![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The origins claims are like being in a Neo-Nazi camp. Do Azeri have Caucus origins? Iranic origins? actually they have human origins.
We could just as easily argue that the Persian people are actually Persianized Elamites, infact this origins argument can be made with every nation on Earth because we all have ancestors and these ancestors are older than the oldest nation in existance.
The Iranic and Caucus groups were seperate nations, there language, identity, historical bonds etc were all seperate and unrelated to todays Turks of Azerbaycan.
Elements of these peoples joined the incomming Turks however mixed and were assimilated to a degree of becomming full-fledged Turks, in language, identity, history, sense of belonging, culture and tribal/clan connections.
Therefore its pointles writting that the Azeri Turks are actually Iranians who speak Turkic, the Turks ruled all of Iran for nearly a millenia, if they were bent on Turkifying everyone they could have persued such a policy but didn't. Azeri Turks are Turks, as Turk as any other Turk, 100 generations ago my forefather could have been from Ethiopia or Iceland but it wouldn't change how one feels today.
Furthermore what is an "Iranian"? there are Arabs, Hazaras, Persians, Baluch, Kurds in Iran today, saying "they are Iranians who speak Turkic" is very misleading, do you mean they are Arabs, Hazars, Baluch or do you really mean they are "Persians".
-- Torke ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article has become very misleading to the extent that Azeris are being described as speaking a Turkic language but having no connection what-so-ever to Turks.
This has got to change, the article has to be a little more realistic.
Today, the Turks of Iran and Azerbaijan are Turks, they speak Turki and share a kingship to the Oghuz Turks. The national origins of the people is Turkic, this doesn't mean that the region has always been Turkic or that non-Turkic elements exist. However, as a Turkic nation we cannot hide the fact that the people today are Turks in language, identity and history.
The culture of Azerbaijan has shared attributes with the Oghuz Turks, I included Dede Korkut, Koroglu, Alpamysh and others.
Also there are large Oghuz Turk clan settlements in Azerbaijan and Iran, hundreds of thousands of people belong to Afshars, Bayats, Bayindirs etc
Genetics have little to do with the sense of identity, even though recent studies have shown that Azeri people have similarities with Turkmen populations this isn't important. For example, the Hazara in Iran genetically may be Mongoloid but they no longer speak their language and have a weakened sense of Mongol identity.
The issue of language, identity, history, tribes and clans... are far more important, there is a common Oghuz Turk root for these in Azerbaijan which unfortunately has been ignored in this article.
-- Torke ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reality check
- There is one race, ie the Human race
- Over thousands of years humans populated the Earth
- Later humans formed nations
Now, what Azeri people are is a "nation", something that seems to be forgotten.
What makes a nation?
- Language, Identity, Historic ties, cultural ties, a bond, sense of belonging and so on.
In Azerbaycan and Iran, there language is Turkish/Turki, they are commongly known as "Turks" in Iran and the term Azeri or Azeri Turk is common place in Azerbaijan.
Today the fact of the matter is, Azeri are a Turkic peoples and what you don't seem to understand is that it really doesn't matter in the slightest who somebodies forefather was 50 generations ago, they could be Caucasion, Iranic, Turkic or even African. The Turkic people of North and Southern Azerbaijan speak a Turkic language, are a Turkic peoples, there is wide-spread sense of belonging to Oghuz Turk clans like the "Bayats", "Afshars" "Qaraqoyunlu "Aqqoyonlu" etc etc there is no kingship felt towards the Caucasion or Iranic peoples who lived in the region prior to the Turks as there is no linguistic, historical or identity continuity.
In similar fashion, non-Turkic peoples lived in Turkey prior to the advent of the Turks, that doesn't change the fact people of Turkey are today Turks.
Please stop this ethno-racist-Nazism and use some common sense.
Torke-- 86.139.54.1 ( talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not make radical changes. Recent genetic testing has shown no Oghuz descent. Therefore, that part should be taken out. I have, however, left the part that says that many references refer to the Azeri people as Turkic due to their Turkic langauge, because that is correct. However, I have modified the rest to summarize the findings and I have reinserted the quotes. I made no major changes at all, I just put things as recent genetic studies have shown them to be. Azerbaijani 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As a half Azari, Half Persian, I see no difference in features of my parents(and by comparing each their family members) to be distincted as two different ethnicities. also in Iran it's almost impossible to guess who is Azari , and who is Persian, whithout asking them to speak their local languages, only by their physical character or in many cases even by cultural ones! so I agree with the idea that Azaris are of Iranian origins, coz I live with this fact and feel it in real life. Saman, Tehran.
How about this: lets first try to remove the picture. then Although Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language, most scholars the origins of the Azeris are derived from earlier inhabitants of the region, including Caucasians (regarding the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan) and Iranian peoples (regarding the people of Iranian Azerbaijan).[37][38][39][40]
This view is supported by initial genetic studies conducted in the Republic of Azerbaijan that link the modern Azeris of the country primarily to their neighbors in the Caucasus and, to a lesser extent, northwestern Iran,[41] and testing of Iran's Azeri population, which has linked them to other Iranian peoples.[42]
The Iranian origin of the Iranian Azeri's is accepted amongst major encyclopaedia's such as the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia of Islam, and Encyclopædia Iranica.
According to orientalist Vladimir F. Minorsky: "[as consequence of Oghuz Turkic domination in the Caucasus, beginning the twelfth century] the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population."
This is also supported by other notable scholars, such as Richard N. Frye, who states: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. ... Most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves and are referred to as Turks but also insist on their Iranian identity."
How is this? Azerbaijani 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I also remember these double–standards. When we were talking about the the Ordubad, Iranica was Grandmaster's favorite source and his Bible because it was on his side, now what happened to you that you do not talk about Iranica! I also want to ask your ideas about Larousse, Encyclopedia of Islam and Worldbook…maybe in future you may need to use them to prove your points!! -- behmod talk 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article “Azeri” should be made a redirect to this one. It was apparently created by banned User:Rovoam, because I’ve seen this exact text in Russian wiki posted by him. No need for existence of two articles on the same topic, considering that we have an FA article aboutr Azerbaijani people. Grandmaster 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Artaxiad deleted referenced info and a number of pictures from this article under a guise of a minor edit without any discussion, which is not acceptable. This is not the first time he does it. I hope nothing like that will happen again. Grandmaster 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any specific reason why it was removed? [1] Artaxiad 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The name of this article is Azerbaijani people, which means people from Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan is not an ethnic topynom, rather than a geoghraphical term similar to Anatolia or Zagros. The problem is that this article which according to its name is expected to include info about people of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani people), only focus's on Azerbaijani Turks or Turks of Azerbaijan; but there are other Azerbaijani peoples, who are no less Azerbaijani than Turks of Azerbaijan are: The Azerbaijani Kurds, a historic and significant ethnographic component of Azerbaijan; A logical suggestion is to rename this article to Azerbaijani Turks and/or create an article for Azerbaijani Kurds and probably for other historic Azerbaijani peoples too. Berzefir 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of renaming the article, I think a portion should be included to talk about the non Turkic speaking Azeri's. Azerbaijani 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to profeesor reza reasearch,northern part of aras river in history has been named always ALBANIA in preislam and in recent perion it was named ARRAN AND SHERVAN,the name azarbaijan has ben used for southern part of aras,but after invasion of ottoman and russian they used this name for political purposes[CAIS,ARRAN,THE REAL NAME OF REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN BY E.REZA]. Spitman 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way that it can be changed? I'm not really interested in this particular subject, but to be quite frank, it reflects poorly upon the ethnic group in question. It's a picture of three decrepit and haggard looking elderly gentlemen of obviously poor background. It shouldn't be used as a general introductory photograph of the Azeri people. I don't think it should be too difficult to find a photograph (or photographs) that would be more, how should I say, easy on the eyes? Atashparast 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See my comment at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)#Confusion. Atashparast 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason why Azerbaijanis are most closely related to Armenians genetically is because the "Azerbaijani" country throughout the history of this planet was inhabited by Armenians. The creation of a Turkish Azerbaijani state was to eliminate Armenians and accelerate the process of Turanism, because Armenians were in the way for this to happen Turkey and Soviet Union cooperated for the creation of an Azerbaijani state above the Arax River. Ethnic Azerbaijani's are in NO WAY related to Caucasian Albanians, it is like Turks claiming historical Greek architectural sites as their own, or like European Americans claiming Native American history. What I am trying to say is that the history of Azerbaijan is ridiculous. The history of Azerbaijan should be, "The people who try to erase Armenians from history." If anyone disagrees with this, please say why, because I can provide a plethora of evidence (e.g. Azerbaijanis destroying Armenian khachkars, claiming Armenian churches in Azerbaijan to be Albanian, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.192.171 ( talk) 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Azeri is given, and yes, the Iranian Azeri and the Persian are similar, but the one you changed was intended to be the Persian spelling of Azeri (as the majority of Azeri's do live in Iran). Azerbaijani 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
ok what the hell is this, azerbaijan was a part of the Soviet Union, not under its influence like the eastern block, but as much a part of the soviet union as moscow was, and from my expierence i know for a fact that all azerbaijani people speak russian, therefore it is my ogligation to add russian to the list of languages.
There is something in the introduction. The introduction is wrong because when it says Azeri and then refers to natives Azeris as using the term and then says Azari and refers to Perisnas using the term.
The Azeris in the SOuth say Azari and this should be reflected in the titile. By writting Azari and denoting it as the Persian way makes it look alien, but in reality it is the Southern Azeris who say Azari and the Persians are just following suit.
I tried to correct this, but someone changed it. Can we please fix this fallacy.
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Anon, whats wrong with the picture? Why do you keep removing it? Azerbaijani 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Zondi - his option is more diverse-- Dacy69 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Regarding the picture, it is decorative and really just meant to signify the group. The three old men are ordinary Azeris and that was the only reason we used the picture, which is what encyclopedias do. The picture collage is okay with me, but there are copyright laws that restrict using pre-existing pictures to create a new picture so that's why we decided not to go that route. If someone has a picture that is better I'm okay with it. Tombseye 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Pejman47 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its best to have one or two important figures and have the others be pictures of regular people. What do you guys think? Azerbaijani 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahmad Kasravi's picture should be shown. He is one of the most famous Iranian Azeri's, especially in Iran. Azerbaijani 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47, can you please provide the link to the place in Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines where it says that pictures used in collages should reflect population percentage? Thanks in advance. -- Zondi 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of Azeri's live in Iran, so it doesnt matter what people in the Republic of Azerbaijan think of Kasravi, as we are talking about including Iranian figures (I'm not sure that Kasravi is despised in the Republic of Azerbaijan, but I'll take your word for it as I have yet to go to the Republic of Azerbaijan, but what does that have to do with adding a figure from Iran here?). And which Iranian Azeri's have you talked to, and guess what, there are a lot of people hated by the Iranian clergy, since when have they had any say in what goes on in Wikipedia. Tell me why this person is not an acceptable figure here, I have still not seen any reasons, just the same thing over and over again. Azerbaijani 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the list that I presented is the most balanced. It represents people from both sides of Araks, male and female, and those personalities are not controversial. I don’t think we should include clerics or modern politicians, people have different opinions about them. Let’s settle on what we have agreed so far and move on. Grandmaster 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
On what basis can you guys just "reject" important figures? You cant, and you guys have given no good reason at all as to why Kasravi or Khamenei should not be included in the pictures. Khamenei is the most important Azeri in the world right now, he not only controls almost the entire Shia world, but he controls one of the most powerful nations in the Middle East. Kasravi, as I have continuously said, is one of the most important Azeri figures in Iranian history.
Grandmaster, you have to put your nationalism and political opinions aside and be neutral. I think you probably dislike these figures personally, along with Atabek, and thus are trying to keep them excluded. This isnt about whether you guys like them or not, its about including prominent Azeri figures from Iran. Azerbaijani 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why some people want to hide information because people might not like it. This is an encyclopedia. This is not an invitation to wedding or a fairy tale. People do not like Hitler either, should he be removed as Austrian in Britannica? If Kasravi was desliked by 100% of Azeris today does it make him less Azeri? As matter of fact I have read several of his books and he is genious, long before his time. I think some people here might dislike him and miscredit him as Azeri because he has refered to Azeri as an Iranian Language. But nontheles he was master of several languages beside Azeri so he knew what he was talking about. I do feel that religious forces that do block Kasravi sites from Iran do try the same thing here.
Don't know where is the correct place of this new genetic information :
In one hand it's supporting Caucasian theory and in other hand that's with Iranian theory! :where is the correct place to add !? -- Alborz Fallah 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think the version I had worked on is now finally finished: [3] Its heavily sourced and further improves on the current section. This new information will further strengthen this articles FA status and will present the facts much better. Hajji Piruz 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this is a FA does not mean that no need for improvement. Moreover, there is a consensus among scholars on what is mentioed in new version and this should be fairly reflected in the article. Couple of months ago we tried to do it. Even we had some discussions but we waited to improve the new version. Now, the new version is ready and it is time to add it to the article.-- behmod talk 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Pam55 is not blocked (check his/her block log). What you did is called vandalism, because you removed sourced information from the article for absolutely no reason other than making the false accusation that Pam55 is a banned sock, because Pam55 did not remove any information (read this entire conversation above). Hajji Piruz 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be inserted into the article:
That means that the entire number of Oghuz Turks was some 70,000. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that these 70,000 Oghuz nomads had any significant genetic influence in Iranian lands. At that time, Baghdad alone had a population of more than 300,000. 82.83.155.124 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I restored the FA version. There’s a reason why this article received the FA status, so let’s not damage the quality of this article by adding POV claims. This article is not a collection of quotes either, you can add them to wikisource. I suggest we get the opinion of the person who wrote it first. I already contacted Tombseye, let’s see what he says. Grandmaster 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And please do not add ridiculous claims like this without consensus:
However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are not ethnically Turkic, but are mainly descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification.
I wonder who added that. Every credible source states that Azeris are Turkic people, why do some people destroy the quality of this article? Grandmaster 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think more attention cans solve the problem! The last edition says: "Though the population of Azerbaijan is culturally diverse, genetic testing has revealed common genetic markers that support an autochthonous background for most Azeris." The problem is the "Caucasian Azeris or Iranian Azeris?" The reference , "Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome" is about the Caucasian Azeri , and not about Iranian Azeri's .In the contrary , the reference "Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor " says : The study of the mtDNA pool of present-day populations living in the southwest and Central Asian corridor shows that the linguistic differences in these regions (i.e., mainly Indo-European vs. Altaic) are not reflected in the patterns of mtDNA diversity.
Second sentence after new edition is that: " MtDNA analysis indicates that the main relationship with Iranians is through a larger West Eurasian group that is secondary to that of the Caucasus, according to a study that did not include Azeris, but Georgians who have clustered with Azeris in other studies. " That's not true! in the study , there is a unique group designated as /Population: Turkish /Code:TI /Sample number :40/ Location :Mostly eastern and western Azerbaijan /Language Family :Altaic .... Then the Georgians of Caucasus are not useful here !
Figure 1 in that study can show the relation of the Tl group to PE (Persian) ,GI (Gilaki), KI (Kurdish ) Vs. CC (Caucasus ) and AN (Turkish Anatolia, Turkey ) groups . Then the conclusion should be like so : The conclusion from the testing shows that the Azeris are a non homogenous mixed population with relationships, in order of greatest similarity, in the Caucasus with other Caucasians, In Iran with other Iranians and then Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmen. This study suffers from some drawbacks, including a lack of specific comparative studies between Iranian-Azerbaijanis from and Azerbaijanis from Caucasus.
Besides, I can't understand why this section has been deleted ? :
GM, you prevents others to improve the article. Nothing is prefect in Wikipedia, even a FA. This part of the article has potentials to be improved. What you’re doing is removing sourced information. Even the section you reverted clearly says that Azeris are listed as Turkic people.-- behmod talk 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language.[35][36][37] However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are mainly considered as descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification. -- behmod talk 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to join this conversation late, but the quotes are extremely excessive in number (we can do with a few as otherwise it looks as if there is an overemphasis being made) and the Azeris DO show some Turkic admixture (upwards of 10%) from Turkmenistan which is not surprising so they aren't completely devoid of Turkic ancestry, it's just not the largest contingent. We're getting into hazy ground here as obviously the Iranic and Caucasian elements, in terms of ancestry, are predominant (just as Turks in Turkey are linked to Greeks and Armenians), BUT not without some Turkic links as well. Tombseye 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at the article, there is a repeating of "Old Azari language" and an emphasis upon the Iranic element and relating of the Caucasian one which seems biased. People are generally mixed in this region, but there appears to be an overemphasis of the same point, which makes the article look amateurish. Imagine writing an academic paper and saying the same thing several times and guess what grade you'd get. There needs to be restructuring, and, although Turkification is fine as a title for the section, the sections (medieval and modern accounts) are sloppy and could be incorporated into the Turkification section so as to not beat a dead horse. The ethnonym section can also be moved and fixed as it is abrupt in its insertion. Also not sure why there needs to be two quotes in Azeris in Iran section as that is again redundant as the first quote explains how integrated they are in general. Tombseye 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Tombseye, how many times do I have to say that I will fix the quote section once the article is unlocked to mean your concerns. I'll do it, ok? Let that be the end of that issue for now.
Regarding the other things, I did not remove any information from the previous version, I simply added information and reorganized the section. Whats wrong with this version other than the quotes? So far, the only thing you seem to be complaining about is the quotes section, which I already said I would fix. Hajji Piruz 14:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tombseye 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So you didnt change anything in the Caucasian origin section along with everything below that? So that party is fine correct? Also, I oppose having the Britannica quote being the first quote mentioned, if anything, the Britannica quote should be moved to the Caucasian origins section if the statements about the Iranian origin were mostly moved to the Iranian origin section. Another thing I dont understand is your removal of this sentence: The Iranian origin, favoured by notable scholars and sources, along with genetic testing, mostly applies to Iranian Azeri's
Also, see this: [6] Hajji Piruz 14:51, 14 July 2007 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The origins claims are like being in a Neo-Nazi camp. Do Azeri have Caucus origins? Iranic origins? actually they have human origins.
We could just as easily argue that the Persian people are actually Persianized Elamites, infact this origins argument can be made with every nation on Earth because we all have ancestors and these ancestors are older than the oldest nation in existance.
The Iranic and Caucus groups were seperate nations, there language, identity, historical bonds etc were all seperate and unrelated to todays Turks of Azerbaycan.
Elements of these peoples joined the incomming Turks however mixed and were assimilated to a degree of becomming full-fledged Turks, in language, identity, history, sense of belonging, culture and tribal/clan connections.
Therefore its pointles writting that the Azeri Turks are actually Iranians who speak Turkic, the Turks ruled all of Iran for nearly a millenia, if they were bent on Turkifying everyone they could have persued such a policy but didn't. Azeri Turks are Turks, as Turk as any other Turk, 100 generations ago my forefather could have been from Ethiopia or Iceland but it wouldn't change how one feels today.
Furthermore what is an "Iranian"? there are Arabs, Hazaras, Persians, Baluch, Kurds in Iran today, saying "they are Iranians who speak Turkic" is very misleading, do you mean they are Arabs, Hazars, Baluch or do you really mean they are "Persians".
-- Torke ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article has become very misleading to the extent that Azeris are being described as speaking a Turkic language but having no connection what-so-ever to Turks.
This has got to change, the article has to be a little more realistic.
Today, the Turks of Iran and Azerbaijan are Turks, they speak Turki and share a kingship to the Oghuz Turks. The national origins of the people is Turkic, this doesn't mean that the region has always been Turkic or that non-Turkic elements exist. However, as a Turkic nation we cannot hide the fact that the people today are Turks in language, identity and history.
The culture of Azerbaijan has shared attributes with the Oghuz Turks, I included Dede Korkut, Koroglu, Alpamysh and others.
Also there are large Oghuz Turk clan settlements in Azerbaijan and Iran, hundreds of thousands of people belong to Afshars, Bayats, Bayindirs etc
Genetics have little to do with the sense of identity, even though recent studies have shown that Azeri people have similarities with Turkmen populations this isn't important. For example, the Hazara in Iran genetically may be Mongoloid but they no longer speak their language and have a weakened sense of Mongol identity.
The issue of language, identity, history, tribes and clans... are far more important, there is a common Oghuz Turk root for these in Azerbaijan which unfortunately has been ignored in this article.
-- Torke ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reality check
- There is one race, ie the Human race
- Over thousands of years humans populated the Earth
- Later humans formed nations
Now, what Azeri people are is a "nation", something that seems to be forgotten.
What makes a nation?
- Language, Identity, Historic ties, cultural ties, a bond, sense of belonging and so on.
In Azerbaycan and Iran, there language is Turkish/Turki, they are commongly known as "Turks" in Iran and the term Azeri or Azeri Turk is common place in Azerbaijan.
Today the fact of the matter is, Azeri are a Turkic peoples and what you don't seem to understand is that it really doesn't matter in the slightest who somebodies forefather was 50 generations ago, they could be Caucasion, Iranic, Turkic or even African. The Turkic people of North and Southern Azerbaijan speak a Turkic language, are a Turkic peoples, there is wide-spread sense of belonging to Oghuz Turk clans like the "Bayats", "Afshars" "Qaraqoyunlu "Aqqoyonlu" etc etc there is no kingship felt towards the Caucasion or Iranic peoples who lived in the region prior to the Turks as there is no linguistic, historical or identity continuity.
In similar fashion, non-Turkic peoples lived in Turkey prior to the advent of the Turks, that doesn't change the fact people of Turkey are today Turks.
Please stop this ethno-racist-Nazism and use some common sense.
Torke-- 86.139.54.1 ( talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not make radical changes. Recent genetic testing has shown no Oghuz descent. Therefore, that part should be taken out. I have, however, left the part that says that many references refer to the Azeri people as Turkic due to their Turkic langauge, because that is correct. However, I have modified the rest to summarize the findings and I have reinserted the quotes. I made no major changes at all, I just put things as recent genetic studies have shown them to be. Azerbaijani 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As a half Azari, Half Persian, I see no difference in features of my parents(and by comparing each their family members) to be distincted as two different ethnicities. also in Iran it's almost impossible to guess who is Azari , and who is Persian, whithout asking them to speak their local languages, only by their physical character or in many cases even by cultural ones! so I agree with the idea that Azaris are of Iranian origins, coz I live with this fact and feel it in real life. Saman, Tehran.
How about this: lets first try to remove the picture. then Although Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language, most scholars the origins of the Azeris are derived from earlier inhabitants of the region, including Caucasians (regarding the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan) and Iranian peoples (regarding the people of Iranian Azerbaijan).[37][38][39][40]
This view is supported by initial genetic studies conducted in the Republic of Azerbaijan that link the modern Azeris of the country primarily to their neighbors in the Caucasus and, to a lesser extent, northwestern Iran,[41] and testing of Iran's Azeri population, which has linked them to other Iranian peoples.[42]
The Iranian origin of the Iranian Azeri's is accepted amongst major encyclopaedia's such as the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia of Islam, and Encyclopædia Iranica.
According to orientalist Vladimir F. Minorsky: "[as consequence of Oghuz Turkic domination in the Caucasus, beginning the twelfth century] the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population."
This is also supported by other notable scholars, such as Richard N. Frye, who states: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. ... Most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves and are referred to as Turks but also insist on their Iranian identity."
How is this? Azerbaijani 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I also remember these double–standards. When we were talking about the the Ordubad, Iranica was Grandmaster's favorite source and his Bible because it was on his side, now what happened to you that you do not talk about Iranica! I also want to ask your ideas about Larousse, Encyclopedia of Islam and Worldbook…maybe in future you may need to use them to prove your points!! -- behmod talk 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article “Azeri” should be made a redirect to this one. It was apparently created by banned User:Rovoam, because I’ve seen this exact text in Russian wiki posted by him. No need for existence of two articles on the same topic, considering that we have an FA article aboutr Azerbaijani people. Grandmaster 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Artaxiad deleted referenced info and a number of pictures from this article under a guise of a minor edit without any discussion, which is not acceptable. This is not the first time he does it. I hope nothing like that will happen again. Grandmaster 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any specific reason why it was removed? [1] Artaxiad 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The name of this article is Azerbaijani people, which means people from Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan is not an ethnic topynom, rather than a geoghraphical term similar to Anatolia or Zagros. The problem is that this article which according to its name is expected to include info about people of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani people), only focus's on Azerbaijani Turks or Turks of Azerbaijan; but there are other Azerbaijani peoples, who are no less Azerbaijani than Turks of Azerbaijan are: The Azerbaijani Kurds, a historic and significant ethnographic component of Azerbaijan; A logical suggestion is to rename this article to Azerbaijani Turks and/or create an article for Azerbaijani Kurds and probably for other historic Azerbaijani peoples too. Berzefir 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of renaming the article, I think a portion should be included to talk about the non Turkic speaking Azeri's. Azerbaijani 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to profeesor reza reasearch,northern part of aras river in history has been named always ALBANIA in preislam and in recent perion it was named ARRAN AND SHERVAN,the name azarbaijan has ben used for southern part of aras,but after invasion of ottoman and russian they used this name for political purposes[CAIS,ARRAN,THE REAL NAME OF REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN BY E.REZA]. Spitman 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way that it can be changed? I'm not really interested in this particular subject, but to be quite frank, it reflects poorly upon the ethnic group in question. It's a picture of three decrepit and haggard looking elderly gentlemen of obviously poor background. It shouldn't be used as a general introductory photograph of the Azeri people. I don't think it should be too difficult to find a photograph (or photographs) that would be more, how should I say, easy on the eyes? Atashparast 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See my comment at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)#Confusion. Atashparast 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason why Azerbaijanis are most closely related to Armenians genetically is because the "Azerbaijani" country throughout the history of this planet was inhabited by Armenians. The creation of a Turkish Azerbaijani state was to eliminate Armenians and accelerate the process of Turanism, because Armenians were in the way for this to happen Turkey and Soviet Union cooperated for the creation of an Azerbaijani state above the Arax River. Ethnic Azerbaijani's are in NO WAY related to Caucasian Albanians, it is like Turks claiming historical Greek architectural sites as their own, or like European Americans claiming Native American history. What I am trying to say is that the history of Azerbaijan is ridiculous. The history of Azerbaijan should be, "The people who try to erase Armenians from history." If anyone disagrees with this, please say why, because I can provide a plethora of evidence (e.g. Azerbaijanis destroying Armenian khachkars, claiming Armenian churches in Azerbaijan to be Albanian, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.192.171 ( talk) 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Azeri is given, and yes, the Iranian Azeri and the Persian are similar, but the one you changed was intended to be the Persian spelling of Azeri (as the majority of Azeri's do live in Iran). Azerbaijani 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
ok what the hell is this, azerbaijan was a part of the Soviet Union, not under its influence like the eastern block, but as much a part of the soviet union as moscow was, and from my expierence i know for a fact that all azerbaijani people speak russian, therefore it is my ogligation to add russian to the list of languages.
There is something in the introduction. The introduction is wrong because when it says Azeri and then refers to natives Azeris as using the term and then says Azari and refers to Perisnas using the term.
The Azeris in the SOuth say Azari and this should be reflected in the titile. By writting Azari and denoting it as the Persian way makes it look alien, but in reality it is the Southern Azeris who say Azari and the Persians are just following suit.
I tried to correct this, but someone changed it. Can we please fix this fallacy.
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Anon, whats wrong with the picture? Why do you keep removing it? Azerbaijani 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Zondi - his option is more diverse-- Dacy69 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Regarding the picture, it is decorative and really just meant to signify the group. The three old men are ordinary Azeris and that was the only reason we used the picture, which is what encyclopedias do. The picture collage is okay with me, but there are copyright laws that restrict using pre-existing pictures to create a new picture so that's why we decided not to go that route. If someone has a picture that is better I'm okay with it. Tombseye 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Pejman47 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its best to have one or two important figures and have the others be pictures of regular people. What do you guys think? Azerbaijani 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahmad Kasravi's picture should be shown. He is one of the most famous Iranian Azeri's, especially in Iran. Azerbaijani 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pejman47, can you please provide the link to the place in Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines where it says that pictures used in collages should reflect population percentage? Thanks in advance. -- Zondi 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of Azeri's live in Iran, so it doesnt matter what people in the Republic of Azerbaijan think of Kasravi, as we are talking about including Iranian figures (I'm not sure that Kasravi is despised in the Republic of Azerbaijan, but I'll take your word for it as I have yet to go to the Republic of Azerbaijan, but what does that have to do with adding a figure from Iran here?). And which Iranian Azeri's have you talked to, and guess what, there are a lot of people hated by the Iranian clergy, since when have they had any say in what goes on in Wikipedia. Tell me why this person is not an acceptable figure here, I have still not seen any reasons, just the same thing over and over again. Azerbaijani 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the list that I presented is the most balanced. It represents people from both sides of Araks, male and female, and those personalities are not controversial. I don’t think we should include clerics or modern politicians, people have different opinions about them. Let’s settle on what we have agreed so far and move on. Grandmaster 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
On what basis can you guys just "reject" important figures? You cant, and you guys have given no good reason at all as to why Kasravi or Khamenei should not be included in the pictures. Khamenei is the most important Azeri in the world right now, he not only controls almost the entire Shia world, but he controls one of the most powerful nations in the Middle East. Kasravi, as I have continuously said, is one of the most important Azeri figures in Iranian history.
Grandmaster, you have to put your nationalism and political opinions aside and be neutral. I think you probably dislike these figures personally, along with Atabek, and thus are trying to keep them excluded. This isnt about whether you guys like them or not, its about including prominent Azeri figures from Iran. Azerbaijani 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why some people want to hide information because people might not like it. This is an encyclopedia. This is not an invitation to wedding or a fairy tale. People do not like Hitler either, should he be removed as Austrian in Britannica? If Kasravi was desliked by 100% of Azeris today does it make him less Azeri? As matter of fact I have read several of his books and he is genious, long before his time. I think some people here might dislike him and miscredit him as Azeri because he has refered to Azeri as an Iranian Language. But nontheles he was master of several languages beside Azeri so he knew what he was talking about. I do feel that religious forces that do block Kasravi sites from Iran do try the same thing here.
Don't know where is the correct place of this new genetic information :
In one hand it's supporting Caucasian theory and in other hand that's with Iranian theory! :where is the correct place to add !? -- Alborz Fallah 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think the version I had worked on is now finally finished: [3] Its heavily sourced and further improves on the current section. This new information will further strengthen this articles FA status and will present the facts much better. Hajji Piruz 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this is a FA does not mean that no need for improvement. Moreover, there is a consensus among scholars on what is mentioed in new version and this should be fairly reflected in the article. Couple of months ago we tried to do it. Even we had some discussions but we waited to improve the new version. Now, the new version is ready and it is time to add it to the article.-- behmod talk 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Pam55 is not blocked (check his/her block log). What you did is called vandalism, because you removed sourced information from the article for absolutely no reason other than making the false accusation that Pam55 is a banned sock, because Pam55 did not remove any information (read this entire conversation above). Hajji Piruz 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be inserted into the article:
That means that the entire number of Oghuz Turks was some 70,000. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that these 70,000 Oghuz nomads had any significant genetic influence in Iranian lands. At that time, Baghdad alone had a population of more than 300,000. 82.83.155.124 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I restored the FA version. There’s a reason why this article received the FA status, so let’s not damage the quality of this article by adding POV claims. This article is not a collection of quotes either, you can add them to wikisource. I suggest we get the opinion of the person who wrote it first. I already contacted Tombseye, let’s see what he says. Grandmaster 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And please do not add ridiculous claims like this without consensus:
However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are not ethnically Turkic, but are mainly descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification.
I wonder who added that. Every credible source states that Azeris are Turkic people, why do some people destroy the quality of this article? Grandmaster 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think more attention cans solve the problem! The last edition says: "Though the population of Azerbaijan is culturally diverse, genetic testing has revealed common genetic markers that support an autochthonous background for most Azeris." The problem is the "Caucasian Azeris or Iranian Azeris?" The reference , "Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome" is about the Caucasian Azeri , and not about Iranian Azeri's .In the contrary , the reference "Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor " says : The study of the mtDNA pool of present-day populations living in the southwest and Central Asian corridor shows that the linguistic differences in these regions (i.e., mainly Indo-European vs. Altaic) are not reflected in the patterns of mtDNA diversity.
Second sentence after new edition is that: " MtDNA analysis indicates that the main relationship with Iranians is through a larger West Eurasian group that is secondary to that of the Caucasus, according to a study that did not include Azeris, but Georgians who have clustered with Azeris in other studies. " That's not true! in the study , there is a unique group designated as /Population: Turkish /Code:TI /Sample number :40/ Location :Mostly eastern and western Azerbaijan /Language Family :Altaic .... Then the Georgians of Caucasus are not useful here !
Figure 1 in that study can show the relation of the Tl group to PE (Persian) ,GI (Gilaki), KI (Kurdish ) Vs. CC (Caucasus ) and AN (Turkish Anatolia, Turkey ) groups . Then the conclusion should be like so : The conclusion from the testing shows that the Azeris are a non homogenous mixed population with relationships, in order of greatest similarity, in the Caucasus with other Caucasians, In Iran with other Iranians and then Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmen. This study suffers from some drawbacks, including a lack of specific comparative studies between Iranian-Azerbaijanis from and Azerbaijanis from Caucasus.
Besides, I can't understand why this section has been deleted ? :
GM, you prevents others to improve the article. Nothing is prefect in Wikipedia, even a FA. This part of the article has potentials to be improved. What you’re doing is removing sourced information. Even the section you reverted clearly says that Azeris are listed as Turkic people.-- behmod talk 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language.[35][36][37] However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are mainly considered as descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the area prior to Turkification. -- behmod talk 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to join this conversation late, but the quotes are extremely excessive in number (we can do with a few as otherwise it looks as if there is an overemphasis being made) and the Azeris DO show some Turkic admixture (upwards of 10%) from Turkmenistan which is not surprising so they aren't completely devoid of Turkic ancestry, it's just not the largest contingent. We're getting into hazy ground here as obviously the Iranic and Caucasian elements, in terms of ancestry, are predominant (just as Turks in Turkey are linked to Greeks and Armenians), BUT not without some Turkic links as well. Tombseye 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at the article, there is a repeating of "Old Azari language" and an emphasis upon the Iranic element and relating of the Caucasian one which seems biased. People are generally mixed in this region, but there appears to be an overemphasis of the same point, which makes the article look amateurish. Imagine writing an academic paper and saying the same thing several times and guess what grade you'd get. There needs to be restructuring, and, although Turkification is fine as a title for the section, the sections (medieval and modern accounts) are sloppy and could be incorporated into the Turkification section so as to not beat a dead horse. The ethnonym section can also be moved and fixed as it is abrupt in its insertion. Also not sure why there needs to be two quotes in Azeris in Iran section as that is again redundant as the first quote explains how integrated they are in general. Tombseye 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Tombseye, how many times do I have to say that I will fix the quote section once the article is unlocked to mean your concerns. I'll do it, ok? Let that be the end of that issue for now.
Regarding the other things, I did not remove any information from the previous version, I simply added information and reorganized the section. Whats wrong with this version other than the quotes? So far, the only thing you seem to be complaining about is the quotes section, which I already said I would fix. Hajji Piruz 14:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tombseye 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So you didnt change anything in the Caucasian origin section along with everything below that? So that party is fine correct? Also, I oppose having the Britannica quote being the first quote mentioned, if anything, the Britannica quote should be moved to the Caucasian origins section if the statements about the Iranian origin were mostly moved to the Iranian origin section. Another thing I dont understand is your removal of this sentence: The Iranian origin, favoured by notable scholars and sources, along with genetic testing, mostly applies to Iranian Azeri's
Also, see this: [6] Hajji Piruz 14:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)