began in Iran (Atropatene) by an Iranian (Atropates) are a Turkic people for language alone? Once more then, for that, Mughals would be an appropriate addition to Historical Iranian peoples. As evident of equivalency, being identical in nature, but from the other side of the coin. As a note, no, I can not even find the number 17 in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? I'm referring to the 17 sources I posted in this thread. The Mughals are a dynasty not a people. If they were a people and you could find 17 reliable sources to say that the Mughals are Iranian (which you wouldn't be able to), then you could go ahead. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hazaras are as well 'in the same boat'. They qualify as Iranian in the same way Azeris are Turkic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why Hazaras are already included in this article. I'm glad you're starting to get it. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not within "The Iranian peoples comprise the present day"... If they are added there and if you can with full honesty say to me that even though they are descendants of Iranians (as we clarified), they originally spoke an Iranian language (Old Azeri language), they began in Iran (Atropatene), by an Iranian (Atropates), they are still a Turkic people because they speak a Turkic language. And if anyone who is of one origin speaks a family language of another, like say... the natives of South Africa speaking Afrikaans, then that makes them OF those people, and South African natives are Dutch. Convince me of this and add Hazaras to the main section of the Article with Persians, Ossetians, etc. and I may concede. Because this is what you are unintentionally trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, this is very very simple. I'll try to put it as simply as possible. We do not try to logically work out what the text should say by putting fact A and fact B together. We are not allowed to do that - it's written into Wikipedia's rules that we are not allowed to do that. We just reflect what the reliable sources specifically say. That's all. You are not allowed to say that if we have people x in this article by that logic people y should go into that othe article. We are just not allowed to do it. We can only put people x into the abc article if there are reliable sources that say people x is one of the abc peoples. Not because they are descended from abc or because they speak abc or they eat abc food or for any reason we ourselves work out that they should be considered an abc. The only reason they can be called an abc people is if reliable sources explicitly say "they are an abc people". . I really don't know how to make this any clearer, and I'm done trying. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I can tell that you see the flaw in your logic, but still see that it must win over. However my 7th, 10th and 13th citations are clear for my point. They were also deemed reliable sources for the Azerbaijani people page. Your citations state them as they are classified, regardless of origin or ethnic identity. I agree that they are often classified this way, as does the Azerbaijani people page. And like the Azerbaijani people page, I as well find that facts and history conflict with this classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs)

Majority of Western and Russian sources does not inlclude Azerbaijanis in the Iranian peoples list, because Iranian peoples are ethno-linguistic group just like Slavic peoples or Germanic peoples. For example, Bulgarians are classified as a Slavic people, despite the fact that in their ethnogenesis participated different ethnic groups including not slavic. Another your argument that Azeris live in Iran and are part of Iranian society is not relevant too. From this point of view, Kurds must be desıgnated as Semitic or Turkic people. P.S. As I see majority, including Iranian editors agree. I don`t get it, why we keep this information, because of one user disagreement. WikiEditor57 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because this is not a matter of popular opinion, but facts. They are descendants of Iranians (as we clarified), they originally spoke an Iranian language (Old Azeri language), they began in Iran (Atropatene), by an Iranian (Atropates). They have absolutely every quality of being Iranian except for their current, Turkified language. It is not so basic as 'they exist in Iran'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ...except for the fact that all reliable sources say they are a Turkic people and none say they are an Iranian people. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My 7th, 10th and 13th citations are clear for my point. They were also deemed reliable sources for the Azerbaijani people page. Your citations state them as they are classified, regardless of origin or ethnic identity. I agree that they are often classified this way, as does the Azerbaijani people page. And like the Azerbaijani people page, I as well find that facts and history conflict with this classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those three sources talk refer to a people prior to the 13th century. You are not permitted by Wikipedia rules to use them as a source to categorize modern Azeris. That is a breach of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since Turkification, aside from currently spoken language. As for the issue of popular opinion, many editors feel Eastern Iranian peoples (Afghans, Tajiks, etc.) should be removed. They still remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nothing has changed since Turkification". You are not allowed under our rules to use a source about the 13th century and then say that it applies to the 21st century because "nothing has changed". That is breach of WP:OR if you have no source that says "nothing has changed". If you do have a source that says that, it is then a breach of WP:SYNTH and you are still not allowed to do it. The only source you can use like that, under Wikipedia rules, is one that says "they were an Iranian people and despite Turkification they are still an Iranian" in the same source. Do you understand? Have you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any citations that state anything besides language has changed since Turkification? I said only what I read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahlavan Qahremani (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not correct to call Azeris an Iranian people. It's best to avoid making these assertions since Azeris are more a people who bonded with a variety of peoples. Vormeph (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)