Talk:Azerbaijanis

Related people

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)

Persian Tats

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)

Talysh people, Tat people (Caucasus) and Tat people (Iran) took part in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people and continue to do so (e.g., by language shifting and at least, in the case of the Talysh people, Tat people (Caucasus) the "Azerbaijani self-designition"). I agree with the editor who suggests to add them in the Iranian origin section of the article. But we have to do it with references and sources.

Bests Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:12, 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 (UTC)

It is good when someone reads some scientific works before talking some totally non-scientific crap. Everyone is welcomed in Wikipedia, but don't you think it is better to leave English Wikipedia to the people who CAN READ and UNDERSTAND articles and comments written in English. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot define people just under linguistic lines. I have told this before. Many people similar in language, might be much more different in culture, genetics, etc. Turkic people is a case. Think about it.-Raayen (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Atropates not Persian

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)

1. Chamoux, Francois (2003). Hellenistic Civilization. Blackwell Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 0-631-22241-3: This became evident when Alexander appointed as satrap of the important province of Media the Persian Atropates, who had held the same office under Darius.

2. Not Turkic people related to Persians, but only some sub-groups, e.g. Azerbaijani people, Qashqai, etc, in whose ethnogenesis they took part and with whom they are neighbors. In the case with those articles, they were claiming that Azerbaijani people are not related to the Iranian people, but are on of the Iranian peoples (the claim which deleted by me, based on the references). Please, see the corresponding articles, their talk pages and their edit histories to be sure about that. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:09, 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)

Please, use less aggressive tone and sign your comments. Just for politeness. I just provided a source, saying that he is Persian. Azerbaijani people are Turkic not by biology, but linguistically. Please, at least read the article fully. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot define people just under linguistic categories. I have told this before. Many people similar in language, might be much more different in culture, genetics, etc. Turkic people is a case. Think about it. That is confirmed in this and other articles by many sources.-Raayen (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case I agree with the user Az-507: Azerbaijani people are Turkic (OK, with quite complex ethnogenesis, but who is in the World pure Turkic or Iranian nowadays, everyone has a couple of different ethnic groups/tribes in their ancestry), because this classification in Wikipedia is BASED on linguistics. The problem was different case. Now it is solved, not without the help of the administrators. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this need a discussion at all ?! Azerbaijani people are a contemporary nation that didn't exist before (This is not to slight you. you have a great history that dates back to many centuries before this. Of course! if you accept it). Look at the image template above the article. There is no famous person older than Nasimi and Nader Shah. As much as you try to make it older, you reach to nearly like to Ismail I, who was an Iranian/Azerbaijani, because, his mother tongue (your racist/linguistic criteria!) was both Persian and Azerbaijani. I repeat! Ismail I mother tongue was Persian too. This fact is not in your racial mind set, because the lessons they have taught your forefathers and fathers at the time of Soviet Union were contrary to this fact. That was because of Russian nationalism and Turkism enforced by Stalin and alike to have republics of one nation-one language in Soviet Union and specially in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and now because of the false lessons continuing in Azerbaijan Republic taught to Azeri children, undermining minorities or maybe majorities who the real connection; the central Asians like Uzbeks, Tajik people and Caucasian lands had and have with Iran. Please try to come into terms with it. Ethnically, the origin of you, Ismail I, was from Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah a Kurd and before that of a significant Sufi order in Gilan, Iran in the first place. The Turkic element is minor, just a language, a tool. That is confirmed by souses. Azerbaijanis are Persian people, Iranian and Caucasian peoples and last but not least a Turkish people, Deal with it. The world has had enough of the mind set you are into taught in Soviet times. We are seeing that again and again like in Euromaidan. Stop it! Your heritage of soviet union doesn't help the world.-Raayen (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask you to speak more polite (WP:NPA). You can call me whatever you want, but not racist!!! (Please, at least, have a look at my edit history.) Firstly, Stalinism was against any Turkism and it was a crime then. Secondly, no one refuses about the multicultural past. But the fact is that the Turkic people assimilated the other ethnic groups/tribes and we are a Turkic nation now. It is a scientific fact. If you have another respected and trusted source claiming something different about CONTEMPORARY Azerbaijani people, submit it, please, and we will learn a new scientific approach.

Azerbaijani people are a Turkic ethnic group in whose ethnogenesis Indo-European, Caucasian and Turkic elements took part. But now due to the definition given in the articles they can be neither Iranian, nor Caucasian by means of language. OK, we assimilated Caucasian elements - Lezgins, Tsakurs, Avars, Albanians, muslim Georgians and some other groups that doesn't exist anymore, Indo-European people - different Tat groups (Tat is a name given by ethnic Turks to the other groups living beside them which were linguistically different, but culturally alike), Talyshs people, and a bunch of Turkic tribes.

But if we will have a look in the history of any other nation in World history, we will see the same thing. Turks of Turkey assimilated 2-3 dozens of ethnic groups from various backgrounds and continue to do so; but it doesn't make them non-Turkic people. No one denies the Iranian and Caucasian background/history of the Azeri people. But the keyword here is history. Open any authoritative/prestigious encyclopedia and read about the current classification of the Azerbaijani people. I am not saying that Azerbaijani people are pure Turks, and I am clearly against this unscientific and nationalistic crap.

But making Azerbaijani people part of Iranian people which is defined as an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages? You can not be serious. By culture they are related and that's why Iranian people are in the related group (what I support and you will be sure if you will have a look at my edit history). I am against all type of nationalism (in case, with my compatriots) and/or imperialism (in case, with some Iranian users, which try to include all people who are culturally-impacted by Iranians or have them in their ancestry to some degree).

And yes, the linguistics is not a minor tool, on the contrary, together with the people's self-designation it is the major. Although in Azerbaijan Republic people consider themselves as Azeri, very close related nation to Turks, brothers of them, in Iran they call themselves clearly, Turk and the language Turki, as far I know. So language can not be called a minor issue.

So my offer is if you have a source saying so please, provide it and we will discuss it here. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 March 2014

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)

He was from Afshar tribe which is considered considered as a branch of the Turkmens or Azerbaijanis. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but Afshar tribe isn't considered as branch of Turkmens or Azerbaijanis, just Oghuz. Today they group their tribes into various larger ethnic groups but that doesn't imply they're originally it's branch. The same goes for Qajars. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Iranian origin also from central Asia, from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia

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)

Of course, if you have a reliable source stating opposite feel free to add them. It will only enrich the article by adding different point of views. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is 2+2=4, common sense, see other articles on where Iranian peoples lived. But you are right, we need sources.-Raayen (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're somehow right if I understood you correctly. But you forgot Göktürks who also was present at the area. Besides, it is talking about Ilkhanid period - by that time most of the people there had Turkic subtract and were clearly Turkophone (for further information see History of Central Asia, please). And it was one of the main waves which caused the Turkification of poliethnic South Caucasus and formation of the Azerbaijani people as a mixture of various groups from different backgrounds (Indo-European, Caucasian, Altaic and after Arabic conquest Semitic) united by Islam and adopting a Turkic language first as lingua franca, then as the mother tongue. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

See my previous comments. I don't have any problem with Azerbaijanis being Turkic, as we all Iranians have been mixed with Mongolid/Turkic peoples. I have problem them being absolutely non-Persian, non-Iranian as propagandized during Russian nationalism regimes like of Stalin and now in Azerbaijan, Aliyev Monarchical dynasty. Those Russians didn't bring us all Irainain people except separation, misery. "Erdoğan said: I'm a Georgian". He is no Turk, but a Batumian Georgian. Why do you want to be more Turk than him?! Look at Kul Tigin, the seemingly legendary one of the first Turks. Look in the mirror, do you see any similarity between yourself and him?! Of course some similarities is real among people, deep down to our genes, as we are all mixed with Turks and Mongols, however why you want to stress it more than what it deserves?! You said "Turkophone"; It means "of or relating to a population that speaks (a specified language)" (here "Turkic"). Azerbaijanis are "Turkophone". It means they are either Turks or they are related to Turks by language or mixed in anyway. However sources say that Azerbaijanis are more related to Persians/Iranians and Caucasianas, than being related to other Turkic peoples, as Turkish people are more related to Greeks and to non-Greek Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. History is garbage, but there is a pity that it may define who we are and how to direct us to deal with each other.

As a historical side note, see this choreographic order:

• Scythians: "were mentioned as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes starting with the 7th century BC up until the 4th century AD"
• Xiongnu: "Chinese sources from the 3rd century BC report them as having created an empire under Modu Chanyu"
• Tocharians: "Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500 – 2500 BC)"
• Alans: "were a group of Sarmatian tribes of Iranian origin, nomadic pastoralists of the 1st millennium AD"
• Saka: "Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, AD 23–79) claims that the Persians gave the name Sakai only to the Scythian tribes "nearest to them"
• Göktürks: who first come to our attention in 439

This Göktürks heritage has destroyed the civilization of central Asia. And that is the end in the historical heritage of the region, since it didn't have much to contribute to human civilization. Not that it was slight, or others were superior, but because it was living in colder lands. Colder nations defeated the warmer middle more advanced nations with simple tools, that is "sword".

Your propagandized Mongol and their subdued Turkic people (mixed with Iranian wild nations of central Asia) invasion has never didn't heal Iranians up, even until now. We lost our most valuable middle class during your Mongol/Turkic/Iranian invasion. Please don't be proud of that as we are not proud of our kins who intermingled with wild Mongols and their conquered Turks. By "you" above, I really meant "you" Azerbaijanis, who were the same as us other Iranians like in Nishabur. You learned that Mongol/Turkish invasion was not a joke. A lesson that you (as northern western Iranians) learned from our miseries (the central and Eastern Iranians). You learned that you should come into terms with Mongols/Turks/(language-shifted Iranians of central Asia). Your regional ruler subjugated to Mongols/Turks after learning from our million massacre by Mongols/Turks.That is why you, in Iranian Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan is more for reality of the world and we in some other parts of Iran is more into Mystics. You know Rumi, I believe he was somehow silly, but anyway a solution to the miseries of eastern and central Iranians that you north-western Iranians didn't have to overcome due to to your submission to Mongols/Turks. He escaped mongols/Turks and find a safe place in west (now called Turkey/ (Anatolian Indo European lands), What an irony! Why do do you think he was a mystic?! It was because of your wild Turk identity that didn't bring to Iran anything unless misery. We had Avicenna, Biruni, Razi. Your fake heritage of backward Mongol and their defeated Turks and Iranian central Asia Turanians didn't bring us anything. We still suffer from that. If You are familiar with the real history of Iran and Azerbaijan (Not the fake Russian/Communism/Aliyev history of the region), you know what I am saying.-Raayen (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd urge you not to use humiliating words against any nation!!! Every nation had its pluses and minuses. Turks were a key nation in spreading Islam in the region and later, in defending it from European Crusaders and etc. As you know Persian was the language of the administration and culture and Turkic was the language of the army. Azerbaijanis are proud about their current Turkic identity, but also no one forgot our past. Yeah, I agree that some state propaganda tries to erase this (that's why I stopped editing in azwiki), but it is more due to political reasons, which I will not touch here. BTW, I am a true Azerbaijani with Caucasian/Talysh/Tat and slant-eyed Turkic admixture. And my children will be so, although they will have some Slavic admixture as well. Being Azerbaijanis doesn't mean being pure Turks, as well as being French doesn't mean being pure Latin. The ethnogenesis of all people in the world, especially, Muslim nations are quite complicated. Azerbaijani nation merged from mixture of a lot of Caucasian tribes, local Iranian people and Turkic people, who were present in the north part of the region from earlier times because of Kipchaks (who were serving Georgian kings), Khazars and later tribes from the Central Asia, and to a lesser extent Arabs who settled in the region later and even Georgians, Armenians, Slavs, Jews who adopted Islam. And all of it is shown in the article with the appropriate references (if there are references, of course). Just I don't understand the aim of the conversation. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Terekemes

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)