Talk:Azerbaijani people/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive of past discussions from Talk:Azerbaijani people.

Its contents should be preserved in their current form.

Please do not make new edits to this page.

If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the Talk:Azerbaijani people page.

Contents

[edit] The Name Azeri Turk Should be taken out

It is a label that is not used by the majority of Azaris and if certain users want it to remain, make a fact at pointing out that only a few in the Republic of Azarbaijan go by that label and that they are only (15-20%) of the Azari population. The Republic of Azarbaijan and Iran are one heart and spirit cut into two bodies by foreigners 72.57.230.179 03:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the name Azeri or Azerbaijani is more correct and is internationally accepted, Azeri Turks is also one of the popular names used especially to identify Azeri people before 20th century, so it should remain. Grandmaster 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, your last statement here is nothing but propaganda. Azeri Turk is a definition of ethnic affiliation of Azerbaijanis - it was used as opposed to Ottoman Turks, or say Uzbeq Turks etc. THis should remain. abdulnr 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with the facts relating the Azeris to the Persians. (it's just wrong)

Well your personal feelings and emotions are not what varifies things. Also please sign user:Baku87. I know you know how to sign your posts. 72.57.230.179 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] None of the Azaris in Iran call themselves Azari Turks

The Azaris in Iran call themselves Azri not Azari Turk. This should be pointed out since they are 75-80% of the worlds Azari population. There should also beanother picture of an Iranian Azri. 72.57.230.179 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add More Azaris From Iran in the Pictures

The pictures are grossly unfair and need more Iranian represntation 72.57.230.179 06:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


We have Ismail Khatai I - is he not Iranian :)? abdulnr 00:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only one, that is my point. When there is three from the north. This is unfiar. When pictures of many prominent Azaris from Iran that are more familiar internationally than the northern ones were displayed they were arrased in the past. When the Azari's of Iran are 75-80% of the Azari poulation. This is very unrepresentative and biased. 72.57.230.179 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Intro

I added the fact that the Azari of the south ern areas refer to themselves as Azari and Iranian while those of the northern areas refer to themselves as Azeri and Turkic. 72.57.230.179 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't. I've been to Iran and see people from South very often in Baku. They call themselves Azeri or Turk. And of course every Iranian citizen calls himself Iranian, and every Canadian citizen calls himself Canadian. Grandmaster 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No actually you are dead wrong. The majority in the south as you have even admitted in the past view themselves as ethnicllly Iranian. Maybe you should go through the discussion history and see what you yourself have stated. The fact is the population in the south identifies itself as Iranian (not just as national title, but ethnically). LIKE I SAID YOU HAVE YOURSELF CONCEDED THIS. Do not do an about face to pass POV. The fact also is the population in the south says AZari and not Azeri. This is difference in dialect. Do not try an monopolize this article with a northern perspective. You have to give the southern (majority) perpestive and definition(s) ground.

Maybe you should spend more time at the University of Ottawa! That is an inside joke.

72.57.230.179 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that many people in Iran use Azari instead of Azeri, but I think we can come to some compromise. Grandmaster, what specific parts to you object to? I was talking with some anon about this awhile ago, Iranian Azeris are pretty much divided between Iranian nationalists and separatists. —Khoikhoi 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not people, it is the Azari population in Iran that refers to itself as Azari. This is not a non-Azari term. It is a term used inclusivly by the Azaris of Iran them,selvves. And I know user:Zereshk has explained this to you clearly in the past user:Khoikoi. Additionally I and other editors have compromised a lot on the Azari articles. This is a crucial information to outsiders about the Azari people. They should know for what reasons the terms Azari and Azeri are used. 72.57.230.179 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that user:Grandmaster as also conceded the fact that the population in the south does view itself as Iranian. He has even stated this, even though he has given reasons saying he does not agree with the majorities beleifs, but this does not change the fact that the southern population strongly identifies itself as Iranian. 72.57.230.179 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything like that, stop spreading misinfo. Azeris of Iran are Iranian citizens, but Turkic people, it's a known fact. Grandmaster 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright let me show you your own statements. 72.57.230.179 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's pointless. How about us trying to come to a compromise? —Khoikhoi 20:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I am waiting to see what Granmaster proposes. I am all ears and willing to have a fair an just compromise. For the sake of the Wiki community and the atmosphere of good will I advise Grandmaster to do the same. 72.57.230.179 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Khoikhoi, thanks for joining. I never heard anyone spelling the name as Azari. In fact, Azeris of Iran often refer to themselves as Turks, I heard that myself. I object to this edit, because it is very poorly written and not encyclopedic. The intro includes all possible spellings, there’s absolutely no need in this new edit, it adds absolutely nothing and is not verifiable. I mean, how can you say that all Azeris of Iran refer to themselves as ethnic Iranians, you can see even here that it’s not true. Grandmaster 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You never heard...you mean read. Firstly you claimed you have been to Iran where the term Azari is used. It has started gaining momentum since objections came out of the Azari community in Iran about the e. Actually they do not refer to themselves as Turks, non-Azaris are the ones who might refer to them as Turks. They refer to themselves as Azaris. Maybe we should ask the many Azari editos from Iran to give their testimony on this? I am still waiting, but must take a break. REMEMEBR DIALOGUE, NOT MONOLPOLY OF ARTICLES. We must work to make this article a neutral unbiased one that persents both the Northern and SOuthern (majority) perspectives. The majority of Iranian Azaris have and do describe themselves as Iranainas, and even mistakenly Persian. This is a known fact that can be verified through many routes.72.57.230.179 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone read this rticle from Turkey, a traditional supporter and back-bone of the Turkic theories about Azaris. Yes I said theory, it might be controversal to say it as such, but I will not lie. But we are not arguingabout ethnicity here we are arguing about terminology and perspective, meaning the northern and souther perspective. Read this Turkish article about the role of Azaris in Iran and the Azari perspective. http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=29867

read the And the role of Azeris? section if you can not read the whole article. I have to go, but i will be waiiting to see what you will be proposing! 72.57.230.179 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

72.57.230.179 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that all 20 million Azeris in Iran don’t consider themselves Turkic people and say Azari instead of Azeri? You know that in accordance with the rules any claims of this sort should be backed up by sources, reliable ones. This is your edit:
The majority, around 16-23 million (estimates vary) live in Iran and refer to themselves as Azaris and Iranian, while the minority in the north (the Republic of Azerbaijan ) refers to itself as Azeri and Turkic. The Azeri/Azari population outside of Iran living in the Republic of Azerbaijan is about 8 million.
Your reference says nothing about Azeris in Iran calling themselves Azaris, in fact it refers to them as Azeris. It says nothing about Iranian Azeris not considering themselves Turkic people, it just discusses the role of Azeris in Iranian society. This edit is not neutral and is unreferenced, according to the rules it should be removed from the article and placed to the talk page for discussion to achieve consensus. This article is a hard work of many people, you can’t make such poor edits and insist on keeping them without agreement of other editors. Grandmaster 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is from your source:
- Average Iranians don’t watch Turkish channels because they don’t know Turkish. The exception would be western, east and central Azerbaijan; the three Turkish speaking provinces. Here they do watch Turkish TV; Azeri dialect is probably the closest to it. Azeris in Iran do not understand Kazaks when they speak Turkish. But in Iranian Azerbaijan they call their language Turki, and what you speak in Turkey they call Turki Istanbul, or Istanbul Turkish. They have no problem understanding it; it’s just a different accent. Grandmaster 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I did not use it as a referenace I just asked you to read it becuase you have also made claims of discrimination towards Azaris in Iran which totally bogus and uuntrue. The Azaris in Iran are an integrated an historical part of Iranian society. You quote some things that you think benefit you, but not everything. Additionally, I want to point out to you I am not here to win an arguing competition but to expose fact. As long as facts are established that is all that matters. That is my job as an editor. 72.57.230.179 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijan vs Azarbaijan

Ahhh. This one is political. Both are legit.

As you know, there is a growing separatist movement supported by the Republic of Azerbaijan (and indirectly backed by Turkey) to encourage Iranian Azerbaijan to secede from Iran.

But Iranian Azaris disagree. They beleive that Iranian Azerbaijan is in fact the mainland (has almost 3 times as population), and that the Republic of Azerbaijan must "rejoin" Iran (and the motherland of Azerbaijan), hence reversing the Gulistan Treaty and Turkemanchay Treaty, which was enforced by Imperial Russia, and caused the split.

Iranian Azeris have thus used the term "Azarbaijan" to refer to this position, while "Azerbaijan" is the term used for the outside of Iranian group.

But there is also the fact that in Iran, Azeri is pronounced "Azari" (even by Azeris themselves), hence the source of the etymology. And since it is written with a "dh" in the Arabic/Iranian alphabet, that is why Encyclopedia Iranica (correctly) uses the word "Adhari" (or "Adari"), as discussed in this article.

So both are correct. It depends on who you ask (an Iranian Azari, or a ex-Soviet Azeri). Not to mention that the terms are also often carelessly used interchangeably as well, sometimes by even myself.

Hope that helps.--Zereshk 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. ;) SouthernComfort 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
THIS WAS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED TO YOU USER:KHOIKHO 72.57.230.179
What did I do now? —Khoikhoi 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean what did I do now? What are you asking. Look I have verification on the term Azari. I even used it from your archieves and all the verifications are there. Read the whole discussion. 72.57.230.179 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It has to be an external link or a book or something, a Wikipedia user, although he knows a lot about the subject, cannot be referenced in the article. Try again. —Khoikhoi 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • [[1]]
  • [[2]] Notice it says Azari, but uses the term Azerbaijan which was used after the brake up of the USSR.
  • Here is an example of an Azari website for Azaris from Iran http://www.iranonline.com/multimedia/azari.html Notice the term Azari is used
  • Here is another example; this talks about Tabriz and the Azari language and culture. http://home.att.net/~tabriz/azari1.htm Notice the term Azari is used as self-discription by Azaris themselves.
  • Here is yet another example of the native term being Azari http://www.soroush.co.uk/viewitem.asp?idproduct=232 This aticle talks about Azari folk music which is a from of Iranian music.
  • THIS EXAMPLE IS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF AZARBAIJAN Even up there they know the term Azari is used. Look and see. I wonder how user:Grandmaster can claim he has never heard the term Azari or that it is not used in Iran. His statements personally have no credit with me. http://www.azari.az
  • [3]The roots of the word Azarbaijan and Azari and Azeri.

72.57.230.179

As far as I can see, your source deals with the ancient extinct Iranian language of the region, and not modern Turkic language. I'm refering to Henning. Grandmaster 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read. It has that the old language is were both the name Azari and Azeri come form with the Turcification of the area. I have even demonstrated that the term is used by Azaris. Source number three deals with the Turko-Iranian language or modern Azari. What are you talking about. Please read the sources and do not jump to conclusions without reading. The two first sources even show the origins of the terms Azari and Azeri! 72.57.230.179 04:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The normal style of the citation here is that you provide a quote from the source, supporting your claims, and not just a link. Could you please quote a section that supports your claim? Grandmaster 04:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These are sources and it is upsourd that I have to verify for simple things. Maybe we should verify the term American or that the UK is a country, LOL! I know you knew the term is Azari or you would have objected to it in the past. The term was also on the article before I even addressed it to, but when I say the majority use it due to your political motives I am forced to verify. This is obvious gaming by certain parties, which you are one, and is unexceptable becuase it seems insincer. Maybe we should ask for Administration involvment?

It is an established fact that was on this article for a long period of time, but all of a sudden it needs verification. I have even demonstrated that is the self-descriptatory terminology used by Azaris and part of the ethnic lexicon. No games please. 72.57.230.179

Why not? Grandmaster 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not, no games!? Becuase it is damaging to good faith. Even the titles demonstrate the term is Azari. I can see that you are certain bias points you want. Verify the term Azeri, then? LOL 72.57.230.179

user:Grandmaster you might want to look at this. It wil shatter you fiction history that you are trying to force on Iranians. http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/October/Azari/index.html 72.57.230.179

A couple of interesting citations from this source:
A case in point with respect to Azarbaijan, is that, when, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the US decided to grant visas to Iranian minority groups, it included the Turks, only to find out that they totaled fifteen million in 1980, that they were one of the most productive and wealthy segments of Iranian society, that many of those who called themselves 'Turks' were now Persian-speakers and vice-versa.
So indeed the Azeri people in Iran often call themselves Turks, and their language Turki, according to Dr. Hooglund.
Meanwhile if we cannot come to terms on mutually acceptable cultural concerns, if we cannot make others call places by their rightful names, let us not fall into the trap of spelling our own Azarbaijan with an 'e' as in the Turkish pronunciation used for the country to the north of the Aras. Azarbaijan, not Azerbaijan. Let them call their country as they please until they too come to realize what is good for them, as they inevitably will, thanks to all the soul-searching currently going on in our part of the world.
So Turkish pronunciation is with an 'e' according to this author. Anyway, I suggest we end this dispute and rewrite the phrase ”where most of whom call themselves Azaris” (because it's hard to assess what most people do) to “where they are also called Azaris or Turks”. Grandmaster 05:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


BUDDY, EVERYTIME THERE IS PROOF YOU KEEP ON TRYING TO MARGANILIZE IT. THE PHASE WILL NOT BE CHANGED BECUASE IT IS CORRECT UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE OTHER WISE. NO MOVE ON. OKay Granmaster, it is your turn. Lets see if you practice what you preach. Verify the term Azeri is used to me. It is okay I am not going to ask you to verify it for the article, becuase I know the term is used and am not trying to push POV, but verify it here to me on the talk page. 72.57.230.179
Before we go on verify the term Azeri is used in Iran to me firstly. The also verift the term Azeri is the original term. 72.57.230.179


Grandmaster if you want to quote, be unbiased and quote the whole thing. It says that Azaris consider themselves as Iranians. The culture is not different and som amny other points you try and hide.

The fact is that so-called 'northern Azarbaijan' has only borne that name since 1918, and that was in a bid to dissociate itself from Russia and bring itself closer to its cultural roots. Of course, when the Soviets took over, they found the name convenient for future claims on the real Azarbaijan and perhaps well beyond. This meant rewriting a lot of history, some of it here to stay, at least in the short term.

When the Republic of Azerbaijan first declared independence from the Soviet Union, I went to Paris to meet the first delegates the newly independent republic sent to Western Europe. At that time, they insisted on their Turkishness and were still critical of 'Persian discrimination' against Turks, as they had been told and taught.

They spoke of Shah Ismail Safavid, whom they know by his pen name 'Khatai', as their very own king who also happend to conquer a large empire stretching from Isfahan to Kandahar. They also insisted that Nezami wrote his poems in Turkish, not Persian, and if you showed them an original text, they would describe it as 'old Turkish', not Persian, and if you retorted that is was no different from Persian, they would look at you as though you were the one who rewrote history.

The Republic Has rewritten history

That Shah Ismail had red hair, was of Kurdish ancestry, that Nezami was Persian, with a Christian, probably Armenian mother, were not acceptable to them, no matter how hard you tried to give them dates and facts abaout the Turks beginning to arrive in those parts at about the time of Nezami and of the first Shaikh Safi (the remote ancestor of Shah Ismail and the founder of the Safavieh Sufi order).

To reaffirm their claim on the name of Azarbaijan, their then UNESCO delegate produced a letter by Ibrahim Khalil Khan, the great and wily Khan of Qarabagh at the time of Aqa Mohammad Khan's first incursions into the Qarabagh (coincidental with those of the Russians in Georgia). The basis of their argument was just one sentence, in which Ibrahim Khalil complained to the Ottoman Sultan about the fate that had befallen the people of Azarbaijan. (I have a photocopy of that letter).

That Qarabagh, because of its situation on the Aras River, was actually sometimes included as part of the province of Azarbaijan, is a historical fact, so the letter may have referred to that and to the fact that the people of Tabriz also suffered from Agha Mohammad's exactions as he moved north to recover the seceding provinces north of the Aras. But Ibrahim Khalil Khan's letter never meant to include neither Baku nor Shirvan, since these were not even remotely attained by Agha Mohammad Khan who, soon after the capture of Shisha in the Qarabagh, fell victim to an assassin from his own camp.

That does not mean that there were not intimate bonds between the people on both sides of the river. Their commitment to Shiism; their language, the same Turkish Azari on both sides of the Aras; and the fact that Persian was part of the curriculum of the educated elite north of the Aras too, and yes, even their ethnic makeup, made the people of the khanates feel very close not only to the Azaris to their south, but to Iranians in general.

HOW ABOUT QUOTING ALL THIS BESIDES THE THINGS YOU TRY AND EXPLOIT. 72.57.230.179

For Azeris see encyclopedia Britannica [4]:
The people
Azerbaijan has a growing and youthful population. The Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis (Azeris), who make up more than four-fifths of the country's population, are predominantly Shi'ite Muslims. They combine in themselves the dominant Turkic strain, which flooded Azerbaijan especially during the Oguz Seljuq migrations of the 11th century, with mixtures of older inhabitants—Iranians and others—who had lived in Transcaucasia since ancient times. About 13 million Azerbaijanis live abroad, most of them in Iran.
The Azerbaijani language belongs to the southwestern (Oguz or Turkmen) group of the Turkic languages. There are four main dialect divisions. The literary tradition dates to the 14th century. The Arabic script was used until the 20th century; the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced in 1939. In 1992 the Azerbaijani government switched from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet as its official orthography.
As for your source, it is not academic, it's just an opnion of some person with uncertain academic background. Grandmaster 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ya exactly like you quoted: Turkic-speaking not Turkic. If they were Turkic it would say Turkic. It says Turkic-speaking becuase that is all they are. This should be put in this article. Thank you for proving one of my points 72.57.230.179


How can the dominate strain be Turkish? Azaris ddo not look Oriental. That is totally untrue. Britanicca means language not race or ethnicity becuase if it was true the Azaris would cluster with East Asians like the Kazak do. I can even provide the racial chart. 72.57.230.179


HERE IS SOMETHING FOR YOU.

Azerbaijan Joz'-e La- Yanfak-e Iran or Azerbaijan, an Inseparable Part of Iran is the 'first publication of Iranians residing in the Caucasus'.1 This newspaper was published mostly in the Azerbaijani language but with some articles in Persian, in Baku (the capital of Azerbaijan) on January 28th, 1918 by the Democratic Party of Iran (Baku Branch). The Democratic Party of Iran was founded in 1914 and started its political activities in Baku after the collapse of tsarist regime in Russia. 'The Democratic Party of Iran with the ideology of Social Democracy was one of the most radical political groups in Iran... Its organization was based on the principles of Social Democracy.' 2 Inside the Persian letter 'N' of the word Azerbaijan, the title of the newspaper, the phrase 'inseparable part' also re-emphasizes the unity, solidarity and integration between the Iranians of the Caucasus and the land of Iran. At the same time it was obviously considered a strong reaction to the wave of Pan Turkism, which advocated the idea of separation of Azerbaijan from Iran, posing a great threat to Iran's territorial integrity.

http://www.iisg.nl/collections/azerbaijan.html THe Azari perspective is that they are Iranian and we will soon add this to the article [[User:72.57.230.179|72.57.230.179]

Here are more sources about Azarbaijan with an A and its real Iranian history (and not Turkish history)! http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/language_azeri_people_pan_turkism.php 72.57.230.179
I don’t really understand what you are arguing about. I don’t advocate separation of Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran, I never said anything like that. And it might be interesting for you to check different views of Iranian Azeris to the language and ethnicity issues from an Iranian site. [5] [6]
We can argue endlessly about these things, but I actually suggested an edit, and you did not tell me what you think about it. I repeat: I suggest we rewrite the phrase ”where most of whom call themselves Azaris” (because it's hard to assess what most people do) to “where they are also called Azaris or Turks”. Grandmaster 07:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This is from here [7]: The Azeris differ from the majority Persians in that they do not speak Farsi. Rather they have adopted a dialect of Turkish, slightly Persianified, that is dubbed Azeri. In fact, the Azeris in Iran call themselves torks and their language torki. A Farsi speaker in Shiraz would find it extremely difficult to have a conversation with a Tabriz native who is not well versed in Farsi, while an Istanbuli can understand an Iranian tork, after sorting through certain Farsi influenced words. Grandmaster 08:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Khoikhoi’s compromise version is a lot better, but how do we know that most call themselves Azari and not Azeri? Is there any research on that? So far we only know that Azeris in Iran call their language Turki. Grandmaster 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes some Azaris in Iran refer to their language as Turki and I think that is noteworthy to add into the article. As you can see the page I asked you to read was with a Turkish twist since it is a Turkish source. They even call Tabriz by the Turkish term Tebriz. user:Khikhoi's compromise is good for the terminology, but I also wan to deal with the north and south perspectives. 72.57.230.179 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster There is your varification above with citations and written in the past by an Azari editor, but if you went to Iran like you claim yourself you would know that Azaris in Iran prounce the title with an A and not an E. This makes me question your credibility. 72.57.230.179 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PErspective

I beleive that it is fundamental to put the perspective of the south and north in the intro, but will not do this until we reach a consensu and agreement. 72.57.230.179 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More Proof of the Azari terminology and origin

Here are more sources that prove a lot of what you are saying is misinformation. http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/PARTIIAzar.html

The pan-Turanian theories discussed in Part I represent only a part of the picture. There is a whole set of beliefs being narrated about Iranian Azerbaijan in both the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Turkish Republic. They are using the Turkish language as an instrument to differentiate Iranian Turcophones from the rest of Iran. Some of the pan-Turanian claims to Iranian Azerbaijan can be summarized into the following:


(1) Greater Azerbaijan was divided between Russia and Persia.

(2) Azerbaijanis have spoken Turkish since the advent of History.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years.

(4) The Safavid Empire was Turkish.

(5) Sattar Khan was a pan-Turanian separatist.

(6) Babak Khorramdin was a Turk who fought against Persia.

(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.


Before discussing these items, an important point must be revisited. Pan-Turanian claims to Azerbaijan are supported by a very powerful western lobby in the form of multinational and geopolitical petroleum interests. These hope to access and dominate the lucrative oil bonanza looming in the energy deposits of the Caucasus and Central Asia (see Part VI, items 1-3).

(d) Mr. Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh. A leading proponent of Arran’s name change was Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh (1884-1955), the first leader of the newly created Republic of Azerbaijan (see photo below). Rasulzadeh was of Iranian origin from Baku, and was in fact heavily involved in the constitutional democratic movement of Iran during the early 1900s [xviii] (see Sattar Khan in item 5). Rasulzadeh was in fact the editor of the newspaper Iran-e-Now (The New Iran). Russian influence and coercion finally forced the Iranian government to expel Rasulzadeh from Iran in 1909 (?); he was exiled to Ottoman Turkey, where the Young Turk movement had gained power.

By the 1930s, Rasulzadeh’s writings revealed his full conversion to pan-Turanianism:


(a) At first he admitted that “Azerbaijan” (Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran?) was an ancient Iranian province that had been linguistically Turcified since at least the 13th century.

(b) He then rejected his previous writings and declared that Azerbaijan (both Arran and Azerbaijan in Iran) had always been “Turkish” and was never historically an integral part of Persia [xxiv]

Rasulzadeh had betrayed his Iranian heritage in two ways. First, he failed to fulfill his promises to Iranian Azerbaijanis to rectify the name change he had bought for Arran (at pan-Turanian behest). Second, Rasulzadeh adopted a false, divisive, and racist ideology. Rasulzadeh’s legacy continues to haunt the Caucasus and Iran to this day. That legacy has also provided an excellent tool for geopolitical manipulation.


After his arrest and expulsion from Russia, Rasulzadeh settled in Turkey, where he died in 1954 (see his funeral in Turkey below). Rasulzadeh established the “Azerbaijan National Centre” in Turkey, a movement which at the time was organized for the purpose of opposing Soviet rule in Arran (modern Republic of Azerbaijan).

c) Linguistic Turkification. The process of linguistic Turkification was reinforced with the arrival of the Mongols in the 1200s, and their Il-Khanid dynasty in Persia. Tamerlane’s descendants, the Qara/Kara-Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak/Aq-Qoyunlu (White Sheep) also ruled Iran. It must be noted that the Turkish migrants became absorbed into mainstream Persia, and they greatly patronized Persian, arts, culture and literature. Turks as whole have been tremendously influenced by Iranian culture – a prime example is the Moghul Dynasty of India, of Turkmen-Mongol descent. The Moghuls promoted Persian culture in India, a legacy which lasts to this day in modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.


By the early 16th century (see Safavids item 4), Azerbaijani Turkish had largely replaced the indigenous Iranian Azeri in Azerbaijan and had also spread to Arran. The Turkish language however, did not alter the thousands year long Iranian character and legacy of Arran and Azerbaijan. As noted in item 4, the Safavid dynasty, whose members spoke Turkish in court and introduced much Turkish vocabulary to Iran, considered themselves as the heirs of Persia and bitterly fought the Ottoman Turks throughout their reign.


In Persia, identity has never been delineated by singular, simplistic and narrow concepts such as “race”, “mother language” or even “religion”. Consider the following examples:

SafavidsThe aforementioned Nader Shah was an ethnic Turcomen and adhered to the Sunni branch of Islam. Karim Khan Zand (1705-1779) (see illustration below) and his partisans spoke Luri, a west Iranian language distinct from Persian and Kurdish. The Zands (like Nader Shah before them) were essential in preserving Persia’s territorial integrity after the fall of the Safavids.

(3) Turks have been in the Caucasus for over 5000 Years. FALSE

This is at best, a grandiose exaggeration. The real influence of the Turks begins with the Seljuks and Ottomans, and even then, the Turks are only one more layer upon an ancient region that has seen a rich and varied legacy. If anything, it is the Persian and (to a lesser extent), the Greco-Roman legacies that remain in the Caucasus. The Turks, like the Russians and Ukrainians certainly have their legacy in the Caucasus. The issue in question is the exaggeration of the Turkish role, now proposed by pan-Turanian ideologues.


The Caucasus is one of the oldest cradles of human civilization – a prime example being the proto-Kartvelian Hurrian empire (2500-1270 BC) which at one time ruled much of northwest Iran and contemporary Kurdistan. The Hurrian legacy is still evident among the Kurds who use the ergative feature in their speech – a phenomenon seen in modern Georgian. While the Caucasus has certainly seen its share of Persian, Greek, Turkish and Russian influence, she has in turn vigorously and profoundly influenced all of these cultures in turn.

“The oldest outside influence in Trans-Caucasia is that of Persia (p.203)…many of its populations, including Armenians and Georgians, as well as Persians and Kurds, the Transcaucasus had much closer ties with the former Sassanian world to its south and east than with the world to the west (p.204)”.[Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p. 203-204].

'(7) Azerbaijanis and all who speak Turkish are Turkish by race.'FALSE


(a) Ziya Gokalp. The notion of Azeris being Turkish because of language is based on the late Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) who equated language with racial and ethnic membership: you are racially Turkish if you speak Turkish. This is a standard argument of characters like Mr. Chehreganli and his western geopolitical supporters. Gokalp was in fact a Kurd born in Diyarbakr. He is one of a long line of non-Turks who helped build pan-Turanian ideology (Part I, item 1).

By no means is the discussion in this item attempting to simplistically outline the complex (and anthropolically interwoven) Iranian and Turkish national, ethnic, and linguistic identities. Such a Herculean task would require volumes of text. Instead, we are clearly confining the discussion to the linear and (in my opinion) divisive concept of “race” – in the purely anthological sense.


The main weakness of Gokalp’s simplistic premise is his oversimplification of the complex interrelationships between ethnicity, nationality, language and historical migrations. His logic is that speakers of a language “X” must also be racially members of “X”.

Likewise, being a Turcophone does not mean that one is automatically Turkish or Turkic by race. National identity is based on a number of domains, only one of which is defined by language. Nevertheless, this simplistic logic (language = race) is being used to attack the Iranian heritage of the people of Azerbaijan and Iran in general.

National identity is multi-faceted. A Belgian could be either a Francophone (Walloon) or Dutch dialect speaker (Flemish). A Frenchman can be Basque (Eskuri) or speak an Italian dialect (e.g. Provencal, Corsican, etc.). In northern France, many of the inhabitants lay claim to a proud Celtic tradition (Brittany).

Many modern Turks hail from Bosnian, Georgian, Iranian (Persian, Kurdish, Azeri) Greek, Arab, Venetian, Slavic and Armenian backgrounds. Arabs are just as diverse – in the eastern Arab world, many have Iranian ancestry (Persian and Kurdish) – the Levant has seen multitudes of Hittite, Mittani, etc. settlers in its history. In the Western Arab world one finds a plethora of Christians (Greek Orthodox, Coptic, etc.). One can also trace much of the ancestry of modern Arabs to the earlier Semitic peoples such as the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians (Aramaic-speakers), Syriacs, etc.


The Iranian ethnic mosaic is far too complex to even begin attempting to define it in the confines of this commentary. If we extend timelines back to pre-Aryan arrivals, we witness proto-Elamites in the Southwest and Southeast, and Hurrian arrivals from the Caucasus. We then have a long period of Iranian Aryan migrations onto the Iranian plateau and eastern Anatolia (many areas of western Iran and modern Kurdistan was already settled by Assyrian peoples). Arab settlers also arrived during Sassanian and post-Sassanian eras (a number of their descendants survive in Khorrassan and Tajikestan)– these are then eclipsed by subsequent Turkic and Mongol arrivals. The very overall sketch just outlined highlights how complex definitions such as “race” and “language” are.


Gokalp was not entirely wrong about Iran – there are a plethora of Turkic settlers who can trace their ancestry to the original Oghuzz (the aforementioned Nader Shah was a Turkmen). But even the identity of the Turkmen (meaning “very Turk”) is hotly disputed. There are claims of strong Iranic admixture within them. This is not surprising as Turkic and Iranic peoples have been intertwined in Central Asia for thousands of years. Even the Mongols who invaded Persia are said to have had some Iranian (North Iranic?) ancestry (see Turnbull in references).

The genetic ancestry of modern Turks is highly varied, mainly as a result of multiple migrations, wars and empires. While modern Turks (and a growing number of Hungarians) stress their genetic connection to Central Asia, scientific evidence fails to corroborate their beliefs. True, there are Turkmen Turks of Central Asian stock in eastern Turkey, however a large proportion of modern Turks have Balkan, Persian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Azeri, Georgian, Varangian, and even some Celtic ancestry. The latter seems surprising; however the term “Ankara” may be derived from the Celtic “Ankyra”. The Galatian Celts appear in Anatolia’s interior after the Greeks defeated them in 230 BC. The original Turkic stock from Central Asia (some of whom live in northeast Iran today) have little or no connection to the European-type U5 cluster.


(c) The Analyses of Colin Renfrew.

Professor Colin Renfrew (see 1994 References) notes how Turkic languages spread by Elite Dominance:


“…incoming minorities…conquer other populations and…impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion…”[Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]


Genetic alteration can only occur as a result of one of more of the following:

[a] Sustained migrations across a long period of time

[b] Population dispersals by farming,

[c] Dispersals forced by climactic changes.


In general, the Turks did not arrive peacefully but as conquering elites who imposed their languages upon indigenous populations (Azeris, Arranis, etc.). Conquering elites provide very modest genetic changes to the indigenous populations that they conquer. However, they can alter the population’s language as result of their elite military and political dominance.

(d) The Cavalli-Sforza et al. Genetic Studies.

Renfrew’s studies have been corroborated by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (see photo below) and his colleagues, who have concluded the following after decades of genetic research:

“Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages…threatened empires in China, Tibet, India, Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey…genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered…(p.125)…Turks…conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453..replacement of Greek with Turkish ..Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers…invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history…(p.152).” [Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]

Hungarians are considered to be Magyar speaking Europeans – not an Asiatic Turkic people. In like manner, why are the Azerbaijanis (of Iran in particular) being forcibly re-defined as “Turanian” simply because they speak Seljuk Oghuzz Turkish? How can a single index (Turkish language) be used to virtually erase Azerbaijan’s mighty civilizational identity in Persia? Azerbaijan has been of vital importance in the development of Persian civilization, just as Hungary has been a vital element in the development of European civilization.

It is here were the barbaric aspects of “race criteria” break down. In Afghanistan we have the Mongol descended “Hazara” (lit. “The Thousand” in Persian) who now speak Persian, or the many people of Khazar Turkish-Jewish descent in Dagestan (next to Chechniya) who speak Persian. Conversely, Azerbaijanis are an essentially Iranic people who mainly speak Turkish. A branch of the Turcophone Azeris are believed to have been settled in Iran’s Fars province by the Safavids– they are today known as the Qashqai’s (note photo of Qashaqi girl by Shahyar Mahabadi).

.....with all this criteria many of the Azari articles will have to refurbished. 72.57.230.179


[edit] AZARIS ARE RACIALLY IRANIAN: ACADEMIC/SCIENTIFIC SOURCE

There is no debate with this data:

  • GENETIC PROOF THAT AZERIS ARE IRANIANS

Look at the chart. DO you see the similarities?! No more Turkish propganda and POV! This is genetic proof.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/fg1.h.jpg

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40813/40813.html?erFrom=-1568565869309167708Guest It shows that the populations of Azarbaijan and Turkey are not Turkic. Notice the makeup is WEST EURASIAN and not EAST ASIAN. WEST ASIAN IS IRANO-CAUCASIAN. EAST EURASIAN IS TURKIC (A TYPE OF ORIENTAL). SOUTH ASIAN IS INDIC. AFRO-ASIATIC IS IS NOT MENTIONED. 72.57.230.179 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) This article is going to get revamped to meet the proper perimeters. 72.57.230.179

Come down, man. You spammed all Azerbaijan related talk pages with the same stuff, which nobody will care to read. Just make your point. What are you trying to say and what are you suggesting to do? And why didn’t you respond to my proposal? And note that etnicity is defined by language, and not race. Grandmaster 09:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not if you took the time to read some of the academic verifications you would have understood that. Like I said before Latin Americans are not considered Europeans by anthropologists because of their language. You do not hear about pan-Portugesism in Portugal, Brazil or Angola because they all speak Portugese. Africans who speak French or English are not considered British or French racially. Language is not what defines race. YOu are born into a race. YOu write ENglish does that mean you are a ANglo-Saxon? No. In Germany there are 3rd generations Turks who speak only Turkish but are not grnated a citizenship. The excuse that language is the defining factor ogf ethnicity is a flawed arguement by pan-Turkists who in the rising tide of academic and scientific date tried to save their movement. Your statment has not ever been applied to any ethnicity outside of the pna-Turkist ideal and is false. The term is Azari and that is what the majority of Azaris call themselves and that is not established. SO stop playing games. I listened to your proposall and await yours. 72.57.230.179


ONCE AGAIN:It is here were the barbaric aspects of “race criteria” break down. In Afghanistan we have the Mongol descended “Hazara” (lit. “The Thousand” in Persian) who now speak Persian, or the many people of Khazar Turkish-Jewish descent in Dagestan (next to Chechniya) who speak Persian. Conversely, Azerbaijanis are an essentially Iranic people who mainly speak Turkish.

Additionally do not accuse me of spaming, becuase I added noteworthy information on similar pages becuase your POV has been overlapping onto those pages. This is an encycopidia not a political forum. If you want to set one up do so by all means but please do not abuse the good will and honour system we respect. 72.57.230.179


Verify that language is what defines ethnicity and race! Do not make ubsurd and ignorant statments. That is based on the concpetion that in the past peoples who spoke the same langiage were of the same origin. It can not be applied for modern cases or to the Turkic arguement. Common you know that! 72.57.230.179
There’s no such thing as Turkish race or Iranian race as your source claims. There are Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid races, and their many branches, but ethnicity and race are different things. You have no idea what you are talking about. Grandmaster 10:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actualy user:Grandmaster you are starting to make a fool out of yourself. Take a look at the defintition of race agina. Also the llist you gave includes Austroloid and possible up to 3/4 other members. Turks go into the Mongoloid bracket, while Iranians (proper) go into the Caucasoid. These names all come form the region of origin, accept for Negroid which comes formthe Latin word for "Black," it is actually being retermed as Afrricanoid to match. Alll these groups are named after their geographic area of origin. Mongoloids (also infomrally Asiatic or Oriental) from Mongolia, Austroloid from Australia and Caucasoid or Caucasian from Caucasia. I so know what I am talking about, but it is you who is playing games and desperatly looking for a way to keep your false claims alive. In this discourse you are also contradict yourself, but please go on. 72.57.230.179
Hey user:Grandmaster I hope you are learning; here is one fairly good definition of race: A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics. 72.57.230.179
Could you be so kind as to prove that “Turks go into the Mongoloid bracket, while Iranians (proper) go into the Caucasoid”? You yourself said that mongoloid Khazara people are Iranian, at the same time Turks of Turkey and Turkmens are Caucasoid. So it’s obvious that race and ethnicity is not the same thing. Look at encyclopedia Britannica, it explains who Turkic peoples are:
Please quote me! 72.57.230.179
Turkic peoples
Any of various peoples who speak one of the Turkic languages.
I hope you are not going to deny that Azerbaijani language is Turkic? If so, Azeris are Turkic people. I consider this issue closed, unless you can cite some reliable, unbiased (non-Iranian) source that states otherwise. Grandmaster 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHA. Nice joke. This has to be verified and it is arbitrary. Azaris are ethnic Iranians. Where is your verification. Oh now my sources are bad. You just come up with more and more excuses. Lets see you changed your definition of Azaris numerous times you fiddle with definitions you redefine what is proper verification and sourcing over and over again. You have lost all legitimacy. Administration should soon get involved becuase you are trying to impose your will and POV...actually sorry it is propganda now, not POV. Basically how you keep your arguments afloat is by hijacking the topic. Look you changed the subject and try to paint a picture of me as irrational when in relaity it isyour methodology of debate that is irrational. You hold no solid argument and I have established the facts. THAT IS RIGHT DECLARE THE CASE CLOSED and try and stop diolgue. Change the subject and make me look like I am irrational when any reader looking at the talk page will see who had solid facts and who zig zagged. I never said Azaris do not speak a Turkic language. You just want to change the focus onto that to make me look like an unreasonable vandal who when I have always said that Azaris are a Turkic speaking Iranian peoples. By trying to high light a psudo-grievance on this on my part you try an incriminate me as the irrational party. This is definity suspecious and bogus. This article will have a face left user:Grandmaster
By making me look like like I deny the fact that Azaris speak a Turkic language, which is a firmly establsihed fact you try and reduce my academic cause and diolute it. I see what you are trying to do. You know fully well I never questioned the linguistics of the Azari language and to do so would make me insane and lacking in credibility, but as a last ditch attmept you try and do this. This is very wrong on your part and a calculated move of savatoge like the other day when the Administrator warned you. You also know fully well that the term Azari is used and like I pointed out it was on the this article for a long time before I pointe dout that the majority of Azaris use this term to descibe themselves, but then you say you have never seen it before. Shame

72.57.230.179

[edit] Grandmaster this is not a debate, we are trying to establsih facts (actually I have establsihed facts)

User:Grandmaster honestly we can see who knows what there talking about and who just knows how to argue. This is not about arguing its about facts! I have established the fact and verified that all Azaris are Iranian.

Here is a list of races for you too; Outline of Human Racial Classification:

[removed lengthy copy/paste from below site. - FrancisTyers 13:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)]

http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

72.57.230.179

Whoever copy-pasted all these stuff lately, please gently give a link. As for race, there is no consensus about its definition or even actually such a thing as race exists or not. --TimBits 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tork is rather Persian, than Azeri, so I suggest to include all pronunciations to make everybody happy, as follows: where they also call themselves (are also called) Azaris (Azeris) or Turks (Torks). It’s absolutely not worth an edit war. What do you think? Grandmaster 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a racist site can be used as a reliable source for information on race. - FrancisTyers 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I did not even pay an attention to the author. This debate over Azeris being Iranian or Turkic goes endlessly, but I have never seen a single authoritative source claiming that they are Iranian people and not Turkic people. Grandmaster 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this article confuse Azerbaijani Azeris and Iranian Azeris? I don't know much about the situation so I can't tell. Wouldn't it be reasonable for Azeris in Iran to be Iranian and those in Azerbaijan to be Turkish? - FrancisTyers 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijanis in Iran and Republic of Azerbaijan are the same people, so the article covers both. Historically the area populated by them was a single region, and mostly part of Iran, but after the Russo-Persian wars in 19th century the northern (Caucasian) part became Russian possession, and the rest remained in Iran. The Azeri people were divided between Russia and Persia, and the differences between the people on both sides of the border are mainly the result of the 200 years of development in different conditions. Azerbaijanis in Iran are of course Iranian citizens, but are Turkic people, as attested by all academic sources. I cited Britannica, but I can cite many other reputable sources, if needed. The Azerbaijani language is one of the Turkic languages, and therefore Azerbaijani people are considered Turkic people. This view is contested by some of my Iranian colleagues, but I have not seen so far any reliable sources, proving that Azeris are Iranian people. They seem to be mixing ethnicity with citizenship. This discussion goes for quite a long time at Iranian peoples as well, where some editors try to include Turkic-speaking Azeris into the list of Iranian people. But that page is currently quiet, and we have the same dispute here. I just want to note that I have nothing against Iranian people, but it is just a fact that Turkic speakers cannot be included in the list of Iranian speakers, same as Germans cannot be included as Slavic people. Grandmaster 19:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Ok, I'm looking for non-partisan, peer-reviewed, reliable sources that state that "Azerbaijanis are racially Iranian". Give the citation, a link (if available), and no more than a paragraph of text that supports the assertion. - FrancisTyers 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

Also please provide a reliable source for this information to have it included to the article:

A fact to note is that the majority of Azaris, those living in Iran define themselves as Iranians while those in the Republic of Azerbaijan define themselves as Turkic[citation needed] .

Is this about ethnicty or citizenship? Grandmaster 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

user:AnMaster quite playing these childish games we have made it clear that the conondrum is over ethnicity not citizenship. ETHNICITY! Azaris are ethnic Iranians no matter where inthe world they live. This has been clearly explained and cited to you, but you continue the acting. You have been engaged in heavy debate with many other editors over the ethnicity of Azaris and know fully well the nature of the debate is ethnicity, but cover up for this fact my creating tangents. It is bad faith on your part to assume everyone is ignorant or naive. You say Azaris are Turkic on the grounds of langauge when all sources say that ethnicity is not defined by language alone. 72.57.230.179
User:Grandmaster hnow you are taking this overboard. You are wiki stalking and threatening me and involving project pages. 72.57.230.179


[edit] Sources as used and agreed up on other pages (completely academic)

Due to historical ties with various ancient Iranians[1] and cultural ties with Persians[2], some sources also include Azeris as an Iranian people, although the modern Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language and the issue remains highly debated.[3]

I will place this in the intro. This is what you are asking for and it is already in use in WIkipedia so there are no excuses for having it removed. 72.57.230.179

[edit] Azeri's are Turkified Iranics

firstly, i would like to say that azeri's today are now turks. they consider themselves turks and speak a turkic language. however, this does not mean that they were always turks. infact, many azeri's themselves know that they were turkified, but are now proud of the heritage they have adopted, and they should be proud.

but the fact of the matter is, that the large populations of turks now west of central asia are actually not turks, but turkified peoples. turks tend to have mongoloid features, such as uzbeks, kyrgz, kazakhs, turkmens, etc... the turks in turkey and azerbaijan were turkifed, which is evident in their facial features. they look more like iranians and europeans than they do with their turk counterparts in central asia. most turks west of central asia are linguistically turkic, not ethnically. Iranian Patriot 04:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually all Western Turkic peoples are mixed to a varying degree... for instance MtDNA proves that Turkmens have only 30% Mongoloid genes(not physical features but genes) Full continuum of different racial types can be encountered amongst Azeris and Turks - from blond Caucasoid (of which I am an example) to dark skinned Mongoloids (yes they exist).However -ethnicity of Azeri is Turkic, because it is related to language. What are you trying to do is to separate different ethnic elements that constitute Azeri peoples (Iranian Azari and Tat, Oghuz Turkic, and indigineous Caucasian) and form different ethnicities. abdulnr 06:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I made it clear that Azeri's are today Turkic so dont attack me. But the fact of the matter is, and history supports this, that Azeri's were Turkified Iranics. Also, I would like to say that Turkic peoples have Mongoloid features. The Turks in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Parts of Uzbekistan are actually descendents of Iranics. Iranics dominated that region for centuries, and in some parts still do, like the Tajiks in souther Uzbekistan (Bukhara, Samarkhan regions). The Turks in Turkey are actually Iranics, Anatolians, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, and various others who have been Turkified. Turks are some of the least pure ethnic group in the world, simple because they were a nomadic people and they mixed with people where ever they went. Everyone today is a mix of something, but Turks are definetly some of the most mixed in the world, this is undeniable. Infact, to me, Turks west of central asia are linguistically Turkic, not ethnically.Iranian Patriot 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is nothing but chauvanistic racism, guess what there are no PURE races, its a myth sorry guys but there is no Aryan Super Race its a dream of sad racists.

Iran has been ruled by Arabs and Turks for nearly 2000 years, face it you mixed with Turks and Arabs this is a reality.

Today the whole middle east is a total and utter ethnic mix, as Islamic legistlation ruled all muslims were encouraged to mix, they lived together there were no boundries and many, many mixed.

You can find Turkic looking, Arab looking, Persian looking, Caucausian looking etc etc, even in a family you can have members with more oriental eyes, those who are very dark and those who have blonde hair.

Azeri Turks were not "Turkified" as the whole notion suggests they were forced by Turks to simply change their identity which is ridiculous and hilarious to say the least.

There have been continuous Turkic migrations around the Caspian Sea region for thousands of years, plus Turks are not solely Mongoloid, they are a Mongoloid-Caucasian mix, many Turkmens and Ozbek Turks look no different to Turks in Azerbaycan and Turkey.

The reality of today is, Azeri Turks speak a language completely understandable with Oghuz Turkish spoken by roughly 120 million people and can understand to a large part the other Turkic languages especially Ozbek-Uygur. They share a Turkic heritage, identity and belonging.

Regards

Tabriz_han

[edit] Azaris, genetics, race, and culture is IRANIAN

There is alot of scientific evidence and support for this fact. Wikipedia should not cater to the opinions of some "turkish" nationalists. Dariush4444 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge. 72.57.230.179


well, its definetly 100% fact that azari's do not have a turkic origion. i think that part should be taken out. azari's, as well as turks (from turkey) are descendents of the local populations, NOT OGHUZ TURKS! oghuz turks simply turkified these regions. even today, if you ask a turk from turkey, they will tell you that their ancestors are anatolians. so there is no turkic origion theory, that part should be taken out. what do you all think?Iranian Patriot 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don;t think you understand what is to be Turkic. Azeris are Turkic people since they speak the language and belong to the cultural orbit of the Turkish world.As to their genetic makeup: it is diverse as you can see in the section and invovlves different population mixes (and they also belong into Iranian one)


I know they are linguistically turkic now, i agree with you 100%. but the article talks about origions, and the azeri's obviously do not have any turkic origions, that is what im saying.Iranian Patriot 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems some of our friends are mixing the notions of linguistic, cultural and racial groups. Turkic is a linguistic notions and not a racial one.
Turkic peoples are Northern and Central Eurasian peoples who speak languages belonging to the Turkic family, and who, in varying degrees, share certain cultural and historical traits. The term "Turkic" is generally considered to represent a broad linguistic characterization, and not necessarily an ethnic one.
Wikipedia.

In this day and age no one can claim or name a certain people to be of one or other race. Mehrdad 12:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/z/e/Talk%7EAzerbaijani_people_Archive_2_6f9f.html"