Talk:Azerbaijanis

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Origins Section

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)

Now, I think that we have too many quotes in the section! Tājik 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Too many quotes! However, Koikhoi needs at least hundred quotes!!! We need to keep them temporarily and we will remove extra quotes after the compromise!--behmod talk 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think the quotes can be summarized by saying something like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, etc... etc... also concur that Azeri's and Azerbaijan was Iranian before Turkicized. I will write up a short little version here and see if everyone agrees.Azerbaijani 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The picture is very inappropriate; a more traditional picture can be used. Picture is not even mandatory, and it only limits the Azeri people’s internal diversity. 4:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Proposal

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)

Sounds good to me. Maybe we should keep the quotes of the 2 scholars and integrate that of the encyclopedias in the text as you have proposed. Support Tājik 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its ridiculous to say that there is Oghuz descent because all of these major encyclopaedia's and historians clearly say that the origin is Iranic, and there was simply a language shift. This is now even supported by scientific date, of which the results do not mention any Oghuz descent, but rather Caucasian descent for those in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian descent for those of Iranian Azerbaijan. I think this proposal works fine and presents the facts as they are, and it leaves out the outdated information such as "further testing in Iran..." (which was before the Cambridge University test... Sure, we can keep the text of the scholars, I will edit it.Azerbaijani 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see major sources like Britannica say that Azeris are of mixed descent, which includes Caucasian people, Iranian people and Turkic tribes. The article says so and it is ok the way it is. Grandmaster 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Current version over-emphasizes on Turckic origin which is not based on scholars's consensus. When Britannica clearly states "The population of what is now the republic of Azerbaijan was originally Persian(Iranian) but Turkicuzed..." or when Larousse says "Azeris are descendants of older Iranophone inhabitants of the Eastern Transcaucasia", it is ridiculous to start our section with “In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language...” It misleads all readers. I am sure that every body who reads this sentence for the first time thinks that Britannica and Larousse are saying that Azeris origin is mainly from Oghuz Turks. I support Azerbaijani proposal and do not agree with the older version. --behmod talk 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what are you talking about? The Britannica quote clearly says that the population was Iranian and was Turkicized.Azerbaijani 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Britannica article? Once again: The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries.

According to Britannica Azerbaijanis are of mixed origin, i.e. Turkicized Caucasian and Iranian. So you cannot claim that Azeris are Turkicized Iranians, Azerbaijanis are of mixed origin. Iranian people are one of the main components of the mixture, but not the only one.Grandmaster 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read the first Brittanica quote posted? Anyway, both say the same thing. Also, the proposed version above mentions the Caucasian origin of the Azeri's in the Caucasus (Republic of Azerbaijan).Azerbaijani 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened, Grandmaster? Is Britannica your new favourite source?! What happened to the Iranica quotes that you were using in the Safavid's page? What about the article written by Frye? You see ... this is what I mean when I speak of double-standards! Tājik 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster does this all the time! In one article he uses quotes that benefit him from a source, then in another article he tries to discredit that very same source! Grandmaster, you cannot use only things that are to your liking. This proposal is fine and everyone except you is in support of it.Azerbaijani 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster! If Britannica is your favorite source, why you can not accept this quote from Britannica:

The population of what is now the republic of Azerbaijan was originally Persian (Iranian) but Turkicuzed

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)

I don't have any favorite sources. All reliable sources are good, but I explained many times that you cannot pick one good source and ignore others. We should present all existing views in a neutral manner, and present them fairly. Iranian version is fairly presented, so are Caucasian and Turkic. I see that you try to present Iranian version as the only reliable one, but that's not the way wiki works. Grandmaster 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster!

We do not pick one source, could you count number of sources that we used! I do not understand why you have so much hesitation about mentioning the Iranian origins despite the fact that most sources accept the Iranian origin! If you have other untold reasons such as ...! Please do not mix academical issues with them!

Anyway, That’s good that you are trying to be neutral. Therefore, instead of playing with the words, please tell us your constructive suggestion on the Azerbaijani's suggestion to improve the older version! The older version just plays with the words to under-emphasis the Iranian and Caucasian origins and misleads readers toward the Oghuz origin by unnecessary sentences.--behmod talk 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what are you talking about? All the encyclopaedia's mentioned, which you yourself use as sources very frequently, say that Azeri's are of Iranian descent! What other side is there to tell when all these major encyclopaedia's all have consensus on the issue.Azerbaijani 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, evidently, as it appears, Grandmaster doesnt seem to disagree anymore. I will give it a few more days, I know hes watching the article, other than that, everyone else is in general agreement, so I'll put it in.Azerbaijani 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss your proposal with Tombseye, who is the main author of this article, and reach consensus with all involved users. I find the article in its original form quite accpetable and fairly representing all existing views. Grandmaster 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in its current form does not reflect the reality, which even major encyclopaedia's now accept. I will talk to Tombseye.Azerbaijani 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should remove or replace the picture of the three old men. Thanks. 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

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)

I assume the merge went through?Azerbaijani 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was just some vandal edit to the Azeri redirect, which was reverted. Grandmaster 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

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)

Image

Any specific reason why it was removed? [1] Artaxiad 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture looks just wrong. it should be removed. 04:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

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)

It would not be logical. See the Origins section of this article. Parishan 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Azarbaijan is name of a region, similar to Tajikistan or more precisely Anatolia, since Tajikistan at least is a toponym named after an actual ethonym. Using Azarbaijani is similar to Tajikistani or Anatolian. The other problem is that the people which this article is talking about are not the only Azarbaijanis. thats a biased name in favor of the people which this article is talking about. let's use a better name. Berzefir 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my opinion has always been that the word Azeri must be used when one talks about the Azeri people, language, culture, etc. while the term Azerbaijani must be reserved for everything that concerns Azerbaijan as a state; just like in the case with Persian vs. Iranian. However not everybody agrees with this. Parishan 00:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Still Azeri is better than just Azerbaijani. Berzefir 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. Azerbaijani is not just ethnicity, but also nationality, which is nothing unusual, there are many similar cases. But the internationally accepted name of the ethnicity is Azerbaijani, so the article's name is correct. Grandmaster 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani is a nationality because it means from Azerbaijan, but it is not an ethnonym, rather than a demonym. Honestly all the people from Tabriz, or sourrundings whom I've met don't identify themselves as Azerbaijani or just as so. They identify themselves either as Turks, (and are refered to as Turks of Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani Turks), or as Azeri. These are my suggestions maybe we can agree on one or two of these:

1)rename this article to Azerbaijani Turks.

2)rename this article to Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis

3)rename this article to Azeri people.

4) Create a page for Azerbaijani people, this page would be used as a disambiguation page. Berzefir 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Look what Britannica calls similar article: Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [2] As you can see, Azerbaijani is a reference to ethnicity. By the same token you can claim that Italian people is not ethnicity, but anyone who lives in Italy. It is both, but Italian is mainly a reference to the ethnicity. This article is about ethnic Azerbaijanis, not Azerbaijanis by nationality. Grandmaster 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and here it says or Azeri. Azerbaijani has never been an ethonym, Azerbaijan never had a single ethnic group. but always a collection of ethnic groups often Iranian. all the peoples living in Azerbianjan have been Azerbaijani, and please remember that Turks are a recent phenomenon there. The turkophone people currently living there either refer to themselves as Turk (they pronounce it as tuirch) or Azeri, especially the educated ones who prefer to use Azeri rather than Turk which in many cultures is a derogatory term. Regard. Berzefir 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article also provides Azeri as an alternative spelling. But the main title is Azerbaijani, like in Britannica. Grandmaster 10:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Azerbaijani (literally: from Azerbaijan) is confusing, there is a better and much more clearer alternative: Azeri. Berzefir 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani is generally accepted, you see that other encyclopedias also use that ethnonym. Azeri is more informal, and can be provided as an alternative name. Grandmaster 10:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But the word Azerbaijan is an Aryan name, it is refering to an Aryan general, the name Azerbaijani means people from Azerbaijan, the turkophones of Azarbaijan are actually immigrants there, they are related to other TURKS. Are they going to hide these facts and to hide that they are related to Turks? ok then use a better name such as Azeri. If Azeri is not good then tell us what happened to Azeris? were they annihilated?? also note that using the name Azerbaijanis implys as if both regions of south and north of Araxes are Azerbaijan! These are my suggestions:

Azeri people

Azeri Turks.

If you still disagree with renaming, then we have to create an etymology section in the article that includes all the facts mentioned above. Regards. Berzefir 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Azeris are not "immigrants" in Azerbaijan. At least, take some time to read the article you're proposing to rename. Parishan 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:NOR. We only include what authoritative sources say, and personal views and interpretations should be kept out of wiki articles. Grandmaster 06:37, 11 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)

Well, specifically, this does constitute original research as Grandmaster points out as this concept lacks academic credibility and common usage. As for non-speaking Turkic speaking Azeris, well that would make them Persians in essense, especially if they don't identify with the Azeri community. Regardless this seems like a superfluous addition given the nature of how encyclopedias operate. The sources we all referenced don't go into the hazy lines between intermarried groups and those who shift their language usage. Rather than a portion of the article, it would be okay to mention (with a reference) in the Azeris in Iran section (I'm talking one or two sentences at the MOST) that some Azeris have abandoned the use of Azeri and speak Persian and/or identify with the Persian group. Tombseye 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an external link denying ancient Iranic language of azerbaijan but it was written by a non-scholar with an ethno-centeric point of view. Since it wasn't scholarly I removed it. --alidoostzadeh 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read Berzefir's suggestion. I think the title of the article is fine and since there is an article about Kurds in Azerbaijan and so the two are not confused. --alidoostzadeh 00:52, 18 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)

Introductory photograph of the three old men

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)

Genetics

See my comment at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)#Confusion. Atashparast 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Persian spelling

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)

Russian

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.

Azeri & Azari

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.

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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

Anon, whats wrong with the picture? Why do you keep removing it?Azerbaijani 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with anon, the picture needs to be replaced. The current one is only men and not representative. We need a photo that includes both women and men. I’ll try to find something in the next few days.--Zondi 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zondi - his option is more diverse--Dacy69 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

you must find a PIC that represents both Iranian Azerbaijan and Republic of Azerbaijan, both. and preferably must be from ordinary people not the political or cultural elites. for the later you must get confirmation one by one for each of people you want to use in here.--Pejman47 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, where did this rule come from: "preferably must be from ordinary people not the political or cultural elites"? Check other wiki pages and see what they use, Russians, Ukrainians. --Zondi 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

for the fact that this is a Featured article and personally I don't have any objection to this and I support you proposal. But You must first contact User:Tombseye which he with the help of another user helped this article get FA status. for every major changes in this article you may better get his consent first. i wish you good luck.--Pejman47 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to create a collage of prominent Azeri people similar to those other similar articles have. Grandmaster 10:05, 23 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)

only around 20-30% of Azerbaijanis are from the Republic of Azerbaijan, so if the intro picture is going to have 16 pic, allocating more than 4-5 pictures to the republic is blatant POV. It is interesting that in the pic you are pushing for, almost all of them are from the Republic. You may create a new pic with this persons included (for all of them we have PD license Images)

• Sattar Khan
• Ismail I (He is the most prominent Azeri in history, that picture without him doesn't make sense!)
• Mohammad Hossein Shahriar (the greatest contemporary Azeri Poet)
• Googoosh (his parents were from Republic but was born in Tehran )
• Ali Khamenei
• Mossadegh
• Rezazadeh
• Samad Behrangi
• Iraj Mirza
• Mohammad Khiabani.

--Pejman47 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But who says that pictures should be selected on the basis of population percentage? There are no rules that require that. Pictures should be of prominent people, and I think that Kerim Kerimov, Teimour Radjabov, Uzeyir Hajibeyov and many others are prominent and have international fame. That is the only criterion for inclusion. Grandmaster 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires that. The ones who I mentioned were also have international fame, you know that you can use those whom you mentioned in your quota of 4-5 images from 16. the biased selection of those images are outrageous. just imagine yourself, you are from Iranian Azerbaijan.

and to our new friend "Partiot77", I hope you are not a sockpuppet of a banned user. in the case that you are not: I am proud of my Azerbaijani's identity and please refrain from personal attacks. I hope there is no need for more warnings. --Pejman47 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

and Grandmaster didn't you forgot this? Talk:Azerbaijani_people/Archive_5#The_picture_should_be_changed, and don't forget that Rezazadeh and Khmanei are currently the most famous Azeris in The world, but your proposed biased pic even didn't show them --Pejman47 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the main points here: copyright issues and quality of pictures. The picture is used because it is free of copyright problems and is a good picture of ordinary people which is better and more encylopedic than that of famous people. There is no problem with replacing the main picture with Iranian Azeris as long as it is of equal or better quality and has no copyright problems. If there is no suitable replacement then there is no reason not to keep this picture as the main point is to show Azeris. We have tried to show Azeris on both sides of the border and the article devotes time to both as well. There's no POV issue here at all and collage pictures CANNOT be used as they constitute copyright infringement. That's the point here. Tombseye 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have PD pictures to make up a collage. The problem is that we need to settle on personalities we can include in the collage. I have no idea where exactly NPOV rules say anything about representation of people in collages, I would appreciate if Pejman quoted the respective rules. In my view, the only criterion for inclusion is notability. I think there should be historical personalities like Fuzuli and Shah Ismail, modern personalities, male and female, but no politicians from either side of the border. Also, I suggest no one changes the picture unless consensus is reached on talk, if there’s no consensus, the current pictures remains. Grandmaster 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

so by tomorrow I will list Iranian Azeris whom we have PD images. you may do so. --Pejman47 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to enter the discussion above, but my suggestion is that Professor Lotfizadeh should definitely be put in there. And he has connections with both Azerbaijan republic and Iran. --alidoostzadeh 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your note, I had forgotten him when I was preparing that list. Anyway, till the preparation of a new image (probably till tomorrow ), I have omitted the current pic, for the concerns that was raised here by the anon.--Pejman47 22:46, 26 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)

Ali is right. Lotfi Zade should definitely be included. Also Shahriyar, fantastic poet. We have PD images of them. Instead of arguing lets try to build consensus. I will suggest the personalities, and if no one objects, we will proceed to adding them to a collage. Normally the collage is made of 12 people. We need both male and female personalities. So I suggest the following people:

Historical:

Fuzuli

Shah Ismail

Sattar Khan

Poets:

Mohammad Hossein Shahriar

Khurshud Banu Natavan

Scientists:

Lotfi Zadeh

Kerim Kerimov

Musicians:

Uzeyir Hajibeyov

Googoosh

Sportsmen:

Teimour Radjabov

I think the above list has a good balance. It represents people both from Iran and Azerbaijan. Please comment. Grandmaster 05:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

what you mentioned is 10 but you said we need 12:), anyway what you has put in here has not balance (remember only about 30% of Azerbaijanis live in Republic). But I am OK with it. please omit one from the north and add these to the list, then although the population percentage is not observed I am OK with it. cheers (all of the below images have PD images)

Mohammed Mosaddeq

Ali Daie

Iraj Mirza--Pejman47 09:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The list is not based on population percentage, there's no requirement in the rules for that. Since Azerbaijani people are split in two by the border, it would be OK to make it 50/50. I think we can add 2 more personalities, one from each side of the border. I suggest to add Mosaddeq and Azi Aslanov, Soviet general of World War II and twice Hero of the Soviet Union. I have a PD image of him. Grandmaster 09:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I insist!, anyway in the current form even 50%-%50 is not observed. there is no Iranian in the Sport section. --Pejman47 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

anyway, add another Iranian (probably Ali Daie) and this case for me is finished. --Pejman47 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with Daie, let's add him too. So the final list is as follows:

Historical:

Fuzuli

Shah Ismail

Sattar Khan

Azi Aslanov

Poets:

Mohammad Hossein Shahriar

Khurshud Banu Natavan

Scientists:

Lotfi Zadeh

Kerim Kerimov

Musicians:

Uzeyir Hajibeyov

Googoosh

Sportsmen:

Teimour Radjabov

Ali Daie

Any objections? Grandmaster 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just please omit one from the north and as you said include Mossadegh too. yes it will be no longer 50-50 but it is fair because the population of the Iranin Part is at least double. after that I accept it. --Pejman47 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of population is irrelevant. We have no stipulation in the rules for that. People from both sides of the border should be represented equally. Grandmaster 10:50, 29 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)

Grandmaster, I think you counted Ismaill as iranian but his legacy is completely joint. Azi Aslanov is not too old, he is not a historical character, he died only 60 years ago, and by the way I still don't see you PD pic of him --Pejman47 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find the image of Aslanov here: Image:Aslanov.jpg. Sattarkhan is also 20th century, but I counted him as a historical figure. Kasravi is controversial, and I don't think we should include anyone whom someone may object to. In my opinion the current list is quite balanced, it has historical figures, male and female personalities, musicians, scientists, sportsmen and poets, people from both sides of Araks. Let's settle on this and move on. Grandmaster 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Kasravi controversial? He is one of the most famous and most respected Iranian Azeri's. He should be put in the infobox.Azerbaijani 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, You didn't respond to my concern that Ismaill (and Zadeh) are completely shared and this means although Iranian part has at least double population it will get less attention.--Pejman47 19:12, 30 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)

rules about POV requires that. --Pejman47 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

requires what? Please be more specific and paste here the exact quote from Wikipedia rules.--Zondi 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kasravi is controversial because even Sweitochovski says that he is. And indeed, Ismail is from Ardebil, and while his legacy is common for all Azerbaijanis, he traces his origin to Iranian Azerbaijan. Also, I think the legacy of all Azerbaijani people is shared, so it should not be an issue. Grandmaster 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

any figure before the Golestan and Turekemchany are shared. this also applies to Lotfi-zadeh. It is completely true that kasravi was controversial (if he wasn't he will not be assassinated), but still I demand that POV rules of WP requires the population quota.--Pejman47 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is about Azerbaijani people, are you saying that Kasravi being Azeri is controversial? He is one of the most famous , if not the most famous, Azeri's in Iran's history. You cant judge what goes into the picture, Kasravi's view in Iran, the country with the overwhelming majority of Azeri's, shows that his picture needs to be included. Swietochowski has no bearing on what picture we should use in this article. Where does Swietochowski say Kasravi wasnt an Azeri? Please show me...that would be interesting to see.Azerbaijani 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kasravi is a controversial figure, and his inclusion will cause objection of many people. That's why I suggested to keep such people out of the collage. I don't think that Kasravi is a figure respected by most Azerbaijani people. At the same time people like Ismail I, Shahriar or Uzeir Hajibeyov are respected by Azerbaijani people everywhere. That's a big difference. Grandmaster 09:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Kasravi a controversial figure, tell me, was he or was he not an Azeri? Have you ever been to Iran? Kasravi is actually one of the most famous Iranians ever. The majority of Azeri's live in Iran, and trust me, Iranian respect for Kasravi is not paralleled by many other modern Iranian figures.Azerbaijani 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kasravi didn't consider himself Azeri in the way majority of contemporary Azeris, including those in Iran, consider themselves being. If you have references to ethnic roots of Kasravi let's discuss. Atabek 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Forgot about Wikipedia NOR and NPOV?Azerbaijani 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this person has any respect in Azerbaijan republic. I suggest to include only the people that no one objects to. Kasravi is not the one respected by the majority of people, and many Iranian Azeris I spoke to despise him, and he is hated by the Iranian clergy. So no divisive personalities, please. There's an article about him, where we can discuss all his merits, but I don't think this person is appropriate for inclusion into this article. Grandmaster 13:22, 1 June 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)

Azerbaijani, this is not a place for political POV rant. People in the Republic of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis just like those South of Araxes border, and Republic of Azerbaijan is the only state officially representing Azerbaijani identity. There are more English-speakers of Anglo-Saxon origin inhabitting North America than England, nevertheless, England represents English identity. There are close to 26 million people of Irish descent in the U.S., and 4 million in Ireland, and nevertheless Ireland represents the Irish identity, not the U.S. But even ignoring all those facts, before asking for reasons, let me remind you that I have no problem with inclusion of Kasravi as Azerbaijani as long as you can prove his ethnic belonging. If you cannot, then there is no point to argue about it. Atabek 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont give me your POV and OR. Unless you guys can list reasons other than "well, we dont like him", then there is no reason Kasravi should not be included in the pictures.Azerbaijani 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, follow WP:AGF. As I said, provide references to prove that Kasravi was Azerbaijani. I told you that clearly above, and if it's not visible, I am highlighting it for you in bold. Atabek 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:AGF, this is about what pictures should be included in the article. So now you are saying that Kasravi wasnt an Azeri? Oh wow, please tell me you are joking? Your POV and OR wont prevent Kasravi's picture from being included in the article.Azerbaijani 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, as I told you present evidence that Kasravi is Azeri by ethnicity and stop baselessly accusing me of POV and OR. It's not going to help you in Wikipediting. Atabek 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your the one saying that he was not an Azeri, so it is you that has to prove it, I dont have to prove a single thing, because I'm not the one making hte outrageous claims.

Atabek, have you even read WP:AGF? Here is the last paragraph:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Your actions in the past have shown that I dont need to AGF in your case (you have used personal attacks, you have edit warred, you have used socks, etc...), so again, this doesnt even apply.Azerbaijani 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

everybody calm down!, this can be solved easily by conversation.--Pejman47 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These guys, (atleast Atabek) are tying to say that Kasravi was not an Azeri. This isnt even a debate anymore, it feels like a joke. Guys, lets have a serious conversation, put your nationalism or political opinions aside. Kasravi was an Azeri, and he is one of the most famous Azeris ever in Iran's history. His picture needs to be present.Azerbaijani 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kasravi was indeed a proud Azeri, but this doesn't make him to be included in this list. I know lots of people whom consider him as traitor; but still all of them considered him a true Tabrizi.

anyway, so, for finalizing this I propose dropping one or two name from the north and including Khiabani or Mossadegh or Khamenei (I think there should be a shia cleric in that list too), cheers to all--Pejman47 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Khamenei is also one of the most important Azeri's in the world at the moment. Kasravi is historically one of the most important Azeri's ever in Iran's history.Azerbaijani 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, maybe we can get the consensus for including Khamenei--Pejman47 16:16, 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)

first about "what we have agreed so far", I never agreed completely to your list

the list represents people from both sides of Araks but not in a balanced form., You still didn't respond to me to the fact that Ismaill and Lotizadeh are shared, but you counted them Iranian.

Mossadegh or Khiabani are not "modern", and really I have not seen anybody who hated them in Iran.

for a compromise, your list have 12 names on it. I propose adding Mossadegh and Khiabani and making a college of 14 people. I hope you will accept this. cheers --Pejman47 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and I really didn't get what you said by modern politicians, Khamenei is currently the most famous Azeri in the world, and I really don't get your objections. --Pejman47 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ismail I is from Ardebil, Iranian Azerbaijan, even the article about him says so. So we have equal number of people from both Azerbaijans, plus Fuzuli and Lotfi Zade, which are shared. I think it is quite balanced. As for Khamenei, if you check the archives, many people objected to his inclusion, and if we include him, we will have to deal with people protesting his inclusion. That's why I suggested not to include any modern politicians. Let's settle on people everyone is happy with. I've been to Iran and I know that not everyone likes the clergy and the current regime, so it is better to keep the people to whom people might object out of the collage. Grandmaster 09:41, 2 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)

Hossein Rezazadeh should definitely be listed. Ya Abalfazl. (World's strongest man. ). --alidoostzadeh 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not include Rasulzade either, if you noted. I know that Kasravi and Khamenei will cause a lot of objections, and we will have to return to this issue once again. So it is better to include people without any political affiliations. As for Rezazadeh, I don't mind, we can replace Ali Daie with Rezazadeh. Grandmaster 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly? Your avoiding answering the questions as to what your reasons are and why its controversial. These people are both Azeri's, what else is there to discuss?Azerbaijani 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, many people objected and would object to inclusion of those 2. It did not work with Hamenei the first time around, it is not gonna work now. It is better to avoid inclusion of people with strong political views. Grandmaster 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

About the Kasravi and proving he was Azeri, although that's known fact in Iranian Azarbijan, but I have his ID card (Shenasnameh) myself in my collection and can show the picture of this ID card if there is any doubt about him. I think including Khamenei is the most important part because it shows the importance of Azeri's in Iran and infact the reason of building this Wiki-page is to show the influence of Azries in the world and in the region, so inclusion of Khameniei is an essential part of proving so.Being or not to be popular does not change the list , as in List of Georgians is it possible to exclude Joseph Stalin?.--Alborz Fallah 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see Stalin in the collage for Georgian people article. While Khamenei is indeed prominent, I know that many Iranians, especially emigrants really hate him. The same goes for Kasravi, there are many people who hate him for various reasons. That’s why I think that we should avoid including people that someone may object to. I think no one would object to inclusion of scholars, musicians and sportsmen, while politicians are divisive. Grandmaster 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if popularity is supposed to be a determining factor in this listing, it's advisable to change the title from "Azerbaijani people" to "popular Azerbaijani people" and then to define the criteria for measuring the popularity.--Alborz Fallah 09:49, 18 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.

Where should I add this ?

Don't know where is the correct place of this new genetic information :

Some new genetic studies suggest that recent erosion of human population structure might not be as important as previously thought, and overall genetic structure of human populations may not change with the immigration events and thus in the Azerbaijanis case ; the Azeris of Azerbaijan republic most of all genetically resemble to other Caucasian people like Armenians Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus and people the Azarbaijan region of Iran to other Iranians Is urbanisation scrambling the genetic structure of human populations?

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)

I'll add it in. I'm working on re-writing the origin section in one of my sand boxes. Its generally excepted that Azeri's from the republic are Caucasian in origin while Azeri's in Iran are of Iranica origin. You have to remember that the term Azerbaijani was invented by the Russians in the late 1800's as a linguistic term, not an ethnic term, to refer to Turkic speakers who were Iranians by race/type. The term Azerbaijani/Azeri as an ethnic term only developed under Stalins era.

Because of the historical revisionism and propaganda of the Stalin era, many scholars today actually think of all Azeri's as one people, and thus, the general consensus is that all Azeri's, in the republic and in Iran, are Iranic in origin. A lot of the ethnic and social problems in the Middle East today is because of European propaganda, historical revisionism, and racial theories.Azerbaijani 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote of Alborz is cool. But classification of groups in the NE is done mainly on linguistic grounds (or should be done as such). Any wide linguistic group (Kurd, Persian speaking,, Azerbaijani and etc..) will have variances of genetics. For example a Kurd speaker, Azeri speaker and Persian speaker from Hamadan will have closer DNA to each other than a Kurd from Diyarbakir, Azeri from Baku and Persian from Mash-haad. Basically the concept of ethnicity is very eroded in the area and what we really have is languages. Probably in the case of Azeris and Armenians in the caucus, both groups had a language shift due to different invading groups. In this case of Armenians it was IE people whose number I am not sure of. In the case of Azeri's, it was Oghuz Tribes whose numbers were very small (unlike IE speakers we can have a reasonable range here due to history materials being present from the time )...Anyways Hossein Rezazadeh should be included in my opinion.--alidoostzadeh 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New genetic data is interesting in that it shows every nation is looking to the reality from its own point of view! Iranians think the origin of Azeri's is Iran (Iranian theory) because the genetic and historical data shows that in Iranian-Azeri's .On the other hand, the Azerbaijan Republics think the origin of Azeri's is Caucasus, and some of the genetic data's support that in Caucasus. The overall fact shows that both are true! But the genetic origin of this language (ethnic) group is diverse and not unique: same as almost all of the other ethnic groups of the region. --Alborz Fallah 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, read my previous comment. The reason is that Azerbaijani's are not all one ethnic group in the first place.Azerbaijani 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin section rewrite

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)

I implemented the changes. Note: No information was removed in this process, information has just been added and the entire section was simply organized.Hajji Piruz 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss changes here first before implementing them. Turkification is just one of the versions, you cannot present it as a fact. I will ask Tombseye to review your edits. For now, I reverted article to FA version. Grandmaster 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Tombseye several times, besides, he hasnt been active since the 25th of may. Grandmaster, Turkification is accepted by all major sources and scholars. This is fact, theres nothing to debate. And I did discuss my edits, right above, I even clearly said that no information was removed, just that information was added and the entire origin section re-organized. You cannot use the excuse that this article is FA simply to keep the article in your POV. The facts say that there was Turkification, and that the Iranian and Caucasian peoples of Aran and Azerbaijan were Turkificized and gave rise to modern Azeri's as we know them in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in Iran.Hajji Piruz 13:22, 18 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)

FA cannot be used as an excuse not to improve the article. I re-sinserted the changes. Again, the changes removed close to nothing from the previous version, I just added some more information and re-organized the section. Other than the format and the addition of new information, nothing is drastically different form the FA version. This version actually reflects the reality and we discussed this alot in the previous section above, so how can you say that these edits were not discussed? Turkification of the region is fact, there are quotes by all of these scholars and encyclopaedias in the article saying that the Azeri's were Iranic in origin but became Turkophone.Hajji Piruz 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The material presented in the edit is POV and OR without any proper sources. Reverting back to previous FA version. Please, discuss your changes in future. Azerbaijani ethnic identity has a Turkic element, from both North Caucasus (Khazars) and obviously Oghuz Turkic tribes. Atabek 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The new version is heavily cited and it is not POV and OR. Atabek please specificaly tell us which of references are not reliable.--Pam55 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Every single addition is sourced Atabek.Hajji Piruz 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pam55 is blocked sock and he removed a chunk of text with reference. This is vandalism.--Dacy69 03:53, 19 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)

See [4]--Dacy69 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, thanks for proving my point.Hajji Piruz 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be inserted into the article:

• "... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ..." - from Encyclopaedia of Islam, article "Seljuqs"

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)

What a load of "reasoning", the waves of western migration by Turks and Oghuz Turks happened through decades if not centuries. Before Oghuz Turks we had Khazers and Huns. The numbers within your source is relevant to a single skirmish or invasion to Khorasan, rather than explanning the whole process of migrating tribes. Did you take note of "at this time" !.
without a high number of population how did sucha large are suddenly stated speaking full Turkic languege?
Here there is no talk of genetics, the discussion is about the ethnicity and language.Mehrdad 18:50, 22 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)

FA does not mean the article cannot be improved. I also contacted Tombseye and got no response. He hasnt been active since the 25th of May. You are using FA as an excuse to keep the facts out. The persons who wrote the article are no experts, they're regular users like you and I, you make it seem as if the creator of an article determines what can and cannot go into it. No one owns anything on Wikipedia.

Regarding your second comment, every academic and scholarly source says that Azeri's are descedents of Iranics, or in some few cases Caucasians. Tell me, who seriously believes that Azeri's are ethnic Turks? Genetic testing has put the final nail into that theory's (if it was even a theory to begin with) coffin.Hajji Piruz 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not based on genes, it is based on language. Therefore Azerbaijanis are Turks, and every credible source on this planet says so. Grandmaster 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing genetic section and deleting the studies?!

• Wait a minute please ...

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 ? :

Some new genetic studies (2007 March 2) suggest that recent erosion of human population structure might not be as important as previously thought, and overall genetic structure of human populations may not change with the immigration events and thus in the Azerbaijani case; the Azeris of Azerbaijan republic most of all genetically resemble to other Caucasian people like Armenians Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasusand people the Azerbaijan region of Iran to other Iranians Is urbanisation scrambling the genetic structure of human populations?--Alborz Fallah 10:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that so far no study has been made by any authoritative third party entity, and it is hard to judge the accuracy of the studies made so far. I tend to think that modern-day Azerbaijani people are mixture of many elements, Iranian being one of them. While Azerbaijanis are Turkic people because of the language they speak, they look different than Turkic people of Central Asia, but so do also Turks of Turkey. I restored the FA version because I think that in order to maintain the high standard of the article we need to get the original author of the article to evaluate the latest proposals and find an appropriate way of adding them. Otherwise the article would ba a complete mess with unrelated quotes all over the place. Someone needs to bring everything in order. Grandmaster 12:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Last genetic study Heredity. 2007 March; 98(3): 151–156., is from Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge. Don't know why do you consider it as an involved and not a reliable third party? And to ask what makes the other study reliable? And to ask did you understand the2004 The American Society of Human Genetics well or not?! That seems all of the genetic studies are saying one thing and that's the importance of local genes. All of the medical data about the genetics of the diseases also say the same thing, and also the genes of the Immune system and HLA typing. Let me ask did you understand the over-all concept of the study that you are mentioning or didn't you? As a medical doctor I think you didn't get the article right! I don't think the original author of the article didn't get it right either! I think you may change the text and don't discard the precious data.--Alborz Fallah 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here [5]I had a conversation with Hajji_Piruz about the role of immigrant genes vs. local gene treasure that is also about this article.--Alborz Fallah 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information by Grand Master

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)

The article was not improved, but completely messed up and is not up to FA standard anymore. If you indeed want to improve the article, contact the person who made it FA and get a consensus for proposed edits. Some claims included are simply ridiculous, such as the one that Azeris are not ethnically Turkic. Grandmaster 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How was the article not improved? The article was improved in the following ways: a)it was organized better, b)it presented the facts as they are, c)quotes were inserted, d)more information was added, plus, nothing was taken out from the previous version. FA's clearly state "If you can update or improve it, please do". The origins section is heavily sourced and reflect the opinions of the academic community as they are. The previous version was ridiculous with its "Turkic theory" section. I have never heard of such a thing...I have inserted quotes from Minorsky, Frye, Swietochowski, Xavier De Planhol, Iranica, Britannica, etc... all of which make it clear that the only Turkic connection is language, and that Azeris are of Iranian descent.Hajji Piruz 12:08, 26 June 2007

(UTC)

You can specifically talk about every reference and every sentences that you feel needs to be reviewed but you can not delete referenced information. Regarding your concerns about the introduction sentences of the origin section we can consider your concern. Here is my suggestion:

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)

Thanks for your proposal, but I think this one is better:

In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language.[35][36][37] However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification.

Hajji Piruz 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually need all those quotes there? Just make your point and support it with references. This is an article, not wikisource. I agree with your proposal, but with slight modification, i.e.: However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are most likely to be descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran prior to Turkification. My only changes were that I added the words "most likely", since it is one of the theories, but the one that has support of majority of scholars, and I deleted the word "respectively", as Azeris in Iranian Azerbaijan are descendants of Caucasian people as well, such as Mannae, and people in the North are partly descendants of Talysh, Tat and other Iranian people. As I said before, Azeris are people of mixed origin. So let's make the edit in the form proposed above and remove all the unnecessary quotes, it makes the article hard to read and looks unencyclopedic. You cannot see so many quotes in any other encyclopedia. Grandmaster 05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time Tombseye commented on this article, he said that quotes would be ok, which is why I have them in there. The quotes dont hurt anything. Also, "most likely" doesnt work, as a theory is not a theory when the majority of the scholarly community accepts it as a fact. For example, technically, in science, everything is a theory, but some things we consider facts because it is almost universally accepted.Hajji Piruz 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye never said that you should add all those quotes there. And Britannica has a different opinion on this, so you cannot present one view as a fact. Also, as I said, Iranian Azeris are also descendants of Caucasian people, while Northern Azeris are also descendants of Iranic people. So the word "respectively" should be deleted. Grandmaster 05:21, 28 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, thanks for your comment. What you have to understand is that the major historians in the field generally consider all Azeris to be of Iranian decsent. I took it upon myself to represent the Caucasian view point even though some of hte major scholars say that all Azeris are of Iranian descent, even though the ones north of the Aras river are predominantly of Caucasian descent. The Caucasian origin, as proven by genetic testing, applies mostly to the Azeris north of the Aras river.

Also, a minor Turkic admixture in a very small portion of the population means nothing. To mention that in any other section other than the Turkification section is a mistake and undue weight.

And the quotes are not there to point the finger at a certain view point, the quotes that are there are what the major scholarsly in the field think, its not mine or anyone elses fault that all agree on an pre-Turkic Iranian (and to a lesser extent Caucasian) origin for the Azeris. I'll shorten the quote section as per your request.

This is not my POV or my OR, its sourced heavily and includes quotes from some of the major scholars (in this subject) in the world, such as Minorsky and Frye.

What I cant believe is how this article ever got featured the way it was before, no offensive to the writers but proper research was not done previously.

Other additions we can make is a section on the Iranification of the people north of the Aras river. Due to the Alan and Scythian invasions of Caucasus Albania, the Caucasian speaking Albanians had become Iranian speaking, this should be mentioned in the article as well.

However, the people south of the Aras have always been predominantly Iranian.Hajji Piruz 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tombseye. Recent revision by Hajji Piruz seriously damaged the quality of the article, it looks amateurish and non-scholarly. The quotes are selected in such way as to promote only certain opinion, and are excessive in number. The article does not need more than 1 or 2 quotes. You don’t see whole section of quotes in other FA article, this is not Wikisource, this is a Wikipedia article. I suggest we roll the article back to the FA version and discuss any further additions or revisions before actually making them. Grandmaster 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we have a similar situation with POV editing on Iranian peoples article. That article also became a total mess, they inlcuded Azerbaijanis and Uzbeks as Iranian people and removed Hazaras. Also they inserted tons of OR and POV claims. I think FA status of that article should be revoked. --Grandmaster 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a few points Hajji. I'm not really disagreeing that the Azeris are largely derived from Iranic/Caucasian elements. What I'm saying is the manner in which it is presented appears skewed and sloppy. Why several quotes saying basically the same thing? One or two at the most is more than enough. The Caucasian elements may also be present further south (due to the Mannaeans and others) in both the Azeri and Persian populations (and I realize that Persians are as much a cultural group as an ethnic one and includes many assimilated peoples) as their presence is attested in history, but that's another matter. I put in the genetics stuff to enhance the article, not to make it the end all. As for the Albanians and other Caucasians, the elites possibly spoke Persian, but we have no real evidence that Persian was the majority language and that goes outside the parameters of this article anyway. If you want to discuss the Persian influence upon them (and other Caucasians), then you're best bet is to do so on that page with credible references.

As per GM's points, he is correct in that as a featured article, there has to be some perspective here in terms of presentation. When I wrote the FA, I did so with a lot of help, but the additions and changes were of an academic nature with BREVITY in mind. That means don't repeat things, keep the language clear, do not overemphasize that which the reader can clearly understand, etc. Just compare it to other FA articles (Pashtuns is the other ethnic group FA I wrote and see how that compares) and we can see how things should be done and how things are going here. For example, the Pashtuns are Eastern Iranian, but that point is not overemphasized to death because their "Iranianness" isn't the point, but rather the group as a whole. The Azeri links to the Iranians shouldn't be the main point of the article either, but rather the Azeris as a whole.

Lastly, the Iranian peoples article is indeed devolving fast. Too much nationalism and not enough objectivity. That article won't pass a FA review if it comes to that unfortunately. Too bad. It was the 1000th featured article which was cool and it allowed a lot of people to learn about the group, which is more or less linguistic as is the case with Germanic, Slavic, and Latin groups. Tombseye 14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have not been involved in the edit warring in the Iranian peoples article, whatever version it was, I tried to fix the errors (I will talk to you about this later).

Regarding the quotes, I already said that I wound, when the article is unlocked, rewrite those sections so that the quotes will not be necessary. Furthermore, the previous article was completely un-scholarly, no offense to you. It gave undue weight to the "Turkic theory", which is non-existent in the Western scholarly world. It also misrepresented the genetic testing material, as well as which Azeris were of which descent.

Tombseye, did you know that the term Azeri did not become an ethnic term till the 1930's? Did you know that the original term Azerbaijani was created in order to distinguish Turkic speakers of Iranian descent from other Turkic speakers? Did you know that historically the people on the opposite sides of the river have been two different people? Its things like that that the previous version did not consider.

This version, and again I am repeating myself, removed no information at all from the previous version, information was simply added and the information reorganized. I dont see how these quotes were "selected in order to convey a certain POV", this is what scholars themselves say, the major scholars in the field, this has to be accepted as fact, not as POV. Do you know who Frye and Minorsky (for example) are? I'm sure you do.

There is a difference when making an article for it to satisfy everyone, and making an article which presents the facts as they are. Do we put the facts first or the users?Hajji Piruz 16:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What Turkic theory? that was just the name of the section. In fact, the section clearly stated that it was most likely turkification that altered the region where Azerbaijan is today and not a replacement population of Central Asians. As for the genetics section, there was only 1 on the Azeris in the north that linked them more to the Caucasians and the south which linked them to the Persians (but did not preclude a link to the northerners). I'm not sure what you mean here as I worked with Ali Dostzadeh on that section extensively. As for modern usages and application of Azeris, that's not the issue here really. I know the main application was based on language and thus the term Turk was universally applied to Turkic speakers. As for differences from north to south, yes I am aware of the different populations that predominated geographically, but that's again not really what we're talking about here. The two groups are, in the modern context, called Azerbaijanis and are linked by a language that both groups speak and understand and, for the most part, they do identify with each other. That's really all the criteria we need to establish them as an ethnic group. I made no point about POV, but an overemphasis does exist that states over and over again how Iranian the Azeris are. Is that really necessary? There was nothing wrong with the previous version as we all agreed to it (including Iranians, Azeris, people from all over who looked at it and critiqued it). I am okay with changing the title on Turkic theory to Turkification as that is what the section explained happened (I'm not sure why you think there as an emphasis upon the Turkic replacement theory as I don't recall anything even remotely like that. The Iranian peoples issue is another matter and that was something I was responding to Grandmaster about so no problem there. Tombseye 18:41, 11 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)

Okay sounds fine but, again, no one here is saying that the Azeris aren't largely descended from locals, but there was likely SOME Turkic admixture that was higher than that of the Persians and Armenians etc. The genetic tests of the northern Azeris confirm some small Turkic admixture, which probably can be found further south. It is likely small (10% is perhaps possible). Aside from that, the Azeris are considered a Turkic people and not one of the Iranian peoples b/c they don't speak an Iranian language. Third, I took the liberty of redoing the sections as to how they should look, again, with brevity and clarity in mind. Two quotes at the top with the Origins section that explain the varied origins of the Azeris and turkification (one of which was there before) AND I say we get rid of the multitude of quotes that follow. I instead put TWO quotes under the Iranian origin section. Now that's plenty and explains fully the situation. The highlighting and reiteration of Azari will be reduced to one or two instances as that is plenty to indicate the group as well. And that's it. Here is a rough sketch of what it will look like when we can edit the page again:

Generally, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their usage of a Turkic language.[35][36][37] However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are descendants of the Caucasian and Iranic peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica:

The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries.[48]

Historian Vladimir Minorsky explains the changes that took place as the local population Iranian and Caucasian population came under the influence of Turkic tribes:

In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the G̲h̲uzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azarbaijan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Azarbaijan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone.[42]

Turkification

Main article: Turkification

Although, "Turkic penetration probably began in the Hunnic era and its aftermath," there is little evidence to indicate, "permanent settlements".[36] The earliest major Turkic incursion began with Mahmud of Ghazni (971-1040) and accelerated during the Seljuk period. 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. By the Safavid period, the Turkification of Azerbaijan continued with the influence of the Kizilbash. The very name Azerbaijan is derived from the pre-Turkic name of the province, Azarbayjan or Adarbayjan, and illustrates a gradual language shift that took place as local place names survived Turkification, albeit in altered form.[38]

Most academics view this migration as the most likely source of a Turkic background, but one that it most likely involved the linguistic Turkification of predominantly non-Turkic-speaking indigenous peoples.[17][18]

Iranian origin

Main article: Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis

The Iranian origins of the Azeris likely derived from ancient Iranic tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azarbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the eighth century BCE. It is believed that the Medes mixed with an indigenous population, the Caucasian Mannai, a Northeast Caucasian group related to the Urartians.[53] Ancient accounts attest to an Iranian presence in the region:

Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Masudi(896-956), the Arab historian states that the regions of Iranian Azerbaijan and Aran were inhabited by Persians:

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.[41]

In addition, some academics see cultural similarities between modern Persians and Azeris as evidence of an ancient Iranian influence.[54] Archaeological evidence indicates that the Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism was prominent throughout the Caucasus before Christianity and Islam and that the influence of various Persian Empires added to the Iranian character of the area.[55] It has also been hypothesized that the population of Iranian Azarbaijan was predominantly Persian-speaking before the Oghuz arrived. This claim is supported by the many Azerbaijani literary figures, such as Qatran Tabrizi, Shams Tabrizi, Nezami, and Khaghani, who wrote in Persian prior to and during the Oghuz migration, as well as by Strabo, Al-Istakhri, and Al-Masudi, who all describe the language of the region as Persian. The claim is mentioned by other medieval historians, such as Al-Muqaddasi.[56][38] Other common Perso-Azeribaijani features include Iranian place names such as Tabriz[57] and the name Azerbaijan itself.

The modern presence of the Iranian Talysh and Tats in Azerbaijan is further evidence of the former Iranian character of the region.[58][59] Encyclopaedia Iranica also states:

The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region.[52]

As a precursor to the modern population of the region, the ancient Azaris are hypothesized as the main ancestors of the modern Azerbaijanis.

Tombseye 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks a lot better. If everyone involved promises to refrain from edit warring and introduction of changes not based on consensus, we can ask for unprotection of the article and we can also ask Tombseye to be so kind as to fix the article based on consensus we have on talk. --Grandmaster 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye, this way I cannot tell exactly what changes you made, please create a /section.Hajji Piruz 13:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the article is unlocked, it'll be easier to show you what I mean. Basically, the top is the opening before Turkification. Then it's the Turkification section and then the Iranian origins section. What I want to do is get rid of the historical accounts section as it is too long and just says the same things over and over again. Instead I took four of the quotes and put two at the beginning and two in the Iranian origin section. The rest we get rid of. I rewrote some of the sentences for clarity and brevity and that's it. Tombseye 17:23, 13 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)

I'm okay with putting the Britannica quote in the Caucasian section then. As for notable scholars and sources and genetic testing, that's pretty pointless and redundant (again saying that many Azeris have an Iranian background, which we've already done). The genetic tests are in the initial phases and are meant to shed some initial light on the background of the local populations, not to be the end all. Tombseye 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Britannica quote is not just about Caucasian origin, in fact it states that Azeris are of mixed origin, which includes Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic elements. I think it would be fine to have quotes representing different views in one section, so that the reader could make his own judgement. --Grandmaster 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it belongs in the Caucasian section. Tombseye, I think just moving the quotes in the Iranic and Caucasian sections is good enough, no need to remove that fact that most experts in the field consider Azeris to be of Iranian descent.Hajji Piruz 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as a compromise we can put the quote in the Caucasian section, but we do need to remove the most experts statement. It's pointless and redundant as we are making a judgment call. The article already explains things so it's superfluous and adds nothing to the article other than to say the same thing again. Tombseye 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well atleast we can say which scholars support the theory. Also, the literary figures could not have been Azerbaijani 1000 years ago...they were Persian literary figures anyway, they didnt even write in Azerbaijani.Hajji Piruz 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, that requires making a judgement call which we are not in a position to do. We don't know if most academics support the theory and even if they do it does not mean that the Azeris were all or mostly Iranian, whatever that means at this point. They more than likely have some Turkic ancestry and Caucasian as well so simply making some blanket statement is foolish. The article is fine the way it is without us editorializing or supporting a theory. the article explains everything and readers can decide for themselves. Tombseye 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We can name the scholars.Hajji Piruz 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye, instead of presenting the facts as they are, you are trying to satisfy different positions. There will always be people who do not agree with the facts, this does not mean the facts should be changed in order to please that other person. I know you are trying your best, but there is a point where facts should not be sacrificed in order to satisfy a fringe point of view, such as a "Turkic theory" which was present in the article prior to it being corrected. I respect you and your opinion, you have always been understanding, and I hope we can come to some sort of conclusion, as long as the facts are presented.

Is Iranica less encyclopedic then Wikipedia because it clearly states the origin of Azeris? Is Britannica less encyclopedic because it clearly states the origin of Azeris?

The fact is that Azeris are descendent's of Caucasians and Iranics, not "believed to be primarily". At what point do we present facts as facts. You dont say that "the world is primarily believed to be round". There are those who believe that the Earth is indeed flat and there are thousands who believe this or consider its possibility. There are also those who say that the Holocaust never happened yet does the Holocaust article say "the holocaust is primarily believed to have happened"?

It should be made clear what the leading scholars believe, and it should also be made clear what the populations of these regions were before the arrival of Turkic armies. For example, the quotes about the population of Azerbaijan (Iran) being Persians is highly valuable information.Hajji Piruz 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

to Ibrahimov

Azeri language is not banned in Iran and is thought at university level. There are university level courses in Azeri and magazine, books, music, TV, radio and etc. are published. It is just not an official language.--Pejman47 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Turks in Arabic armies

• Ethnic Turks were not part of the army that attacked the Sassanids. They started their service in Iraq during Ummayad/Abbasid times. al-Wathiq, al-Mutawakkil, and al-Muntasir as it has been said in Tabari's history where Caliphis a long time after Sasanid-Muslim wars . That's also true about history of masoudi written by Bayhaghi about the Turks in Mu'tasim era . --Alborz Fallah 13:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

that paragraph or chapter is not just about attack on Sassanids, but the entire Arab period, which makes my edits valid. Turkic people's presence in Caucasus predated Oghuz influx, another important point. References provided give many examples. More from Persian historian and Georgian encyclopaedia - "The successive waves of Turkish migration from the steppe grasslands of Inner Asia to the settled regions of Anatolia and the Irano-Mesopotamian plateaus began in the ninth century, when Turkish slaves were recruited in order to create a new a military elite order, loyal to the Byzantine and the early Caliphate state." Babak Rahimi. Between Chieftaincy and Knighthood: A Comparative Study of the Safavid and the Ottoman Origins. Thesis Eleven, Number 76, February 2004: 85–102, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi). "In 627 Tbilisi was invaded and destroyed by Byzantine and Turk hordes; in 736-738s - Arab military leader Marvan II Ibn Mohammed invaded the city. The Arab invasion had dire results for Tbilisi which in the thirties of the 8th century became the residence of the Arab emir. In 764 Tbilisi was sacked by nomad Turks. In 853 in order to strengthen the caliph rule in Tbilisi the city was invaded by Arab military leader - Buga Turk." O. Tkeshelashvili, G. Kacharava. Historic background. Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979, http://www.ceroi.net/reports/tbilisi/background/history.htm Eloghlu 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have your dates mixed up, what you're talking about is the 8th and 9th centuries during the Abbassid era and not the attack on Sassanid Iran. The Khazar events your talking about never resulted in Turkic settlement in the Southern Caucasus region. Peter Golden states:

Turkic peneration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer , placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol( Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan( Arran , the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran (derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran . This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

Also, dont use Azerbaijani historians as sources, only neutral third party reliable sources please.Hajji Piruz 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You got many things wrong: there is no rule against Azerbaijani historians as a source, but I don't use them. I said very clearly that the paragraph and chapter in question is not about Sassanids, but Arab conquest in general, hence the issue of Turks being a major part of Arab armies is relevant. Be kind do not delete the large number of sources I provided. Thanks. Eloghlu 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I did my best and did not delete any source that you mentioned ... I only changed the paragraph!
Geographicaly speaking, the Khazar's border was north of the Daghestani region and the Turkik tribes of central Asia appear in Islamic history many years after the Arab-Sasanid wars. "Ninth century" as you yourself have mentioned,is far after 636 CE that was the last year of Sasanids. --Alborz Fallah 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an undisputed fact that were no Turks in Omar or Osman's armies, the Turks started entering the Arab army almost a century later, please don't misrepresent sources. AlexanderPar 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

is it really an "undisputed fact" as claimed? Not only were Turks present widely in the Caucasus before the Arab invasion, such as Khazars, Huns, Sabirs, but they were even in Sassanid army and court as stated by professor Richard Frye and Sayili "There are some reports of interest concerning the relations between the Turks and the Sasanians. There were Turkish soldiers in the army of Bahram Chubin, Persian general and usurper of the throne, whose most prominent bodyguards were three Turks, and Khusraw II Parwiz (590-628), after his defeat by Bahram, fled into Byzantine territory pursued by Turkish and Kabul cavalry. The Byzantine emperor Maurice agreed to aid Parwiz regain his throne. In the ensuing battle by the Zab river, a tributary of the Tigris, Bahrbm was defeated. Khusraw put to death many prisoners whom he captured from Bahram's army, but spared the Turks because some of them bore the sign of the cross on their foreheads. This was done apparently out of respect to the religion of his ally." Richard N. Frye; Aydin M. Sayili. Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1943), p 204. Also Turks were prominent and numerous in Arab army already in the days of founding of Sammarra (circa 835) but also lived in Baghdad and Damascus. Which means they came to Arab army much earlier.

"..the Abbasid armies had beyond doubt Turkish elements within their ranks long before the time of Mu'tasim. From the time of Mansur one encounters references to individuals described as Turks, in 'Iraq and elsewhere." *21

• 21 Thaalibi, Lataif, 15; Jahshiyari, Wuzara, 134; Ibn al-Faqih, Buldan, 282; Ibn Badrun, Sharh, 292. Thaalibi and Ibn Badrun state that it was Mansur who first introduced Turks into the service of the 'Abbasid state.

Osman S. A. Ismail. Mu'tasim and the Turks. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 29, No. 1. (1966), p 15.

The history of Samarra, the third/ninth century 'Abbasid capital, is inextricably linked to the encroachment of a Turkish military elite upon the authority of the caliphate. The officers in question emerged from the ranks of the Turkish slave guard formed by the 'Abbasid prince Abu Ishaq ibn Harun al-Rashid (al-Mutasim) early in the reign of al-Ma'mun (r. 198-218/813-833). The guard was established probably around 200/815-816, so roughly twenty years prior to the foundation of Samarra early in al-Mu'tasim's own reign (218-227/833-842).) Matthew S. Gordon. The Turkish Officers of Samarra: Revenue and the Exercise of Authority. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 42, No. 4. (1999), p 466.

Baghdad thus came to the conclusion that it was better off without Mu'tasim and his Turks. For Mu'tasim there were equally important reasons which necessitated the move from Baghdad. p 4

Nevertheless, it did affect the unity and esprit de corps within each group and explains the rivalry that developed later, within the dominant group of the Turks, and thereby threatened the stability of the succession to the Caliphate. More significant was the fact that Mu'tasim made it a clear-cut policy that each group was to marry only within its own ethnic community. p 9

Osman S. A. Ismail. The Founding of a New Capital: Samarra. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31, No. 1. (1968), pp. 1-13.

We can rewrite the paragraph in the article to make unconfusing. Turks were present in Sassanid and Arab armies, and lived in Caucasian Albania and north of it in the time of Arab conquest in 7-8 centuries. --Eloghlu 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Romans used Germans in the Middle East as well. Arabs used Slavs, Berbers, and Turks. Khazars, Huns and others intruded but none of these point to a permanent Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan or Caucasian Albania. These sort of mercenary soldiers were used by different armies, but their numbers were not significant relative to local soldiers. What your doing is called OR. Your trying to imply something based on what sources say about the Arab armies which is not its intent.Hajji Piruz 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted deletion of a whole section from the article by User:PashtaJ, which is a very suspicious account and appears to be created to edit this article. He deleted info from this article 4 minutes after he created himself an account. --Grandmaster 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

russification

ok from expierence i know that azeris are highly russified, why isnt this covered? why is "Azeris" only writen in latin leters and persian, but not russian? they were apart of the soviet union as much as kazakstan or ukraine was. i am russian, but i know azeris, and many of which would even say they are from southern russia, not northern iran. simply because of the ambiguity surounding that region (in the united states)

see WP:NOR.--Pejman47 10:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear similar things about Azeris, but we'd need some sources to corroborate. Otherwise, there's no point in adding the russification, which is obvious in cities like Baku. Tombseye 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Template

{{editprotected}} Just wanted to ask somebody to add this navigation template: {{Ethnic groups in Iran}} S I A M A X 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; done. - auburnpilot talk 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version

The article looks a lot better now. But still there are redundant quotes that serve no purpose. They could be replaced by a couple of simple statements. I’m talking about these quotes:

On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Indeed the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred domination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective.[35]

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.

The number of quotes should be minimized, and the quotes should only illustrate some important position or point. Grandmaster 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan/Arran

Hajji Piruz, you're taking references out of context and inserting essentially original research. Saying: "Inhabitants of Republic of Azerbaijan were known as Arranians" is ridiculous, because the ethnolinguistic makeup of Azerbaijan changed throughout history many times before becoming primarily Turkic now. How can you concentrate on specific period? For example, population of Iran was known as Zoroastrians, Elamites, or even Arabs. Should we just call Iranians as Elamites or Arabs now? Atabek 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly an original research. Arranian means Caucasian Albanian, they played a significant role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, but were not identical to modern day Azerbaijanis. Grandmaster 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no original research. The inhabitants of what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan, according to those sources shown, were Arranis, Arranians, or Arranian speakers (in the west this was known as Albanian, but those sources are middle eastern sources, which used the term Arran, Arrani, etc...).

Zoroastrianism is a religion, not the name of a people. The Elamites were an indeginous people of southern Iran who were incorporated into the arriving Aryan tribes. We are focusing on a select period of time of what the people of the region were referred to as prior to being Turkified.

Iranian is not a race in the context you put it, its a nationality, and Iranian encorporates people of many different backgrounds, colors, and religious beliefs. Therefore, how can all Iranians be descendent's of one source as you claim?

The term Azeri is a modern invention. The extra information on what the people of the region were called prior to Turkificaiton is important and relevant to that section. The difference here with Azeris as opposed to other ethnic groups is that Azeri is a new name, one that was not generally used before the Russians made it popular, therefore, the names used prior to the 19th century are highly relevant.

The only original research is the one I continuously see coming from Grandmaster and yourself, yet you two are always the first to accuse others. Assume good faith, do not interpret sources, do not remove sourced information.

Hajji Piruz 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arranians/Albanians are not identical to modern day Azerbaijani people. This article is about Azerbaijani people, not Caucasian Albanians. Please do not add your personal interpretations to the article. --Grandmaster 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the Azeris of the Republic of Azerbaijan are descendents of the Arranis. The term Azeri is a relatively new term, not a historical one. The term Azeri has only recently become an ethnic term. prior to the Soviet era, the term Azeri was nothing more than a descriptive term to distinguish Turkic speakers of Iranian descent from other Turkic speakers.

What do you think that the people of the present day Republic of Azerbaijan were called before the term Azeri was invented?Hajji Piruz 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They were called Turks or Kizilbash. Arrani was never used as an ethnic denomination of Azerbaijani people. --Grandmaster 05:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying "Azerbaijani people" as if it is a historical term. "Azerbaijani people" did not exist a century ago. Azerbaijani is simply a name. Infact, the only historical usage of the term Azari or Azarbaijani is in reference to Iranian Azeris, not the people above the Aras.Hajji Piruz 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

People did exist, the ethnonym is relatively new. This is what the section says and it is accurate. Grandmaster 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good so now you admit that people did exist that were called by a different name. So why engage in removing information that you yourself just admitted is correct?Hajji Piruz 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, FYI, the term Azerbaijani people was used with regards to Azeris, including those in the Caucasus, back in the 19th century by archaelogist and historian Ernest Chantre. And I believe, that's mentioned in the article. Parishan 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I said that the term was invented in the 19th century.Hajji Piruz 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Pejman47, why did you remove the image? Can you name me one reason why you think there's something wrong with it? Parishan 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

nothing at all wrong, even it is a good pic!

read Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Anon, in which a collage of pictures were proposed. Grandmaster insisted on 50%-50% quota from Iran and the republic, while I insisted it must be according to the population weight at least 70%-30%. the current picture, just shows Azaris from the republic which I think is a POV.

In anyway, the picture is good and is in public domain. So, I am OK if you put it back. regards. --Pejman47 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a nice picture showing girls in national costume dancing. People in national costume look the same both in North and South Azerbaijan. I think it is the best choice, as we failed to achieve a compromise on collage. --Grandmaster 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis

40,5 million Azerbaijanis live across the world http://www.ans.az/nid24835.html --Baki66 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

take a look at WP:RS--Pejman47 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnonym

• Hello. Do not remove sourced information. That is what the primary sources from the time period state and the editors should not interpret them. This is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I am reinserting the accurate information.Next time please discuss issues instead of simply removing information from articles.--Alborz Fallah 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed original research of Hajji Piruz. Sources do not support what he claims. Arranians/Caucasian Albanians are not identical to modern-day Azerbaijanis. Please discuss the changes before making them, this is FA article and should not contain any original research. Grandmaster 05:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

anomymous editor

pls. provide sources for your claim. pls. get acquainted with Wiki rules related to original research. You have inserted information recently which was not backed by references.--Dacy69 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinsertion of information

• I reinserted the missing information in section "Ethnonym". Don't know who deleted them ,but please abide by WP:NOR. There is no basis for his/ her deletion of information and there is no evidence to support deletion. Thanks!--Alborz Fallah 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alborz, the Russian text of references does not say that inhabitants were Arranis, or moreover, never says such a thing that they spoke Arrani. These only talk about regions of Arran, Aderbaijan and Armenia as cited by Arab geographers, and list cities in each one of them. The fact that cities of Urmiya and Sanandaj are listed as Armenia, while Tiflis is listed as a city in Arran, actually makes their position questionnable from historical standpoint, but nevertheless, I included all three references and modified the text to remove OR. Thanks. Atabek 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this with Tombseye. This section created by Hajji Piruz is clearly an OR. Grandmaster 10:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading the text of the references to Arab geographers, this fragment is probably more relevant on Azerbaijan, Caucasian Albania and Arran pages, rather than this one about Azerbaijani people. The references don't talk much about ethnic composition but about geographical regions. Atabek 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff is absolutely irrelevant and should be removed. Hajji Piruz, please reach consensus on talk before making controversial edits to FA article. Grandmaster 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well , I couldn't find the Russian text . But anyway the Muqadasi's original text in Arabic:

/لیدن/(1906)/259و375و378احسن التقاسیم فی معرفه الاقالیم/شمس الدین ابوعبدالله محمدبن احمدالمقدسی

talks about a language and not only geography . Also Estakhri says: و لسان اذربیجان و ارمینیه و الران الفارسیه و العربیه غیران اهل دبیل و حوالیها:( the language of Azerbaijan and Armenia and Arran is Arabic and Persian except the Dabil(?) and suburb )
More than that , the britannica is also missing (about beginning to speak Turkic language and ethnicity ....)--Alborz Fallah 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put your own interpretation on sources. We have yet to see any evidence presented by Atabek or Grandmaster. Information cannot simply be removed for no reason. Arran had a people (Arranis) and a language (Arranian).Hajji Piruz 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this information is relevant and can be used at the Arran page, after being cross-checked and verified by third-party sources. --Aynabend 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the language of Caucasian Albanians has nothing to do with the language of modern Azerbaijani people. I see no relevance here. However this info is relevant to the article about Caucasian Albania and Arran, as Aynabend already stated. Grandmaster 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The section's name is Ethnonym. Don't you think we have to discuss about the language and ethnical background of the a name that is now an umbrella for many ethnic groups?
  "As language changes, ethnonyms which were at one time acceptable become offensive"
  -(from the text on Ethnonym). --Alborz Fallah 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you do not use the data and information of 19th-20th century, to judge the ethnonym and language of 4th century BC - 6th century AC. --Aynabend 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, once again, information is being removed based on users personal claims. Please refer to and go over the proper Wikipedia policies and rules. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 15:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but how is Arran the sole ethnonym here? For example, the Armenians had a different term, according to Iranica, "The Armenian term for this land was A¬vank¿ or R˜aneak." What's more, again from Iranica: "The Greeks knew the people as Albanoi, and the Georgians knew them as Rani, a form taken over in an arabized form for the early Islamic geographical term al-Ra@n (pronounced ar-Ra@n). Early Arra@n seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times..." This is from the Arran article from Iranica by the way so it's specific. I'm not sure how this relates to the Azeris. We would then also list them as Albanians or Albanoi if we are talking ethnonym usages, but ultimately we are talking about a dead language and people. I don't see its relevance as part of an ethnonym section really. Tombseye 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The same POV is being added to the articles Arranis and Shirvanis. Piruz claims that those were ethnonyms used before the term "Azerbaijani" was adopted, citing no sources to support this claim. People known to Arabs and Persians as Arranis were Caucasian Albanians, people who do not exist anymore. And Shirvanis are simply people living in Shirvan, to this day people from Shirvan are called Shirvanli, and it is not an ethnonym, it is a regional denomination. Albanians are not identical to modern day Azeris, they spoke a different language, and while Azeris can be considered to be descendants of Albanians, they are not the same people. This is an FA article, so any original research should be kept out of it, same as any other Wikipedia article. --Grandmaster 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes true GM. OK great, so I move that we remove this section. It adds really nothing to the article and will probably confuse people more than anything else.Tombseye 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section should be either restored to the original version or removed. Grandmaster 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• "People known to Arabs and Persians as Arranis were Caucasian Albanians, people who do not exist anymore. "
  Why they do not exist anymore?!
  Can you please explain more about this catastrophy? If there is no evidence that shows they were vanished, then the only possible option that remains is the Piruz's notorious claim : "those ethnonyms used before the term "Azerbaijani" was adopted" !--Alborz Fallah 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The only remnant of Caucasian Albanians are people called udis. Azerbaijanis are descendants of Albanians, but they are not Albanians, because they speak a different language. You cannot equate Azerbaijanis and Albanians, same as you cannot equate Romans and Italians. Grandmaster 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a good answer. It shows the difference of our point of views .As now I can understand; you consider the ethnicity to be exactly equal to the language. We consider the ethnicity to be a mixture of race and cultural entities (including language): Indeed, in our view, not only the Italians and Romans are historically equated, but also the Ottoman Turks has been called in Iranian culture as RUMI (Roman)...--Alborz Fallah 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But we are talking about scientific approach, right? I don’t think any reliable scholarly source equates ancient people with modern ones, and I have not seen any source to support that claim. Also see Tombseye’s opinion above. I suggest we restore the original etymology section that was part of FA article, as Piruz’s edits have no consensus. --Grandmaster 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the original text of Ethnonym section per above discussion with Tombseye. Anyone wishing to make a major rewrite needs to seek a consensus with other editors on talk of this article. Remember that it is an FA article and we need to preserve its quality. Grandmaster 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It simply states what the inhabitants of the southern Caucasus were referred to as prior to the term Azerbaijani was introduced. The term Arrani was the middle eastern term for the inhabitants of the regoin, as well as also Tartar (Russian). Tombseye has got his time periods mixed up. THe term Caucasus ALbanian fell out of usage after the ancient period came to an end, and the term was only used when referring the the ancient period in European texts. Caucasus ALbanian does not mean anything when talking about the Islamic period.Hajji Piruz 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Piruz, get consensus for your edits before including them into the article. You are engaging in OR again. Grandmaster 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky quote

The quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam is not correct. Someone has deleted the last part of it. The original text goes:

In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the Ghuzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azarbaijan. In consequence, 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.

I added it in, thanks for bringing that to our attention.Hajji Piruz 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why everyone and everything is wrong but you are right with your "Everything was Persian" dogmas? Can you explain?--Aynabend 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote is from a well known academician. Please do not react unresonable ...--Alborz Fallah 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Minoresky does not provide any reason for his openion other than "disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin" which is utterly wrong. Anyone with bigginers level of Azerbaijani language would know that vocal harmony is the base of Azerbaijani gramer, as it is for the rest of Turkic languages.--Mehrdad 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Doefer and Planhol say the same thing. There is a difference between spoken Azerbaijani language (which reflects turkified villages) and the current academic standard Azerbaijani (which had a lot of input from linguists). The issue is similar to standard Anatolian Turkish which lacks Q (probably due to Greek influence), but you can find it in some of its dialect. --alidoostzadeh 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient people

hello peoples I dont think we should add Caucasian Albanians to the Azeri people article since it implies that Azeris were Caucasian Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isfaner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. Caucasian Albanians were original inhabitants of the region, who played important role in ethnogesis of Azerbaijani people, therefore their inclusion is justified. Nowhere it is said that Azeris and Albanians are the same people. Grandmaster 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For Tombseye

The term Caucasus Albanian

The term Caucasus Albanian is a term used only in the ancient context, when talking about Albania, and only in the West. After the ancient period, the term Caucasus ALbanian was not used for the name of the people and the term Caucasus Albania fell out of usage.

The information you are citing is about the ancient period, right now, we are talking about the 18th and 19th centuries, a time when only the terms Arrani and Shirvani were used to refer to the people (Russians used Tartar). See below for more information on the Arranian language and Arranis.

Infact, Caucasian Albanians, like you cited yourself, have no connection to modern Azeris as they were made up of many different peoples, and were not one ethnic group. The article Arranis, which was wrongly moved to Caucasian Albanians, should be removed to its original title, as Caucasus Albanian refers completely to a different time period and group of people than Arranis. I would also like you to take a look at that issue.

You made that confusion yourself, as Arabic sources talk about Albanians, referring to them as Arranians (see article about Arran in Iranica). Tadeusz Swietochowski talks about Azerbaijani people, referring to them by their regional affiliation, i.e. Azeris from Shirvan as Shirvanis, Azeris from Arran as Arrani. But Shirvani/Arrani is not used by Swietochowski as an ethnonym, it is only a reference to the people from a certain region. You are making an OR here by synthesis of published material as described here: WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position --Grandmaster 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrani and Arranian

Here are direct reference to the language of the Arranis (prior to Turkification, and note, they were not Armenians, but a seperate people who spoke a separate language). NOte that Grandmaster himself initially posted this very evidence in a discussion with the Armenians, using it to show that Armenians did Armenify the region, and now he refuses to acknowledge the very same evidence:

Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:

В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [7]

In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.

Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:

Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [8]

Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.

Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:

Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [9]

In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.

From the Western scholar Swietochowski:

The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)

Now please, ask Grandmaster for his sources and ask him to support his claims. Honestly, am I the one committing OR when I am the only one presenting sources to support my claims?! I have a quote from Swietochowski which directly links the term Arrani with the Azerbaijani speakers.

For correctness, its highly important to also mention that the terms Arrani and Shirvani were also used, and this is all I did: [10]

Look at the information removed, all I did was simply state that they were also called Arranis.Hajji Piruz 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted my response at EI C's talk, but since the same sources are posted here, I post my reply here as well.

Piruz, here we see again how you mix up ancient Caucasian Albanians with modern day Azerbaijanis. The Arranians mentioned by Arab chronicles were Caucasian Albanians. See the article about Arran from encyclopedia Iranica:

Early Arran seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Ranya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century). [11]

Bosworth mentions all 3 sources quoted by you and says that they speak about ancient Albanians. Now Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:

The Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russian-held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes even by the medieval name Arranis, differed from their ethnic siblings south of the Turkmanchai border in one essential respect: a large proportion belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam.

Albanians were not Turkic-speaking, so we are talking about Azerbaijanis, whose only difference from their ethnic siblings in the south was that there were many Sunnis among them. Shirvani/Arrani/Nakhichevani/Tabrizi, etc was only the regional denomination of Turkic people, i.e. Azeris. Such confusion in terms does not justify edits you make to a number of articles. We should distinguish between ancient people and more recent Turkic-speakers, who despite being descendants of Albanians were still a distinct people with a different language. Since this article is about Azerbaijani people, Albanians can only be mentioned in a historical context as people who played an important role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, but you cannot mix the two. Grandmaster 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you leave out the fact that Arran is also the alternative name for Caucasus Albania. Once again, I will have to point out that in the Arran article of Iranica, the section you point out is talking about the Ancient period, as evident by the use of Strabo as a source in that context. The Arranis we are referring to here are the Turkified Arranis of the 18th and 19th century, not the Arranis of pre-Islamic ancient times.

Your last paragraph is all OR, and is unacceptable. Either debate with facts and sources or do not object to the insertion of sourced material.

Also, for the record, "Tabrizi" is not a regional name. In Iran, last names were not introduced until the 20th century, therefore, to indentify people, they would put the city name after the first name. This was also common in Europe as well.

Arrani is completely different.

Again, we are waiting for your sources to disprove the above, not your original research. I'll be back later to continue this discussion.Hajji Piruz 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that we talk about "Turkified Arranis of the 18th and 19th century", in that case what Arabic sources of the 10th century have to do with it? As for Tabrizi, Shirvani, etc, there are many poets with the last name of Shirvani, it is a reference to the region they hailed from. But Shirvani was not an ethnonym. If it so, show me a source that says "Shirvani is an ethnonym". Grandmaster 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be good to hear the third party opinion once again. Tombseye already commented on this issue, but I would appreciate if he could comment once again. Grandmaster 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't respond sooner, but I didn't see a response for a few days and saw that the article was OK, so I figured everything was fine. I think the problem is the relevance here. Who still refers to Azeris as Arranis or Albanians for that matter? The people in that region are so mixed up it would be silly to apply ethnonyms that have no modern usage. What's more which reference books and encyclopedias have taken this route of applying the ethnonym of Arranis to the Azeris? Not Iranica obviously. First and foremost this addition bloats the article for reasons I can't figure out (brevity and relevance). Secondly, for this article, any discussion should be, briefly, about the origins of the term Azerbaijan, which is already rendered and alternative names for its inhabitants which is also done. And again, no one calls Azeris Arranis today and haven't done so for a long time. Why are we adding this in the first place? Tombseye 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)