This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
I've drawn a new map. If the map is wrong, write to be resolved.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The map is much better than the nationalist map. But:
See also Sedaa o Simaa [5]. So the red mark should stop right before Qazvin city and Takestan. Note this boundary hasn't changed much since 100+ years ago. Edward Brown-A YEAR AMONGST THE PERSIANS - IMPRESSIONS AS TO THE LIFE, CHARACTER, & THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA - Received during Twelve Months' Residence in that Country in the Year 1887-1888. "It is not till Kazvin is reached, and only four or five stages separate the traveler from Tehran, that the Persian distinctly predominates over the Turkish excerpt 2: The bazaars were much like those which we had already seen at Khuy, Tabriz, and Zanjan; but as regards the people, the advantage was decidedly in favor of Kazvinis who are more pleasing in countenance, more gentle in manners and rather darker in complex than the Azerbaijanis. Persian is spoken by them "..So Persian has been the predominant language of Qazvin and East of it..since Qajar times and right now too..
I was combined of Azeris in Iran in 2005 per Hafeznia et al.jpg Hafeznia maps [6] with the previous map. Areas marked in red, has been used of the previously map (Without any change in the East). With this explanation, I will draw a new map.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This is new version of the map. Is it good?-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It is almost there. One more change should be made. Based on this : [7] and Utexas maps, Malayer, Toviskaran and Asabad and Nahavand, Azeri is either minority or not existent (for example Nahavand is 99% Lur without any exaggeration). Malayer has Azeri speaking villages, but amongst a population of 300,000 in the county, it is less than 10% , so it should not be in the map (per Utexas and Columbia). In Hamadan county (not province), Azeri is minority but that is okay to have mixed, since although the city is overwhelmingly Persian speaking, the villagers speak Azeri. The rest looks okay. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note for example, urmiya province has at least 10% Kurd but it is majority Azeri..so it is not shown as a mixed area..same should hold for Malayer, Toviskaran, Asabad and Nahavand..I would put the threshold for a mixed area at 30%..Those areas of Hamadan where Azeri is less than 30% for sure (Asadabad, Toviskaran, Malayer, and Nahavand) should not be there..But actually Bahar, Razan and Kabudar-ahang should be in red (as Azeri is majority)..and then Hamadan country should be mixed (Majority is Persian city but most villages speak Azeri). On Tehran, although Azeris are minority, the population is set to be as high as one third..well at least 3+ million plus probably. But the majority of them speak Tehrani Persian..Either way mixed area for Tehran is fine in my opinion. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to discuss city to city is a complex task. For example, what is the duty of Qom province? I'm was drawn the map on a limited number of sources. Map of West Azerbaijan was ready and I was ready to work on a map.Can you apply the changes yourself? So let's talk about it later. Thanks-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently 58.9% of people in the Hamadan province are Azerbaijani Turk. Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all of the province. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000. So it is WP:OR and WP:synthesis to make a predication of minority/majority based on that. For example, it could have taken more samples from say Bahar, Razan than Nahavand. We do not simply do know which cities and villages were chosen. For example the Lur area was missed, because Lurs of Toviskaran, Malayar, Nahavand..make up at least 15-20% of Hamadan. That is one needs sources stating "majority" directly without any interpretation. Here is an actual claim on Hamadan (official): [8]. There is two official reports on Hamadan: [9] [10] and this one from Sedaa o Simaa: [11].
Anyhow, I know Hamadan well enough but this is an actual source on each county: [12]. University of Texas and Columbia maps are almost correct, but Turkish speaking area is bigger (while the population is mainly concentrated in on-Turkish area counties). Here are the suggested final changes [13]:
Other than these suggestions which match the University of Texas and Columbia maps (as well as the Ostandari site), I think the new map is okay (Tehran should also just be mixed as mentioned). But you should not have made the original map in the first place. Since I think we both wasted enough of time (specially me trying to explain why it is not WP:RS)..no map is 100% perfect but the original map based on nationalistic sources were not good. You should not defend it, but rather say: "I worked towards a consensus for a new map". If you defend the old map which was not RS, I cannot withdraw my AE request or not request permanent sanctions.. And personally I do not hold any grudge. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There are some days that we worked towards a consensus for a new map. Both maps have objections that must be overcome. Look at the statistics:
About 30.3 percent population of Tehran province, 36.1 percent population of Alborz province (Alborz Province was formed by division of Tehran Province into two provinces - 2010), 25.8 percent population of Qom province and 20.8 percent population of population of Markazi province are Azerbaijani Turks.
Based on these facts and statistics about the Hamadan province I will draw the map again.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 11:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it good?-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
What you are referring to is are not census and you are committing WP:OR again. The map should match University of Texas and Columbia (the red). What you keep referencing is not a census (1390). That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all aspect of each of the provinces. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000". 288/1200 and 1400/60000 does not cover all of it. Neither is 18000 people (since we do not know if there was uniform sampling). It does not say which Sharestans and cities were chosen. The yellow part should say "linguistic minority" not mixed area. Else all of Western Azerbaijan should be mixed. Qazvin city and Hamadan cities are not majority Azerbaijani. So you are committing WP:OR based on a 1390 sample that is not a census. That is making the 1390 study a census is WP:OR. It is not because it does not mention which Shahrestans, villages and counties were chosen. Where-as Hamadan has an actual census from provincial officials: [15] which takes into account every Shahrestan (county) -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So to make it brief (and final edits):
How you calculated this one? Iran: 11.2 to 25 million (conventional). Changed from 18 to 25. No new sources are added to that section or no changes to the current sources. Same sources from previous revision(s). Which of them represents this new change/update? Zheek ( talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The 18 or 25 million are high end figures from some what I would consider unreliable books (like Brenda Shaffer who ranges it from 1/5 to 1/3 (25 million) or some random book). Note this source who actually discusses the statistics: Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris.". So this is a specialized book written by a Western author on minorities in Iran. So the 23 million (or round up to 25 million) is mentioned by some "Western scholars", but this is a bogus figure. Anyway I left it because it is mentioned by some "Western authors". Perhaps another formula would be 11-18 million (conventional), 23-30 million (controversial). However, even in this 1390 census (which is not a full census but only takes into 1/5 of cities and 1/40th villages), the number of Azeris would be around 14-15 million... These high end figures given by nationalists are not authoritative. For now 11-25 million (even if the 25 million is nonsense) is supported by some "Western sources" even if in my opinion they are bogus (and they are). I am going to remove the Johregani quote as Chehregani is not WP:RS by any imagination. The problem is Iranian government says something in its embassy page, another in official statics, then carry favor with Turkey its foreign minister says another things.., but the recent CIA factbook estimate (coming from 25% to 16%) is accurate in my opinion. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
About the map..now that we do not have to worry about nationalist POV pushing shoving maps that show all of Qom, Tehran, Arak, Karabagh as 100% Azerbaijani-speaking, I suggest the following.
c) Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source. d) Provincial statistics from the Ostaandaari (Provincial Governor) [26] e) IRIB of Hamadan [27]. All this makes it clear that Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang are majority Azerbaijani speakings but the rest of the counties are not. It doesn't make sense to put the whole province as linguistically mixed when the population of Azeris in say Nahavand or Toviskaran hovers aound 1%. Or when Bahar is over 90%+ Azeri speaking. Some user mentioned a 1390 study of Iran where 18000 people, 288 city and 1400 villages were selected. But that study does not have any maps. Also Iran has about 1200+ cities [28] and 60000 villages [29]. Also one is unsure if that particular census was done uniformly (from one cities, and counties) were chosen. So there is no information on each separate county and that incomplete source is useless for making a map (for example Lurs in Nahavand, Toviskaran and Malayer can easily make 15-20% of the province but they are listed as 5% in that questioner which shows it was not done uniformly. Also the information contradicts Iranica and other sources I brought).
[36]. Well as I said, we do not have 100% accurate map but all the above maps are basically the same within a very reasonable degree.
Mehrdad Izady is a PhD at the department of Middle Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Columbia University . This map at Columbia University Gulf/2000 Project seems to be a RS . What's the opinion of other editors ? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Alborz and Zheek. Just four short statements
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are not enough Azerbaijanis of Iran in the image array template above. Azerbaijanis of Iran have more population than Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan republic and have had more contributions as you know.- Raayen ( talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that some people are changing the first description of Azerbaijani people, from 'Turkic-speaking people' to just 'Turkic people'. In the Wikipedia article itself it is state that Azerbaijani are culturally [41] and ethnically [42] mixed, therefore you can't say that they are Turkic people, regardless if other websites used the term 'Turkic people' or not. You don't call Flemish people Netherlanders either even though they speak Dutch. Linguistically Azerbaijani do speak a language that is Turkic, so saying that they are Turkic-speaking people (the original term used in this article) is correct. Verdia25 ( talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
First of, don't act so immature. In regards to your argument, it is true that many references use 'Turkic people', this is also stated in this wikipedia article itself under the paragraph 'origins', in which ALSO is explained that their origin isn't believed to be Turkic. However the language is, so they're Turkic-speaking people. Using the term 'Turkic people' instead could be confusing for some people as it may suggests that rather their origin is Turkic, which again isn't believed to be case. There was nothing wrong with the former term 'Turkic-speaking people, so why change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdia25 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Because you gave the same reaction (that reference again) and didn't go against my arguments, I undone the change and used the original description. Verdia25 ( talk) 12:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You can't just edit that bit of content again without giving a counterargument against my arguments that I used. Verdia25 ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I already gave my counterargument to the source you're referring to. Verdia25 ( talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
and User:verdis. please ending vandalism and Sabotage. 188.245.108.195 ( talk) 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Both 'Turkic people' and 'Turkic speaking people' are used in sources. Please go against my arguments and counterarguments that I used on the talk page to state why it should be 'Turkic people' instead of 'Turkic speaking people'. My actions are also no vandalism and 'sabotage'; the other party is the one who reverts edits while not going against my arguments. Verdia25 ( talk) 11:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the original description, Turkic speaking people, is better. I think the problem with the new one 'Turkic people' is that it could be confusing to some people as if the origin and culture of the Azerbaijani is Turkic, while it's actually mixed as stated in the article. It is the language of the Azerbaijani that is Turkic and belongs to the Turkic language family branch. The former description 'Turkic speaking people' gets therefore my choice. There may be websites and books that use 'Turkic people', but there are also websites and books that use 'Turkic speaking people'. Verdia25 ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
in the past, origin of the Azerbaijanis may be Anything. example egypt people, Turkish People→( Genetic history of the Turkish people) today Azerbaijanis Because → Turkification of the population can be dated from the region’s conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century and the continued influx of Turkic populations in subsequent centuries, including those groups that migrated during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century. (The greater portion of the tribes that formed the Mongol forces or were stimulated by the Mongol conquest to migrate were Turkic--so Linguists and Sociologists this people puting in the Turkic people. Top Sources very valid. i say today Azerbaijanis is a Turkic people and speak Azerbajani Language from Turkic Language.--you may puting Azerbaijanis people in the Iranian People Template? 91.99.114.83 ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is Turkic influence on the population, which affects the origin but that doesn’t changes the origin to fully Turkic. According to the origins paragraph of the article, Azerbaijani are believed to be primarily descendants of Caucasian Albanian and Iranian people. Due to migration of Turkish tribes to the area in the 11th century, the population can be considered to be also of Turkic origin now. So all three together makes the people of a mixed origin. Moreover, in the genetics section of the article Azerbaijani are "closely related to Caucasian people like Georgians and Armenians, than they are to Iranians or Turks". I don't know why you are coming up with the Iranian people template; I am talking about 'Turkic speaking people' as the most appropriate template for the Azerbaijani because they speak a Turkic language and are of mixed origin. Verdia25 ( talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Azerbaijanis is just a synonym for Azerbaijani Turks (make a search in Google Books). They can be and indeed are very safely described as a Turkic people. That they have mixed origins isn't particularly interesting, as all Turkic peoples have mixed origins. -- Mttll ( talk) 16:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
And people shouldn't forget genetic shift. The Azerbaijanis are descended from tribal Turkic peoples for the simply reason that they couldn't have just simply taught their language to just a big population without adequate schooling. Such views are the usual illogical and nonsensical wikipedian and pop-genetics nonsense. The reason Azerbaijanis show genetic traits in common with Georgians and Iranians is because of later mixing and mixing with the original inhabitants, not because they are not descended from Turkic tribes. This is called genetic drift. You cannot show the original genetics of a population if they keep mixing with other populations (which is natural... everyone is mixed) because new genetics covers old genetics. Every ethnic Azerbaijani will obviously be descended from the original Turkic tribes, to think they do not is nonsense and highly illogical. This article should mention genetic drift rather than stating that they were Turkified which is, and I will be blunt, a stupid, moronic view. 81.132.9.245 ( talk) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
in infobox Zoroastrianism is shown as a religion practiced in Azerbaijan, but the references given don't say anything about it, just show that there WERE Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan in the past and some minor beliefs and customs still exists in heavily-Muslim Azerbaijan. Can someone justify the existence of the religion among Azerbaijani people or just delete the (dubious) claim? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Iranian Tats have never existed in Azerbaijan area, but in Iranian Azerbaijan. No sources and references can be found on this topic, and our personal opinions can not be measure for such claims. It can be seen in the article about them. In Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Dagestan only Tat people (Caucasus) exist. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear users who categorize Azerbaijani people as Iranian Peoples and Persian people, Could you, please, show the sources confirming this claim? Of course, everyone aware of their partly-Iranian ancestry, their cultural ties with Iranian peoples living around and with them. But given the definition of the categories " Iranian Peoples" and " Persian people", how one can categorize them as so? Doesn't it look like categorizing French people as Germannic or Spanish people as Iranian (as you know Iranic Alans took part in their ethnogenesis)? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Some users here don't know what related people section mean and are engaged in an edit war b'cos of it. Please, read more and do not delete things on your personal opinion and wishes. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
So we had an editor being complained of and blocked today for edit warring. Please, before making edits think how objective are your edits and do not add based on your emotions and point of view. Anyone who does so has to be warned and complain to Administration board. Bests,
Ali-al-Bakuvi (
talk) 18:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Talysh people, Tat people (Iran) and Tat people (Caucasus) should be added in the section Azerbaijani people#Iranian origin along with Iranian peoples and Persian peoples as exclusives to complement. That is with clear evidences and sources in the article.- Raayen ( talk) 13:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Talysh people, and Tat people not Azerbaijanis. Write about them in the article about the Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Talyshs and Tats live in Azerbaijan, but they are not Azerbaijanis. No they do not assimilate. Live in Azerbaijan and Russian, Jews and the Avars, but they are not Azerbaijanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In Azerbaijan there are many nationalities, each with its own language. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people. It is a scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 March 2014
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, In the pictures Mosaic, Nader Shah was not turk. He was from Khorassan. Please delete the picture of Nader Shah. Thanks. Diako1971 ( talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)The article says: "The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, as many troops under the Ilkhans were Turkic." However those so called Mongols and their submissive Turks of Turkmenistan and other places of central asia who seemingly migrated to present day Iran were "likely" mixed Iranian Xiongnu and Tocharians and "surely" Iranian Scythians, Alans, Sakas, Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians and other Iranians deep into the borders of Mongolia, later called Tajiks, language shifted (claimed to be Oghuz by some sources!); mixed with the slanted eyed actual mongols and their subdued obliqued eyed factual Turks. By common sense you can find that those Iranians didn't vanish just that! Blended features of many or some of Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Afghan people also confirm that. "attested by linguistic similarity"! is not enough to define a nation. Present day maybe yours, but please don't play with the history. Please anybody who find sources for that, add it.- Raayen ( talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Could the users interested in Turkish and Azerbaijani people show some interest in Terekeme people also? Thanks. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, remove all references to armenian sources on the genetics of Azerbaijanis. Armenians are at war with Azerbaijanis, invaded 20% of Azerbaijanis and as such can't be impartial or objective in their research. Therefore, pls, remove these two sources and all references to these armenians sources (Yepiskoposian and Andonian - Armenian authors)in the genetics study of Azerbaijanis.
Yepiskoposian, L. et al. (2011). "The Location of Azaris on the Patrilineal Genetic Landscape of the Middle East (A Preliminary Report)". Iran and the Caucasus 15 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1163/157338411X12870596615395. Andonian l. et al. (2011). "Iranian Azeri's Y-Chromosomal Diversity in the Context of Turkish-Speaking Populations of the Middle East" (PDF). Iranian J Publ Health 40 (1): 119–123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 ( talk) 07:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be put even more emphasize on the fact that the CIA's estimation for the amount of Azeris in Iran are an utter underestimation. The amount ranges from 16/18% till 40%. [4] [5]
Perhaps adding even more sources that support the 20-30% amount of Azeris in Iran would help. Also Irans population has grown since the time the census has been made, so sincerely asking to update the amounts (27 million needs to get higher etc as the population has also increased)
94.210.203.230 ( talk) 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
References
state
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Atropates was not a Persian man. Medes and Persians quite different. Please remove the Atropat in the article on the Azerbaijanis.
Remove from close ethnic Iranian peoples and the peoples of the Caucasus. Azerbaijani language has nothing to do with Iranian and Caucasian languages. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1. I was also against to show Atropates as a Persian, but the other side submitted a reference where it was proved. If you have another source saying the opposite, please provide it and we will be glad to enrich the article with different scientific point-of-views.
2. No one says that Azerbaijani language has to do smth with Iranian or Caucasian languages; related people means these people are related to each other by historical, cultural, geographical, ethnogenesis and in some cases, religious ties.
Bests,
Ali-al-Bakuvi (
talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1) I do not know much English. Many sources. The sources do not say that he was Persian. Medes Atropatena was not Atropatena Persia.
2) Why in the article about the Iranian people or the Persians did not write what the Turks they are related geographically and culturally religious?...
Atropates satrap of the Medes Medes not Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Write nonsense. Where is it said that Atropates was ethnic Persian? I gave a source where it says that Atropates not Persian.
Azerbaijanis Turkic origin. This scientific biological fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
i believe in one nation of Iran as we all should be , Azerbaijan is now a independent country because Russians take it from our mother land kurds are now decided because ottoman empire take iranian lands and after the WW1 western power never gave our land back , pakistani baluchestan is not part of Iran its because british empire take it .Afghanestan was part of iran but because of british involvement they gain independent but they are part of us even Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ,the place today called uzbekistan was made after Stallin move persian language natives from there to further into ussr territory cause he didn't want them to be near persian speaking nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabiz ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
I've drawn a new map. If the map is wrong, write to be resolved.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The map is much better than the nationalist map. But:
See also Sedaa o Simaa [5]. So the red mark should stop right before Qazvin city and Takestan. Note this boundary hasn't changed much since 100+ years ago. Edward Brown-A YEAR AMONGST THE PERSIANS - IMPRESSIONS AS TO THE LIFE, CHARACTER, & THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA - Received during Twelve Months' Residence in that Country in the Year 1887-1888. "It is not till Kazvin is reached, and only four or five stages separate the traveler from Tehran, that the Persian distinctly predominates over the Turkish excerpt 2: The bazaars were much like those which we had already seen at Khuy, Tabriz, and Zanjan; but as regards the people, the advantage was decidedly in favor of Kazvinis who are more pleasing in countenance, more gentle in manners and rather darker in complex than the Azerbaijanis. Persian is spoken by them "..So Persian has been the predominant language of Qazvin and East of it..since Qajar times and right now too..
I was combined of Azeris in Iran in 2005 per Hafeznia et al.jpg Hafeznia maps [6] with the previous map. Areas marked in red, has been used of the previously map (Without any change in the East). With this explanation, I will draw a new map.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This is new version of the map. Is it good?-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It is almost there. One more change should be made. Based on this : [7] and Utexas maps, Malayer, Toviskaran and Asabad and Nahavand, Azeri is either minority or not existent (for example Nahavand is 99% Lur without any exaggeration). Malayer has Azeri speaking villages, but amongst a population of 300,000 in the county, it is less than 10% , so it should not be in the map (per Utexas and Columbia). In Hamadan county (not province), Azeri is minority but that is okay to have mixed, since although the city is overwhelmingly Persian speaking, the villagers speak Azeri. The rest looks okay. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note for example, urmiya province has at least 10% Kurd but it is majority Azeri..so it is not shown as a mixed area..same should hold for Malayer, Toviskaran, Asabad and Nahavand..I would put the threshold for a mixed area at 30%..Those areas of Hamadan where Azeri is less than 30% for sure (Asadabad, Toviskaran, Malayer, and Nahavand) should not be there..But actually Bahar, Razan and Kabudar-ahang should be in red (as Azeri is majority)..and then Hamadan country should be mixed (Majority is Persian city but most villages speak Azeri). On Tehran, although Azeris are minority, the population is set to be as high as one third..well at least 3+ million plus probably. But the majority of them speak Tehrani Persian..Either way mixed area for Tehran is fine in my opinion. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to discuss city to city is a complex task. For example, what is the duty of Qom province? I'm was drawn the map on a limited number of sources. Map of West Azerbaijan was ready and I was ready to work on a map.Can you apply the changes yourself? So let's talk about it later. Thanks-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently 58.9% of people in the Hamadan province are Azerbaijani Turk. Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all of the province. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000. So it is WP:OR and WP:synthesis to make a predication of minority/majority based on that. For example, it could have taken more samples from say Bahar, Razan than Nahavand. We do not simply do know which cities and villages were chosen. For example the Lur area was missed, because Lurs of Toviskaran, Malayar, Nahavand..make up at least 15-20% of Hamadan. That is one needs sources stating "majority" directly without any interpretation. Here is an actual claim on Hamadan (official): [8]. There is two official reports on Hamadan: [9] [10] and this one from Sedaa o Simaa: [11].
Anyhow, I know Hamadan well enough but this is an actual source on each county: [12]. University of Texas and Columbia maps are almost correct, but Turkish speaking area is bigger (while the population is mainly concentrated in on-Turkish area counties). Here are the suggested final changes [13]:
Other than these suggestions which match the University of Texas and Columbia maps (as well as the Ostandari site), I think the new map is okay (Tehran should also just be mixed as mentioned). But you should not have made the original map in the first place. Since I think we both wasted enough of time (specially me trying to explain why it is not WP:RS)..no map is 100% perfect but the original map based on nationalistic sources were not good. You should not defend it, but rather say: "I worked towards a consensus for a new map". If you defend the old map which was not RS, I cannot withdraw my AE request or not request permanent sanctions.. And personally I do not hold any grudge. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There are some days that we worked towards a consensus for a new map. Both maps have objections that must be overcome. Look at the statistics:
About 30.3 percent population of Tehran province, 36.1 percent population of Alborz province (Alborz Province was formed by division of Tehran Province into two provinces - 2010), 25.8 percent population of Qom province and 20.8 percent population of population of Markazi province are Azerbaijani Turks.
Based on these facts and statistics about the Hamadan province I will draw the map again.-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 11:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it good?-- Ebrahimi-amir ( talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
What you are referring to is are not census and you are committing WP:OR again. The map should match University of Texas and Columbia (the red). What you keep referencing is not a census (1390). That is not a uniform sampling and it does not cover all aspect of each of the provinces. That is that study in 1390 is very limited number of people and it does not specify which Shahrestan, cities and villages it has covered. If you note it says 18000 people from 288 cities and 1400 villages across all of Iran. Where-as the number of cities in Iran is about 1200+ of that and number of villages about 60000". 288/1200 and 1400/60000 does not cover all of it. Neither is 18000 people (since we do not know if there was uniform sampling). It does not say which Sharestans and cities were chosen. The yellow part should say "linguistic minority" not mixed area. Else all of Western Azerbaijan should be mixed. Qazvin city and Hamadan cities are not majority Azerbaijani. So you are committing WP:OR based on a 1390 sample that is not a census. That is making the 1390 study a census is WP:OR. It is not because it does not mention which Shahrestans, villages and counties were chosen. Where-as Hamadan has an actual census from provincial officials: [15] which takes into account every Shahrestan (county) -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So to make it brief (and final edits):
How you calculated this one? Iran: 11.2 to 25 million (conventional). Changed from 18 to 25. No new sources are added to that section or no changes to the current sources. Same sources from previous revision(s). Which of them represents this new change/update? Zheek ( talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The 18 or 25 million are high end figures from some what I would consider unreliable books (like Brenda Shaffer who ranges it from 1/5 to 1/3 (25 million) or some random book). Note this source who actually discusses the statistics: Rasmus Christian Elling, "Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini", Palgrave Macmillan, Feb 19, 2013 -. "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16percent to 24 precent -- that is, 12-18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris.". So this is a specialized book written by a Western author on minorities in Iran. So the 23 million (or round up to 25 million) is mentioned by some "Western scholars", but this is a bogus figure. Anyway I left it because it is mentioned by some "Western authors". Perhaps another formula would be 11-18 million (conventional), 23-30 million (controversial). However, even in this 1390 census (which is not a full census but only takes into 1/5 of cities and 1/40th villages), the number of Azeris would be around 14-15 million... These high end figures given by nationalists are not authoritative. For now 11-25 million (even if the 25 million is nonsense) is supported by some "Western sources" even if in my opinion they are bogus (and they are). I am going to remove the Johregani quote as Chehregani is not WP:RS by any imagination. The problem is Iranian government says something in its embassy page, another in official statics, then carry favor with Turkey its foreign minister says another things.., but the recent CIA factbook estimate (coming from 25% to 16%) is accurate in my opinion. -- Xodabande14 ( talk) 21:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
About the map..now that we do not have to worry about nationalist POV pushing shoving maps that show all of Qom, Tehran, Arak, Karabagh as 100% Azerbaijani-speaking, I suggest the following.
c) Plus the Utexas+Columbia maps..and even your Hafeznia source. d) Provincial statistics from the Ostaandaari (Provincial Governor) [26] e) IRIB of Hamadan [27]. All this makes it clear that Razan, Bahar, Kabudarahang are majority Azerbaijani speakings but the rest of the counties are not. It doesn't make sense to put the whole province as linguistically mixed when the population of Azeris in say Nahavand or Toviskaran hovers aound 1%. Or when Bahar is over 90%+ Azeri speaking. Some user mentioned a 1390 study of Iran where 18000 people, 288 city and 1400 villages were selected. But that study does not have any maps. Also Iran has about 1200+ cities [28] and 60000 villages [29]. Also one is unsure if that particular census was done uniformly (from one cities, and counties) were chosen. So there is no information on each separate county and that incomplete source is useless for making a map (for example Lurs in Nahavand, Toviskaran and Malayer can easily make 15-20% of the province but they are listed as 5% in that questioner which shows it was not done uniformly. Also the information contradicts Iranica and other sources I brought).
[36]. Well as I said, we do not have 100% accurate map but all the above maps are basically the same within a very reasonable degree.
Mehrdad Izady is a PhD at the department of Middle Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Columbia University . This map at Columbia University Gulf/2000 Project seems to be a RS . What's the opinion of other editors ? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Alborz and Zheek. Just four short statements
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are not enough Azerbaijanis of Iran in the image array template above. Azerbaijanis of Iran have more population than Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan republic and have had more contributions as you know.- Raayen ( talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that some people are changing the first description of Azerbaijani people, from 'Turkic-speaking people' to just 'Turkic people'. In the Wikipedia article itself it is state that Azerbaijani are culturally [41] and ethnically [42] mixed, therefore you can't say that they are Turkic people, regardless if other websites used the term 'Turkic people' or not. You don't call Flemish people Netherlanders either even though they speak Dutch. Linguistically Azerbaijani do speak a language that is Turkic, so saying that they are Turkic-speaking people (the original term used in this article) is correct. Verdia25 ( talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
First of, don't act so immature. In regards to your argument, it is true that many references use 'Turkic people', this is also stated in this wikipedia article itself under the paragraph 'origins', in which ALSO is explained that their origin isn't believed to be Turkic. However the language is, so they're Turkic-speaking people. Using the term 'Turkic people' instead could be confusing for some people as it may suggests that rather their origin is Turkic, which again isn't believed to be case. There was nothing wrong with the former term 'Turkic-speaking people, so why change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdia25 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Because you gave the same reaction (that reference again) and didn't go against my arguments, I undone the change and used the original description. Verdia25 ( talk) 12:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You can't just edit that bit of content again without giving a counterargument against my arguments that I used. Verdia25 ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I already gave my counterargument to the source you're referring to. Verdia25 ( talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
and User:verdis. please ending vandalism and Sabotage. 188.245.108.195 ( talk) 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Both 'Turkic people' and 'Turkic speaking people' are used in sources. Please go against my arguments and counterarguments that I used on the talk page to state why it should be 'Turkic people' instead of 'Turkic speaking people'. My actions are also no vandalism and 'sabotage'; the other party is the one who reverts edits while not going against my arguments. Verdia25 ( talk) 11:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the original description, Turkic speaking people, is better. I think the problem with the new one 'Turkic people' is that it could be confusing to some people as if the origin and culture of the Azerbaijani is Turkic, while it's actually mixed as stated in the article. It is the language of the Azerbaijani that is Turkic and belongs to the Turkic language family branch. The former description 'Turkic speaking people' gets therefore my choice. There may be websites and books that use 'Turkic people', but there are also websites and books that use 'Turkic speaking people'. Verdia25 ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
in the past, origin of the Azerbaijanis may be Anything. example egypt people, Turkish People→( Genetic history of the Turkish people) today Azerbaijanis Because → Turkification of the population can be dated from the region’s conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century and the continued influx of Turkic populations in subsequent centuries, including those groups that migrated during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century. (The greater portion of the tribes that formed the Mongol forces or were stimulated by the Mongol conquest to migrate were Turkic--so Linguists and Sociologists this people puting in the Turkic people. Top Sources very valid. i say today Azerbaijanis is a Turkic people and speak Azerbajani Language from Turkic Language.--you may puting Azerbaijanis people in the Iranian People Template? 91.99.114.83 ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is Turkic influence on the population, which affects the origin but that doesn’t changes the origin to fully Turkic. According to the origins paragraph of the article, Azerbaijani are believed to be primarily descendants of Caucasian Albanian and Iranian people. Due to migration of Turkish tribes to the area in the 11th century, the population can be considered to be also of Turkic origin now. So all three together makes the people of a mixed origin. Moreover, in the genetics section of the article Azerbaijani are "closely related to Caucasian people like Georgians and Armenians, than they are to Iranians or Turks". I don't know why you are coming up with the Iranian people template; I am talking about 'Turkic speaking people' as the most appropriate template for the Azerbaijani because they speak a Turkic language and are of mixed origin. Verdia25 ( talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Azerbaijanis is just a synonym for Azerbaijani Turks (make a search in Google Books). They can be and indeed are very safely described as a Turkic people. That they have mixed origins isn't particularly interesting, as all Turkic peoples have mixed origins. -- Mttll ( talk) 16:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
And people shouldn't forget genetic shift. The Azerbaijanis are descended from tribal Turkic peoples for the simply reason that they couldn't have just simply taught their language to just a big population without adequate schooling. Such views are the usual illogical and nonsensical wikipedian and pop-genetics nonsense. The reason Azerbaijanis show genetic traits in common with Georgians and Iranians is because of later mixing and mixing with the original inhabitants, not because they are not descended from Turkic tribes. This is called genetic drift. You cannot show the original genetics of a population if they keep mixing with other populations (which is natural... everyone is mixed) because new genetics covers old genetics. Every ethnic Azerbaijani will obviously be descended from the original Turkic tribes, to think they do not is nonsense and highly illogical. This article should mention genetic drift rather than stating that they were Turkified which is, and I will be blunt, a stupid, moronic view. 81.132.9.245 ( talk) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
in infobox Zoroastrianism is shown as a religion practiced in Azerbaijan, but the references given don't say anything about it, just show that there WERE Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan in the past and some minor beliefs and customs still exists in heavily-Muslim Azerbaijan. Can someone justify the existence of the religion among Azerbaijani people or just delete the (dubious) claim? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Iranian Tats have never existed in Azerbaijan area, but in Iranian Azerbaijan. No sources and references can be found on this topic, and our personal opinions can not be measure for such claims. It can be seen in the article about them. In Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Dagestan only Tat people (Caucasus) exist. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear users who categorize Azerbaijani people as Iranian Peoples and Persian people, Could you, please, show the sources confirming this claim? Of course, everyone aware of their partly-Iranian ancestry, their cultural ties with Iranian peoples living around and with them. But given the definition of the categories " Iranian Peoples" and " Persian people", how one can categorize them as so? Doesn't it look like categorizing French people as Germannic or Spanish people as Iranian (as you know Iranic Alans took part in their ethnogenesis)? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Some users here don't know what related people section mean and are engaged in an edit war b'cos of it. Please, read more and do not delete things on your personal opinion and wishes. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi ( talk) 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
So we had an editor being complained of and blocked today for edit warring. Please, before making edits think how objective are your edits and do not add based on your emotions and point of view. Anyone who does so has to be warned and complain to Administration board. Bests,
Ali-al-Bakuvi (
talk) 18:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Talysh people, Tat people (Iran) and Tat people (Caucasus) should be added in the section Azerbaijani people#Iranian origin along with Iranian peoples and Persian peoples as exclusives to complement. That is with clear evidences and sources in the article.- Raayen ( talk) 13:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Talysh people, and Tat people not Azerbaijanis. Write about them in the article about the Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Talyshs and Tats live in Azerbaijan, but they are not Azerbaijanis. No they do not assimilate. Live in Azerbaijan and Russian, Jews and the Avars, but they are not Azerbaijanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In Azerbaijan there are many nationalities, each with its own language. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people. It is a scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 March 2014
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, In the pictures Mosaic, Nader Shah was not turk. He was from Khorassan. Please delete the picture of Nader Shah. Thanks. Diako1971 ( talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)The article says: "The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, as many troops under the Ilkhans were Turkic." However those so called Mongols and their submissive Turks of Turkmenistan and other places of central asia who seemingly migrated to present day Iran were "likely" mixed Iranian Xiongnu and Tocharians and "surely" Iranian Scythians, Alans, Sakas, Sogdians, Bactrians, Khwarezmians and other Iranians deep into the borders of Mongolia, later called Tajiks, language shifted (claimed to be Oghuz by some sources!); mixed with the slanted eyed actual mongols and their subdued obliqued eyed factual Turks. By common sense you can find that those Iranians didn't vanish just that! Blended features of many or some of Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Afghan people also confirm that. "attested by linguistic similarity"! is not enough to define a nation. Present day maybe yours, but please don't play with the history. Please anybody who find sources for that, add it.- Raayen ( talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Could the users interested in Turkish and Azerbaijani people show some interest in Terekeme people also? Thanks. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, remove all references to armenian sources on the genetics of Azerbaijanis. Armenians are at war with Azerbaijanis, invaded 20% of Azerbaijanis and as such can't be impartial or objective in their research. Therefore, pls, remove these two sources and all references to these armenians sources (Yepiskoposian and Andonian - Armenian authors)in the genetics study of Azerbaijanis.
Yepiskoposian, L. et al. (2011). "The Location of Azaris on the Patrilineal Genetic Landscape of the Middle East (A Preliminary Report)". Iran and the Caucasus 15 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1163/157338411X12870596615395. Andonian l. et al. (2011). "Iranian Azeri's Y-Chromosomal Diversity in the Context of Turkish-Speaking Populations of the Middle East" (PDF). Iranian J Publ Health 40 (1): 119–123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 ( talk) 07:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be put even more emphasize on the fact that the CIA's estimation for the amount of Azeris in Iran are an utter underestimation. The amount ranges from 16/18% till 40%. [4] [5]
Perhaps adding even more sources that support the 20-30% amount of Azeris in Iran would help. Also Irans population has grown since the time the census has been made, so sincerely asking to update the amounts (27 million needs to get higher etc as the population has also increased)
94.210.203.230 ( talk) 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
References
state
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Atropates was not a Persian man. Medes and Persians quite different. Please remove the Atropat in the article on the Azerbaijanis.
Remove from close ethnic Iranian peoples and the peoples of the Caucasus. Azerbaijani language has nothing to do with Iranian and Caucasian languages. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1. I was also against to show Atropates as a Persian, but the other side submitted a reference where it was proved. If you have another source saying the opposite, please provide it and we will be glad to enrich the article with different scientific point-of-views.
2. No one says that Azerbaijani language has to do smth with Iranian or Caucasian languages; related people means these people are related to each other by historical, cultural, geographical, ethnogenesis and in some cases, religious ties.
Bests,
Ali-al-Bakuvi (
talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1) I do not know much English. Many sources. The sources do not say that he was Persian. Medes Atropatena was not Atropatena Persia.
2) Why in the article about the Iranian people or the Persians did not write what the Turks they are related geographically and culturally religious?...
Atropates satrap of the Medes Medes not Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Write nonsense. Where is it said that Atropates was ethnic Persian? I gave a source where it says that Atropates not Persian.
Azerbaijanis Turkic origin. This scientific biological fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
i believe in one nation of Iran as we all should be , Azerbaijan is now a independent country because Russians take it from our mother land kurds are now decided because ottoman empire take iranian lands and after the WW1 western power never gave our land back , pakistani baluchestan is not part of Iran its because british empire take it .Afghanestan was part of iran but because of british involvement they gain independent but they are part of us even Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ,the place today called uzbekistan was made after Stallin move persian language natives from there to further into ussr territory cause he didn't want them to be near persian speaking nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabiz ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)