Talk:Azerbaijani people/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Disputed section

Can FA's have disputed sections? It's not the most convincing display to a new visitor/user. --Impaciente 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) If people are turned off by shades of grey and differences in opinion, then they should read right-wing blogs and not encyclopedias.

Religion

The religion section mentions Zoroastrianism as being a minority amongst Azeris? Are there really ethnic Azeri Zoroastrians or just Azeri converts to Zoroastrianism?

    • i would say being an azeri has nothing to do with a religion, fire is respectable among azeris, that's all, when there was no zoroaster, they knew fire, there is no proof for zoroaster's birth place, it's like going backward, azeris used to belive things other than islam before like christianity or moses or there was some other names too, but right now they are mostly muslem,then bahai and jewish. well islam has diffrent branches in azerbaijan, but why would they convert from islam to something older? it's like going backward, that's another thing. zoroasterians are usually living in the eastern part of iran.

Head image

Should the image at the top be replaced with a few images of prominent Azeris? --Brand спойт 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the image of the three Azeri men in the infobox? I like it as the lead image; I'd urge that it be kept. — BrianSmithson 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
We can't put images of prominent Azeris in a collage because it violates copyright laws. And I think the new picture is pretty great myself. Tombseye 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Azari Refugess

Although I am concerned and upset about both Azari and Armenia refugees and beleive they are essentially the same people, on an academic basis I question this picture being posted on this article. It seems to be POV, and once again the article seems to be getting a non-neutral, biased Republic of Azarbaijan tilt to it again. I object to the posting of this picture and I also ask all editors to consider the changes being made recently. 69.196.164.190

I got plenty of other refugee pictures taken by my friend in Azerbaijan, the fact is this is something that is really there and it has influence over Azerbaijan, this shouldnt and cant be ignored. Baku87 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No of course not and there should be articles about it, but it can not also be used for political motives or POV. The influence of taining this articles is strong and I do not think adding emotion to the article is justified if it is not in a neutral and academic context. That said I personally feel for the refugees and all refugees of all types and colours, inlcuding Armenian. We must recognize that humnaity must be united not divided. 69.196.164.190

The name "Azerbaijan"

According to the article, "Azerbaijan is believed to be eponymously named after Atropates, a Median satrap (governor) who ruled in Atropatene (modern Iranian Azarbaijan)". Most sources on the internet state it as a straight fact (basically the quoted statement minus the weaselly "believed to be"), but others call it a legend. The simplest way to eradicate the "believed to be" would be to ascribe the theory to its original source. I've tried to find an original source for this theory/fact, but I'm having no luck. Anyone know who it was? Does it date to antiquity? Or is this etymology more recent? — BrianSmithson 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the article by American professor Tadeusz Swietochowski: [1] Grandmaster 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But it still doesn't identify the source of that etymology, just that it's "the most widely accepted" one. Ideally, we could change the article to say something like "The most widely accepted etymology for the name Azerbaijan comes from [some scholar]. His/her [year] work, [name], states that Azerbaijan was eponymously named after Atropates, a Median satrap (governor) who ruled in Atropatene (modern Iranian Azarbaijan)." Then a source cite to the scholar who originally proposed the idea and to the web page you just showed me. — BrianSmithson 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's really hard to tell who first came up with the idea, maybe even impossible. I think we should do as you say and refer to Swietochowski, since that name is not an original research and virtually every book about Azerbaijan says the same. Or we can say that the most widely accepted etymology for the name Azerbaijan is such and such and provide a reference to Swietochowski, without mentioning his name in the article. Grandmaster 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd still prefer to track down the source, but barring that, I'd accept either of your two alternative solutions. — BrianSmithson 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A few other alternatives.
http://www.iranchamber.com/geography/articles/arran_real_azerbaijan.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arran_(Azerbaijan)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1626310.stm Azeri mud volcano flares (Could this be why people called it the land of fire? Were these mud volcanoes more active a few thousand years ago?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_volcano Features over 200 meters high exist in Azerbaijan, with large eruptions sometimes producing flames of similar scale.
http://www.avesta.org/modi/baku.htm The origin of this country’s name, Azerbaijan, is from our own word “Aazar” or “Aatar” meaning fire, because in ancient times, there were a number of Aatash Kadehs in this country similar to the natural gas fire in Baku and in other places. One of our highest Aatash Behraam, Aadar Gushaspa, was also in this country whose other names were: “Aadarbaadgaan” or “Aataropaatkaan”.
http://www.travel-images.com/az-hist.html

Picture temporarily taken down

Just so folks know, the picture in the info. box has been temporarily taken down, but will return pending Khoikhoi's clarification of copyright status. Khoikhoi's on vacation touring Israel so we might have to wait as much as a month, but the picture will return hopefully. Cheers. Tombseye 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, you ought to place one of the other pictures in its place. It's always a good idea to have a picture in the lead section. — BrianSmithson 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the one of the three musicians? Or the dancers as a second choice. — BrianSmithson 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, ya know it probably won't matter for a while. I mean the article can still make it as a featured article and then we'll see if it can be on the main page at some point and then worry about the caption picture. By then Khoikhoi will be back and we can figure stuff out after that. Actually, Baku and I talked about putting up the Azeri fire symbol which also happens to the coat of arms for the modern country. Pluses and minuses to this as it symbolizes the region, but may be seen as too nationalist. It shouldn't bother the Iranians as it links to them in a way since it's a Zoroastrian symbol, but one never knows. I'd hate to see the musicians and dancers taken from their great placements in the article, so let's wait and see! Tombseye 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you say Khoikhoi is on vacation touring Israel? Kiumars 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Azeri Dance

I uploaded a new photo of Azeri Dance; see here. This picture gives a much much better view of Azeri Dance, cuz there is really alot of jumping and fast movements in the dance and you dont see that in the current picture. I want to replace the currecnt dance picture with this new one. What do you guys think? Baku87 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that picture is better! Okay go ahead and change it. Tombseye 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just noticed that this article is now a featured article so congratulations to all you guys who worked very hard on it! Baku87 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! — BrianSmithson 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyrights

The text in this article seems excellent. However, though I was just a little too late to make this point at WP:FAC so I'll make it here instead, the copyright status of many of these images, or their copyright tags, is really unacceptable. In particular:

  • Image:Sattar Khan.jpg - copyright tag almost certainly wrong; "photographer dead for 100 years" is claimed even though the photographer has not been identified.
  • Image:132 610 taghiyev.jpg - copyright tag almost certainly wrong; PD-US is the tag to use if the image was published in the United States before 1923. No evidence is produced that the image was published in the U.S. before 1923.
  • Image:Mosque234.jpg - quoting "From an email in which I was told the copyright status" isn't really good enough to claim all rights released. The email should at least be quoted directly to show that (1) the emailer was the photographer and (2) they have indeed released all rights (not just "right to educational use" or "right to use in Wikipedia")
  • Image:AzizaMustafaZadeh.jpg - read the image tag. "To the uploader: ... Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page". No fair use rationale appended. It is not clear that in an article about Azerbaijani people in general that fair use applies, so a pretty strong fair use rationale would be a good idea.
  • Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg - exactly the same situation as the Mosque234.jpg.
  • Image:Kerimov21.jpg - the fact that it a Wikipedian hosts a photograph on their website does not make something "all rights released". If either (1) the photograph was taken by the Wikipedian or (2) they bought or were transferred for some other reason the actual copyright, then that Wikipedian should use the copyright tag that "I own the copyright, but am releasing the rights". Otherwise, it is not the website owner who holds the copyright but somebody else. It is the copyright holder's declaration of the releasing of rights that must be linked to - the fact that a Wikipedian has an image on their website does not give them any special rights over that photo. For instance, I could take a photo from AP or Reuters, put it on my geocities page, then claim "I am the website owner, here is the link to the photo, here is the link that certifies that I, this particular Wikipedian, own the website, so it is all rights released". The copyright holder must be identified, this is not the same thing as the website owner!

Will it be possible to get these images sorted out? TheGrappler 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, we'll have to do something about the copyrighted pictures. Basically, some of the pictures were uploaded by Khoikhoi and he's out of the country at the moment so we'll have to wait and see with the mosque and refugees pics. Tombseye 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture of Kerimov comes from the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. I'll be going on holiday to Azerbaijan on July 3th, there I'll get a form were it says I have permission to publish any pictures from the Heydar Aliyev Foundation (were almost all my pictures are from). So if you could be patient and wait for my return in August then I could sort this out. Baku87 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Can we see more Pictures of Iranians?

All the pictures or the majority once again seem to be from Arran or the Republic of Azarbaijan. This is unfair and biased. I seem to notice that many of the compromised or consensus pictures of Iranians have been removed. The written material is wonderful and pretty neutral, but the photographs must also reflect neutrality through even distrubition or ratios. Iranians are the majority of the Azari population and this should be reflected in the pictures too. Thank you. 69.196.164.190


User:69.196.164.190 , Please read the last discussion entry by Tombseye, above. the photos are temporarily removed to clarify their copy right status. At the mean time if you know of any suitable image please suggest. Mehrdad 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Azeris in Iran

  • [Re: Many others live in Tehran (one-third)]. Where is the proof to show 1/3 of Tehran is Azeri? (citation !)
  • [Re: Between 16 to 23 million Azeris live in Iran, mainly in the northwestern provinces]. SCI figures indicate otherwise See below (Citation !).

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnologue#Emails_to_Ethnologue_with_regard_to_wrong_figures_about_Iran

Ethnologue figures are wrong, their sums do not add up. If you add up all their figures on different languages it adds up to 72.7 million people and that is 5.2 million more than the population of Iran (which also includes 3-4 million Afghan refugees and others). So their sum is about 8-9 millions out!

If we add up the population of all Azeri speaking provinces in Iran (i.e. East Azerbaijan (3.4 million), West Azerbaijan (2.8 million), Ardebil (1.2 million), and Zanjan (0.94 million), they add up to 8.5 millions, based on the latest Population Estimation by Statistical Centre Of Iran and various US and UN official organisations. http://www.sci.org.ir/english/default.htm

Assuming that all the population of these provinces are Azeri and there is no non-Azeri living in these provinces (which is not the case as we know and other languages like Kurdish and Farsi are spoken widely in these regions), and If we also again very generously assume that 1/4 of Tehran Province's 12 million population (Tehran itself is about 8 million) are Azeri (that gives us another 3 millions), we end up with a total of 11.5 millions (roughly and very generously estimated).

Lets assume another 0.5 million or even 1 million Azeris live in other parts and provinces of Iran, that makes the Total 12.5 millions.

Where are the other 4-11 millions then to make up the 16-23 million claim?

  • [Re: However, many Iran scholars, such as Nikki Keddie, Patricia J. Higgins, Shahrough Akhavi, Ali Reza Sheikholeslami, and others, claim that Azeris may comprise as much as one third of Iran's population.] How do these scholars know? Have they taken censuses? There was someone in the USA who was claiming there are more than 35m Azeris in Iran! I don’t care if they are even 50 millions but where are they?

Kiumars

Tlak: Tajik and Mehrdadd

What is your game? What are you doing? You cannot put statements like 1/3 of the population of Tehran are Azeri without providing proof! Why 1/3 of Tehran is Azeri? Tehran like all other metropolitan cities is a mix of all walk of life in Iran and must be a rational representation of all the population! And that cannot be 1/3!

By the way what does [citation needed] mean? If something is not supported with proof must be deleted till proof is provided! Will it be accepted if I said half the population of Iran is Kurd? Wouldn’t people laugh at us?


Kiumars 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Kiumars, The article Azerbaijani People, have been subject to a lot of discussion entries and edit wars. Eventually Tombseye has steped in and has done a great job to bring the article to a Featured Article standard.[2]. The best way to bring a change to this article woud be to engage in these discussions.
Relatively large section of this article explains the numbers, sources and difficulties of providing accurate numbers on the Azerbaijani population of Iran, however relaiable studies by academic and other sources provide some figures that are used within the article. If you have any other sources of information on the ethnic Azerbaijanies, please let users know and see how we can incorporate in the article. Mehrdad 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdadd, I already presented my data above and the proof that the numbers do not add up!I also have it in spreadsheet format that can send if need be. Ethnologue figures are wrong and they have admitted to it as demonstrated above (in the emails) and they are going to change it! They have totally fucked up and nobody (even the fucking academics!)has even checked their figures last 8 years!

You said “relaiable studies by academic and other sources”, you have used two figures one from CIA that says 24% (roughly 16 million) and the other one from Ethnologue that says 24 million and I have proved above that Ethnologue is wrong! So what figures have the Academics provided and where are the figures and reference to them? Just saying roughly one third of Iran is Azeri is not acceptable no matter whom that statement comes from be it Academics or illiterates! We need figures and proofs.

Mehhrdadd as you know this is a very sensitive issue and that is why as you said many people want to have a finger in it but on the wiki we must only follow facts a and figures not guess and rumours.

If people read the page without NPOV and Factual dispute they may think there is no dispute on it and take it for fact! We must keep the signs to let people know that there are disputes on the article! Kiumars 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ethnologue and census issue

Okay I was reading this dispute and actually before hand I was interested in ethnologue data. I emailted them slightly before July 4th, and I waiting for a response. But here are the correspondences.

I emailed ethnologue recently and here is a correspondence:

Dear Ali,

Most of our staff are away on holidays, including the man who is most knowledgable on the matter you mentioned, so I cannot answer your question at this time. We would be interested to see your sources, however, and we appreciate your taking the time to help us out like this!

Yours sincerely,

Conrad Hurd Ethnologue managing editor

And then the next email:

Ray, I couldn't find where the 15th edition had any mention of 35% under Azerbaijani for Iran, or any percentage, for that matter. Can you figure out what his problem is? --Con

I am waiting for a feedback to see what their source was. But it wasn't any census that was actually taken. Sometimes ethnologue lists its sources, but with this regard it has not mentioned any source. As you can see ethnologue has not done any census on this issue. I am awaiting their email.

I Found the following quote in a web-site: The point about this debate is that the reader of Ethnologue should be aware that although Ethnologue is an invaluable source of language statistics, but the authorities for its facts are mostly Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) Bible translators. The following paragraph highlights the issue further:

What Ethnologue, in its various editions, has tried to do is to identify all the linguistically distinct traditional societies of the world; it incidentally includes all languages, including the 200 or so spoken by truly huge numbers of people. The user of Ethnologue should be aware of certain axes that are being ground. Ethnologue tends to exaggerate the number of languages in the world. A linguist who attends to linguistic structure only, leaving speaker attitudes aside, will recognize fewer than 50 per cent of the number of distinct languages that are recognized in Ethnologue. For example, Ethnologue doubles the number of languages that I, as a linguist who with colleagues has done a dialect survey of the whole of Guatemala, recognize for that country. I recognize about twenty-four languages including Spanish, while Ethnologue gives fifty-four. This proportion (`reality' 1 : SIL 2) may hold in other parts of the western hemisphere, and in some areas, such as Mexico and Peru, Ethnologue is even further from what I accept as reality. While we may concede that SIL is reporting on ethnolinguistic and sociolinguistic difference, we should not accept that low intelligibility of spoken and/or written language between communities is incontrovertible evidence for the existence of distinct languages. This is not a trivial disagreement, because while speaker attitudes can change and will often differ from individual to individual within a community, the linguistic structures do not change very readily and hence are the primary phenomena to be accounted for. I used to (and still do) think of myself as a `splitter, not a lumper', but I need to distance myself from `those who multiply entities needlessly', which is a tendency that is apparent in Ethnologue


Kaufman, Terrance; The native languages of Latin America: general remarks, In "Atlas of the World's Languages" (eds. Christopher Moseley and R.E. Asher), pp. 31-33, 1994.

There has been actually two census I am aware off. One was in the month of mordad, 1370(1991) where the mother tongue of all new borns from all the hospitals of the country was enquired: http://asre-nou.net/1383/ordibehesht/20/m-mohsenian.html The census reads: 46.2% Farsi, 20.6% Turkish, 10% Kurdish, 9% Luri, 7.2% Gilaki and Persian.. and so on. Another actual census is this source: http://www.magiran.com/magtoc.asp?mgID=1929&Number=43&Appendix=0 I have the actual article and about 22% of the population is Turkish speaking. The source above is really good (Although it is from around 1955). The reason it is good is because it the most comprehensive multi-volume book on each of Iran's villages and towns.

Various different census exists: http://i-cias.com/e.o/iran_4.htm http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html

I find the one from http://www.acts.edu/oldmissions/Iranhist1.html matching actual provincial statistics.

I found some other mistakes in ethnologue for example, Nuristani is not part of the Indo-aryan or Iranian branch, but it is the Kafiri branch of Indo-Iranian.

Some datas can be lop-sided as well, for example many Iranian immigrants are from Tehran: http://web.mit.edu/isg/survey.htm

A good census can be taken based on actual provincial statistics and also the correspondig ethnic areas: [3]

I hope the data helps to help in further resolving this dispute. Also there is much marriage from various areas specially in Tehran. If anyone has actual data of any other census that has actually been taken(that is not guesswork) let me know. --Ali doostzadeh 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Ethnologue a reliable source?

Ethnologue figures are wrong on Iran Languages.

You can copy and paste the information on the site into a spreadsheet then copy the figures into a different column one by one and then do a sum on the total, then you will find that The population of Iran was 72.5 million according to Ethnologue! A lot of languages are spoken by exactly 7,033 people! And some are spoken by exactly 1 million or 2 million people, is that a miracle or only a rounding exercise? Is it a sham or what? The interesting thing is that many people use them as a reference but nobody even bothered to add up their figures in the last 8 years!

Ali, I had the same communication problem with them that you mentioned too but I kept sending emails till I got thru! I have all the emails and they are legally presentable documents in any courts! As you can see they initially did not really respond to my request but finally admitted to the errors. Now that you mentioned that you have raised the same issue with them too I am coming to conclusion that they are well aware of the problem but for some reasons do not want to admit to it publicly.

Ali, as I said before it does not matter to me if there are 10 million or 40 million Azeris in Iran, all I want is reasonable proofs for such claims.

Below are the Emails with Ethnologue with regard to wrong figures about Azeris in Iran, I have removed my email address from them but if anyone has any doubt about the authenticity of the emails they can check with the editor Editor_Ethnologue@sil.org or Ray_Gordon@sil.org

++Email 1 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kiumars Sent: 08 May 2006 02:16 To: Editor_Ethnologue@sil.org

Hello, I was searching the web on Iranian ethnic groups for a project I am currently working on and found your site. Some of the information on your site does not tally up with other well known sources may I ask what are the sources you have used? I am referring mainly to the population of the minorities (See CIA factbook on Iran). I would appreciate if you furnish me with contact address or web url to the references.

Regards, Kiumars

++Email 2 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Ray_Gordon@sil.org On Behalf Of Editor_Ethnologue@sil.org Sent: 22 May 2006 16:43 To: kiumars

Kiumars, The Ethnologue information is of languages not ethnic groups. See other sources for ethnic information.

Best regards, Ray Gordon Ethnologue, Research

++Email 3 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kiumars Sent: 05/23/2006 06:58 To: Editor_Ethnologue@sil.org

Dear Mr Gordon, Thank you for replying to my email, my problem is that my figures do not tally up with your figures and I am interested to know the sources of your information.

If we add up the population of all the provinces you have mentioned (i.e. East Azerbaijan (3.4 million), West Azerbaijan (2.8 million), Ardebil (1.2 million), and Zanjan (0.94 million), they add up to 8.5 millions, based on the latest Population Estimation by Statistical Centre Of Iran and various US and UN official organisations. http://www.sci.org.ir/english/default.htm

Assuming that all the population of these provinces are Azerbaijani and there is no non-Azerbaijani living in these provinces (which is not the case as we know and other languages like Kurdish and Farsi are spoken widely in these regions), and If we also again very generously assume that 1/4 of Tehran Province's 12 million population (Tehran itself is about 8 million) are Azerbaijanis (that gives us another 3 millions), we end up with a total of 11.5 millions (roughly and very generously estimated).

Your article also mentions "Some Azerbaijani-speaking groups are in Fars Province and other parts of Iran". Lets assume another 0.5 million or even 1 million live in these areas, that makes the Total 12.5 millions.

So comparing this figure (12.5m) with your figure (23.5m) as you can see I am missing 11 million Azerbaijanis in Iran! Where are they then? Where else could they be? Doesn't that worry you?

We are missing half of the Azerbaijanis of Iran if your figures are correct!

Please help me find them.

Kind regards, Kiumars

++Email 4 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Ray_Gordon@sil.org on behalf of Editor_Ethnologue@sil.org Sent: 25 May 2006 18:31 To: kiumars

Kiumars, Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not able to locate the original source from 1997. You are correct that our published source is too high, although some estimates range up to 40 millions. In line with your calculations we agree that the figure is likely closest to 11,000,000. We will do further research and update our figures for the next edition.

Yours, Ray Gordon Ethnologue, Research

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kiumars 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Kiumars, good research. My email is listed on my homepage, and if you can email me all the posts I would appreciate it. Khoda Negahdar --Ali doostzadeh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++++

Copy of my discussion with Mehrdad (17:37, 22 July 2006) on Ethnologue talk page you may find interesting. (Kiumars).

The responsibility of gathering data, specially in non democratic countries like Iran falls on the shoulders of the governments, as simply no one else is allowed to gather unbiased data. However in Iran there has not been any comprehensive census covering the data on ethnic groups. This intentional policy of hiding the number of ethnic groups has been due to fact that dominant ethnic Fars/Persian are not the most numerous one as successive Persian dominated governments have been claiming since 1920s. Kiumars wonders why numbers on speakers of this languages are rounded, it is if he does not know that there is no detailed data on these people. The numbers in Ethnologue page for Iran [4] totals to 69,373,703 ( not 72.5) which is close enough for this purpose.
As for the number of Azerbaijani people in Iran, most reliable sources agree that up to third of Tehran and most of Karaj population are Azeri ethnics, plus Azerbaijan has been the source of most migrants to all parts of the Iran. If you travel in Iran you would find Azerbaijanis even remotest areas from Gorgan to Bandar Abbas and Mashhad to Ahvaz. So just adding up the population of Azerbaijani provinces would not do. Plus Azerbaijanis are majority in East Azerbaijan West Azerbaijan , Ardabil, Zanjan, Qazvin, Hamadan and are constituting a large part of Gilan, Markazi and Kurdestan provices. Add to this Qashqais , Khorasani Turks, Afshar of Kerman and other scattered Turkic tribes who are included in Ethnologue’s list and you may find the missing numbers if not more. Mehrdad 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Mehrdad (17:37, 22 July 2006), your figures do not add up either! Below are two links to an Excel spreadsheet and an html version of it I made from Ethnologue website data and copied the number of people that Ethnologue claim speak a language in a different column (to be able to sum up), and classification of the languages in a different column (to be able to sum up based on classification on sheet 2). As you will see from the spreadsheet the total is 72.4 million against the Iran’s population of 67.5 million according to the current Ethonologue website. So you see that 5 million people are still missing as I said before! How did you make it 69.4 million? Why your sum is 3 million less than what is actually on Ethnologue website?

http://www.zen49535.zen.co.uk/Public/Iran/Wiki/Languages_of_Iran_2html.zip http://www.zen49535.zen.co.uk/Public/Iran/Wiki/Languages_of_Iran_2.zip

Based on the 2005 actual provincial statistics, the population of Iran was 68 million (Which I believe still includes about 2 million Afghan and Iraqi refugees and other migrants).

Let’s look at the figures again, the regions that Asaris are in vast majority are Ardabil, East Azerbaijan and Zanjan.

East Azerbaijan (3.5 millions), Ardebil (1.2 millions), Zanjan (0.97 million), West Azerbaijan (3 million, roughly 50% Azari and %50 Kurds (Approx 1.5 millions Azaris)), Hamadan (1.8 million, 28% Azaris on the border with Zanjan and Markazi (Approx 0.6 million)), Gilan (2.4 million, roughly 10% Azaris (Approx 0.24 million)), Ghazvin (1.2 million, roughly 20% Azaris (Approx 0.24 million)).

Total: 3.5 + 1.2 + 0.97 + 1.5 + 0.6 + 0.24 + 0.24 = 8.25 millions

Mehrdad, you also mentioned “Plus Azerbaijanis are majority in East Azerbaijan West Azerbaijan , Ardabil, Zanjan, Qazvin, Hamadan and are constituting a large part of Gilan, Markazi and Kurdestan provices. Add to this Qashqais , Khorasani Turks, Afshar of Kerman and other scattered Turkic tribes”.

I already catered for East Azerbaijan West Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Zanjan, Qazvin, Hamadan and Gilan above, are you happy with those figures or you disagree with them?

Now let’s look at the remaining regions i.e. Markazi, Kurdestan, Qashqais, Khorasani Turks, Afshar of Kerman, and other scattered Turkic tribes. I need you to tell me what percentage of Markazi (Arak) and Kurdestan are Azaris. As for the rest, let’s assume that Khorasani Turks are Azaris (although Ethnologue does not classify their language as Azeris!), so we add another 400k. I also add another 1.5 million for Quashquis (just for the sake of argument at the moment, despite the fact that Ethnologue says it may be a dialect of Azari and the fact that most Quashguis will kill you if you call them Azari! and also the fact that The Library of Congress Country Studies estimated the total Turkic-speaking population of Fars to be about 500,000 in 1986). Let’s also add 300,000 for Afshars, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (as per Ethnologue recommendations). Are you happy with this figures? Have I missed anything? As you can see I am using Ethnologue figures to prove that their sums do not add up!

400+1500+300+5+8+1+4+1+3+2+130= 2,354 (2.4 million)

So we add 8.25 + 2.4= 10.65, and so far we have a total of 10.65 millions (I have not deducted anything for the non-Azaris living in Ardabil, Zanjan and East Azerbaijan although I think we should have deducted at least 5% for non-Azaris living there but as we are calculating roughly I am going to please you by not deducting these).

Now we are left with Tehran Province that has 12 million populations (10.5 Urban and 1.5 Rural). I don’t think you find many Azari farmers in the Rural areas of Tehran province but to keep you happy I am going to look at the bigger number i.e. 12 millions. So as you can see even if all the Tehran province population (both Urban & Rural) were Azaris you still would be short of a few million Azaris to make the Ethnologue numbers!

Mehrdad, you also mentioned “most reliable sources agree that up to third of Tehran and most of Karaj population are Azeri ethnics, plus Azerbaijan has been the source of most migrants to all parts of the Iran.

Let us see what we can make of Tehran and Karaj now. The province of Tehran includes 9 districts (Tehran, Shemiranat, Rey, Islamshahr, Shahreyar, Karaj, Savejbolagh, Varamin and Damavand) and 12 cities and 38 towns (major cities are Eslamshahr, Damavand, Firoozkooh, Karaj, Pakdasht, Robot Kari, Ray, Savojbolagh, Shahryar, Shemiranat and Varamin). The great Tehran (that is Tehran and its adjacent town is about 8 million) and Karaj is the second city with almost 1 million population. I think it will be easier and more advantageous for Azari numbers if we look at the big figure rather than trying to looking at these cities one by one, as you know there are not many Azaris in some of these cities (especially in the Rural areas).

Even if we assume that 1/3 of the population of Tehran province are Azaris as you suggested (I do not say that I agree with this assumption, I am just doing a calculation based on what you suggested), that gives us another 4 millions, and adding that to the previous sum it gives us 4 + 10.65 = 14.65 millions and you see that we are still more than 10 millions short to make Ethnologue figures (23.5 millions Azaris and 1.5 millions Qashqa'I = 25 millions).


Mehrdad, you also mentioned “If you travel in Iran you would find Azerbaijanis even remotest areas from Gorgan to Bandar Abbas and Mashhad to Ahvaz”. So just adding up the population of Azerbaijani provinces would not do.

I already catered for Azaris in some of the northern provinces (Gilan 10% and Ghazvin 20% Azaris), aren’t you happy with these percentages? Just tell me what you think they should be and I do the calculation again. But now I need you to tell me how many Azaris live in other parts of Iran. I am sure you are not claiming 10 millions! are you?

I speak Azari and Kurdi and Fasi and I have lived and worked in the west of Iran (From Azerbaijan to Khositan) over 40 years but I have not seen many of these 10 million Azari immigrants you are talking about! There are some that come for short term jobs (mainly Civil Engineering projects) but they go back home after the contract is over! Let’s see how you make up for the missing 10 million! Mehrdad, try again but next time use figures and statistics to support your views not rhetorics.


Mehrdad, you comments are loaded with political rhetorics and clearly state your biased point of view on the subject. Now let us see what we can make sense of some of your rhetorics.

Re: The responsibility of gathering data, specially in non democratic countries like Iran falls on the shoulders of the governments, as simply no one else is allowed to gather unbiased data. However in Iran there has not been any comprehensive census covering the data on ethnic groups.

So, is Iran less democratic than any other country in the region? Is Iran less democratic than Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt, Rep of Azerbaijan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or even Turkey? And are you suggesting that as there are no reliable data (as you put it) then we can make up one ourselves?

By the way if you read Ali’s posts you will see that a snapshot census was carried out in 1991 on ethnic groups. See --Ali doostzadeh 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) where Ali says” Probably the best census I have seen is the following[4]. In this census, 49,588 mothers who gave birth and were issued birth certificates during the Iranian month of Mordad in 1991 were asked about their mother-tongue. In that census Kurds were 10%, Arabs 5%, and Azaris 20.6% of the total which matches calculations based on provincial statistics.”

Re: As for the number of Azerbaijani people in Iran, most reliable sources agree that up to third of Tehran and most of Karaj population are Azeri ethnics.

Who are these reliable sources? When did they carry out a census? How reliable are these people?

By the way, an interesting outcome of my research on this subject has been about the population of the Kurds in Iran. According to Ethnologue figures (see page 2 of the spreadsheet), the population of the Kurds in the Kurdish areas of Iran is 7.6 millions (compared with 8.25 million Azaris calculated above). And if we apply the same percentages for migration we applied for the Azari population then the Kurds are far less represented than the Azaris! (Food for thought!).


Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people

Section "When are we going to sort out this mess? What is the next step?"

--Ali doostzadeh 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) & --Ali doostzadeh 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Kiumars 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish Theory

Is this theory even sensible anymore? I mean, which historians support this theory? This theory has been busted, it has no place in this article.Iranian Patriot 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree; the Turkish theory has been proven to be wrong, but should be mentioned, but with the statment that it is a popular myth similar in its fallacy to the Nazis' theories of the Aryan master race, which at the time was popular but is not true or correct. Even studying many of the advocates of the Turkic identy's work one will see that they claim this ethnicity based on language. This theory and those claims contradict each other, especially when applied in any thesis claiming Azaris are predominately Turkic. 69.196.164.190

we should not include wrong statements. the turkish theory has been proven wrong and it is baseless. the turkish theory is has been disproven, it has not place in this article anymore. i vote delete on that section.Iranian Patriot 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


if htis topic is not discussed, then i will take action and delete that section.Iranian Patriot 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
no replies? so maybe i should take action now? i am assuming that people are ok with it since there are no objections.Iranian Patriot 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there any sources proving Turkic theory wrong? Grandmaster 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


yes, there are many historical facts that prove it wrong, and i dont think any respectable historian today actually agrees with the theory that azari's are descendents of turkic tribes. even the ottoman sultans were not ethnic turks, infact, "turks" west of central asia are mostly linguistically turkic. this has been proven through DNA testing, and historical facts, which record the pre-turkic histories of the regions. the Turkic theory is baseless, and the facts it is based on are ludicrous and at most shakey. the origins of these people are certainly not turkic. what is written in the article itself is ludicrous and shows how unfounded the theory is. the theory written in this very article talks of turkification. turkification changed the language and osme aspects of the culture, but it did not make people suddenly become ethnic turks.Khosrow II 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khosrow II. We don't include any personal opinions in the article, everything should be based on reliable and unbiased sources. So far I have not seen any source disproving this theory. I personally think that Azeris are of mixed origin, so all the theories are valid. Grandmaster 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
its not my opinion, its the facts. if i cannot take out the section completely, or say that it is wrong, i know i can add on to it the facts that disprove the theory. I can atleast do that cant i, becaues technically i will be adding facts about the theory.Khosrow II 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You know the rules. Any edits to the article should be based on authoritative sources, and not personal interpretations. Grandmaster 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Iranian Patriot, you wish that, Turkish thoery was proven to be wrong. This is only a wish. You have to have real scientific proof to be able to claim that a theory is wrong. By the way have you ever been to Azerbaycan? Come and see yourself whether Turkish theory is wrong or not? And dear Khosrow II, where were your DNA testing results or historical facts were printed. Please give us the names of the scientific journals so that we can also distinguish a fact from a wish. Ottoman Sultans were real genuine Turks. Well rest of the world knows this. Nowadays why do Iranians are against Turks of Anatolia or Azerbaycan? Why do you feel uncomfortable with the idea of a neighborng Turk?


The Turkish theory was not yet disproved, in fact most of the theorists discuss the percentage of Turkish ethnicity, since to support its complete absense is a fallacy. The article as is - is a good compromise and it is a matter for a reader to decide one of the three. It has following points to defend it: 1) Reports of Turkic settlements constantly since early Middle Ages 2) Reported massive migration of Oghuz tribes in 10-11 century 3) Dede-Qorqud as the proof

I am not suggesting the theory is right.. but it has some valid points...

  • The theory has been proven wrong. No historian would tell you that Azeri's are ethnically Turkic (except ofcourse Turk historians). No one is disputing that Azari's speak a Turkic language today, and no one is disputing that Turks had a large impact on the Azari's. What I am disputing is that Azari's have no Turkic ethnic background. This has been proven through the old Azari language (which was Iranic), DNA testing, and the fact that Azari villagers live there lives much in the same way as other Iranic people (the comparison was down with villagers because villagers tend to be more traditionally in their ways).
  • There were never any permenant Turkic settlements in the area. There were a few (very few) Turkic incursions into Sassanid Iran, but they were either defeated or left after raiding. Also, it should be noted that these "Turkic" tribes often had many non-Turkic people within them. The Huns are the best example of that.
  • Yes, it was the massive migrations starting from the 11th century that Turkified the region, much like the massive Arab migrations that Arabized Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, etc... However, being Turkified or Arabized does not make you an ethnic Turk or Arab.
  • Dede Korkut was written by Turks, however, I dont see what that has to do with anything.
Khosrow II 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Please provide the sources where the theory has been proved completely wrong. I don't think you understand the difference between theory and factual truth. For the theory to be proven wrong most of the scientists have to agree that it is wrong. For instants you say - very few raids, then you have to provide an estimate from the sources as to how many is the few. Also composition of Turkic tribes is uunknown quantity. You can say that the theory has less weight, but to say it is wrong, you have to have damn good evidence! Give me a break, we have been citing Tabari et al for all occasions.

And yes, being Turkified makes you a Turk, as we discussed already ethno-cultural characteristics define people, rather than their descend only! abdulnr 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to through to many factors into the disscusion for editing

We should deal with a couple of issues and make working discussions on them and not jump into the editing chair. Orderly engagment is needed by all. That said, I must ask what is the meaning of this sentence, "By far the largest ethnic group in Azerbaijan (over 90%), the Azeris generally tend to dominate most aspects of the country [the Republic of Azarbaijan/Arran]," from the article. This statment seems to be acting as a foil and makingwhat appears to be a negative statment about the role of Azaris in Iran. After other questions and concerns are met can we please, as a group, discuss this statment. Frnakley it seems to indirectly or maybe even directly support POV. I also want to mention that user:Tombseye has done excellent work and no edits should be made without his input. 69.196.164.190

Oil Reserves

Does anybody actually know the proven oil reserves of Rep Azerbaijan? I have come across figures from 589 million bbl (CIA Factbook) to some who claim 30-40 billion bbl! If it is only 589 million bbl it is going to run out in a few years! Kiumars 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I want to point out that this article is about Azaris as a people not the Republic of Azarbaijan (Arran). 69.196.164.190

- 69.196.x.x I did not suggest to incorporate the proven oil reserve figure in the article, I am interested to know the figure because it will have major impact on the future of Rep Azerbaijan economy and its people’s life style and the region's geopolitical importance. If CIA figure is correct Rep Azerbaijan and its people will be in trouble in a few years (or less than 18 month from the time they start pumping out 1 million bbl a day!). Kiumars 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


7 billion barrels reported on BP Energy Review abdulnr 03:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkmens of Iraq

Should we insert also the Iraqi Turkmens in the table? Their language is indicated by Ethnologue as being South Azerbaijani.--Aldux 10:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree the language of Turkmens of Iraq is considered to be Azerbaijani. Ethnologue clasify Iraqi Turkmens languge as Azerbaijani (South) and provides following information information:
  • Language name Azerbaijani, South
  • Population 300,000 to 900,000 in Iraq (1982).
  • Region Kirkuk City, Arbil, Rowanduz, towns and villages southeast from Kirkuk as far as Al Miqdadiyah, Khanaqin, and Mandali; also several places in the Mosul Region.
  • Dialects Kirkuk.
  • Language use They speak South Azerbaijani at home.
  • Language development Many read Arabic or Kurdish. Low literacy rate in South Azerbaijani.
  • Comments They are called 'Turkmen', or 'Turks', in Iraq and Syria. There is little literature. Muslim.

We can add this information to the Region With Significant Populations and add the rest to the body of the article under its own heading Azeris in Iraq. Mehrdad 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

we cannot add them because technically they are not of azari origin. we talked about this in the persian people talk page, where it was decided that people only of ethnic background would be listed, and not of hte linguistic background. therefore, tajiks and hazaras were left out. Turkmen are not azari, they should not be included.Iranian Patriot 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that the assertion is correct. Turkmens are not Azaris although their language is similar. They are a seperarte ethnicity. 69.196.164.190

Iranian Patriot writes "only of ethnic background would be listed" and indeed here we are discussing Azeris as a ethnic group. The main criteria and identity for an ethnic group is the language, and that is what this article is about. One of the most famous Azeri poets Fuzûlî, is a Turkmen from Iraq. The bound goes beyond language when we consider that Aq Qoyunlu and Kara Koyunlu ruling dynasties of Azerbaijan are from these Turkmens as well. Mehrdad 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but no language is not the main criteria for ethnic identity, although it overlaps. Otherwise we would all be Anglo-Saxons here with that rationale. Language can be seen as a substantional criteria for national identity, but not ethnicity. Ethnicity is more complicated than that. 69.196.164.190

language does not identify ethnic background. if it did, then hazara's would be persians, and we all know that hazaras are a turkic people who speak persian as their mother language. language does not mean ethnicity.Iranian Patriot 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkmens are not considered Azeris. Even Turkmens do not consider themselves as Azeris.

The language is not the only criteria, but the main criteria. It is true Anglo-Saxons of America and Canada have common English language yet ethnically consider themselves different. So self identity is another important criteria. In this case I am not sure about the Turkmen's self identity so this need to be studied further. Mehrdad 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but now I am sure you need to really study what you are asserting here. First of all Canadian and American are not ethnic groups and very few members of these populations are considered or categorized as Anglo-Saxons because they have mixed populations or multi-ethnic populations. Many profiles or population samples/members rightly consider their national identities and self-describtions differently. This concept of 'national identity' has to do with fixed, varibale, solid, and abstract factors, but when it comes to the issue of ethnicity it is another question with a whole set of its own criterion. Another point is that in both these countries we have various ethnicities who share same nationality, language(s) (in the USA English and in Canada English and French), and culture, but are still considered seperate ethnicities. This whole outline actually de-rails what you are trying to present. There are Americans of African descent or Asian or Slavic who have all lived in the USA for many, many generations and speak English as their only language or mother tongue, share almost indentical cultural traits, etc. but still are considered as different ethnic groups from one another. RIght there this proves that ethnicity is not determined by language alone or primarily by language or by self-concept. Additionally they are all not considered as Anglo-Saxons just because they speak English; this actually is varification for the fact that Azaris can not be considered ethnically as Turkic becuase of their language, otherwise everyone in the USA would be considered an Anglo-Saxon. Neither as these demographic examples labelled or believed to form a new ethnicity termed as 'American.' All this, once again, proves that language does not govern ethnicity and that the assertions of Pan-Turkism are dead wrong and untrue. As an Azari myself, I have never once considered myself Turkic, outside of language either. 69.196.164.190

Mehrdad, language is one of the worse ways of identifying people of a certain ethnic group. the best example are the Hazara's in afghanistan, whose mother toungue is persian, yet they are mongolic. other examples would be lebanese and egyptians. they are linguistically arabic, but they are not ethnic arabs. just because you speak a certain language does not make you a part of that ethnic group. if my son is born in the USA and is only able to speak english, that does not make him an anglo-saxon, that still makes him of iranian ancestry. language does not mean ethnicity.Iranian Patriot 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Correction on the name: "Turkman", since they are diffrent than the other turkic people living in "turkmenistan" and being called "Turkmen"

Danger

I am coming to conclusion that there are some people with vested interest who are taking ownership of Wiki articles and if that is true Wiki will go down like a stone if this is not stopped. I am already losing interest and confidence in Wiki!

Kiumars 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean?Iranian Patriot 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What does the Article want to say?

I am not really sure what the article in its current shape stands for and supposed/wants to say! What does "Azerbaijani People" mean? Azeris (i.e. those who speak Azeri) live in several different countries with different social, economical, cultural and political systems and modern histories the only thing that these Azeris have in common is different dialogues of a language called Azeri! The same applies to Kurds. I can argue that Iranian Azeris and Iranian Kurds have far more in common today (culturally) than the Azeris of Iran Share with Azeris of Rep Azerbaijan (after 200 years separation and total cultural isolation from each other!). One obvious and major difference is the role of religion and the degree it influences their daily lives. Iranian Azeris are very religious but Azeris in the Rep Azerbaijan are quiet different and recent survey show that despite the rapid rise of Islam in the recent years still for example, 41% of the respondents would not mind much if a member of their family married a non-Muslim, and 33.5% of the respondents accepted the idea of having a non-Muslim president in the country. Similarly, 23.9% of the interviewees did not condemn citizens who convert from Islam to other religions. A survey in Iran (even before the Islamic revolution) would show the cultural gap between these two societies.

So I am just trying to find out the best way of comparing these people and cultures and whether there is actually any merits in doing it, after all we don’t compare Australians with British or Canadians or Americans (or even some of the ex-colonies that mainly speak English) merely because they speak the same language! Is this article in anyway related to or is paving the road for the America’s plan of weakening the regime in Iran by creating ethnic unrest? Are we actually politically unbiased here? I am still thinking, help!

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2369303

Kiumars 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Hmmmm...!
You think people don't know who are Azerbaijanis and bother yourselves to lecture with you irrelevant personal arguments?! Hah, Azerbaijanis can be seen here buddy...!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2380907924962420269&q=
Countdown 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes they can, but what does that prove. Do not argue through conjecture. What is the point of seeing a mass of Azaris marching? COuntdown, I hope you are not acting as an antagonist. I will assume good faith, but what is the point of showing a crowd of Azaris? We know how they look; what is it suppose to prove?
people know who azeri's are, and they are not ethnic turks, and turks from turkey are also not ethnic turks. ethnic turks are the ones living in central asia. the turks living west of central asia are only linguistically turkic. they have mixed so much that they dont even look like turkic people anymore. turkic people have mongoloid asiatic features, like atilla the hun did, and like uzbeks, kyrygz, and kazakhs do today. the history and the evidence is on our side.Iranian Patriot 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How Turkic-speaking nations of Central Asia or anywhere alse look like, does not make sense. The reason is because ethnicity does not correlate with race, phenotype or physiologic issues. If even we prove that genetically Azeris are more reltaed to Achaemenid s than modern Persians are, does not mean that then they are not Azerbaijani or Turkic. The ethnicity is a different issue which first of all is defined by a common self-identification among a people group. Thus Azeris feel themselves closer to one another in comparison to an Arab or Persian or Armenian whom they see foreigner.
Countdown 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


there are also many azari's who view themselves as iranic and descendents of the medes (which they are), one notable one being Kasravi, who wrote a great deal about this issue, saying that azari's were indeed iranic (he was an azari himself!). History and the evidence proves everything. even the seljuk statues and engravings of themselves showed that they had asiatic features! roman writings tell us that atilla the hun had asiatic features. you just dont want to face the fact that you are only linguistically turkic, and thats as far as it goes. historians and linguists agree with this. ancient historians and travelers have written down that the language of the region was an iranic dialect close to persian and other iranic languages. even today, talyshi's and tats have survived turkification.Iranian Patriot 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Even Ahmad Karavi's issue does not make sense because the bulk of population consedider themselves as Azerbaijani not Tati or Talyshi (But of course Ahmad Kasravi later regreted on behalf of his previously statements but never allowed to people to know!). There are also many Persian Mollahs who even want or wanted to destroy Pasargad or other Iranian historic sites! Can we conclude Persians are not Persian but Arabs? Sure not, because they don't consider themselves as Arabs but as Persians. Countdown 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Still it does not make sense. People change their language or identity during history. It's a common fact. You can find everywhere many linguistic or identity shifts. In Azerbaijanis case, the bulk of population regard themselves as Azerbaijani and neither Armenian nor Persian nor Russian, nor Talyshi! The same as Persians don't consider themselves as Pashtun. Countdown 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Guys, lets not turn this into a chat-room but I think Countdown actually confirmed my point that Wiki is being used for political purposes and is being pushed outside the framework of an encyclopedia and is turning into a news-wire by some posters with certain vested interest. Countdown, judging by your empty user page and talk page I can only assume that you are not a good contributor to Wiki!

Iranian-Patriot, when contributing to an encyclopedia you must stick to the facts and figures only. Research cannot be mixed with personal feelings and patriotism, no matter how noble the intention is. Kiumars 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just your personal adea, nothing alse! :)Countdown 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
i have infact done a lot of research. I have looked at seljuk engravings and sculptures, i have read about ancient accounts of what the turks looked like, and i have seen DNA tests. I have come to the conclusion, and this is correct, that the turks of turkey and Azarbaijan are linguistically turkic, not ethnically turkic. this is supported by DNA tests, historical records, and what remains of the seljuk turkic empire.Iranian Patriot 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's good and interesting. Can be added to genetic section; However it does not change the fact of ethnic identity of modern Azerbaijanis as 'Azerbaijanis' and not as Persian or Talyshy. Countdown 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys it is time to think like a nation not like a tribe! Look at America! It is the most mixed society by far, even look at Israel, it has immigrants form all over the world! Do you hear anything about ethnic clashes in those countries? Even Europeans who were worst enemies are uniting and only the Middle East is set for division! Have you ever thought why? Kiumars 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


::That's just your personal adea, nothing alse! :)Countdown 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like America is good. Federalism?! You are a kind guy.Countdown 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
no, its not just my personal idea, its supported by facts and history, just like i said previously. when i have time, i will write a nice good paragraph, with all the evidence, so that we cna finally end the whole turkic theory, which has already been disproven anyway.
@kiumars: this is an encyclopaedia, and these discussions are necessary. if not, then whats the point of being a historian, or linguist, or anthropoligist, or archeologist, etc....Iranian Patriot 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


I did not say to you that it's your personal idea but to Kiumars. Countdown 21:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranian-Patriot you call this a discussion? It looks more like a war to me! Ok guys let me ask you a question is any of you Iranian Azeri? Or ever lived in any Azeri part of Iran? Kiumars 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

half of my family is made up of azari's. there does that make you happy? and this is a discussion, i dont know why you think its a war... your the one saying that there is an anti-iranian political agenda here.Iranian Patriot 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Yashsin Azerbaijan, Yashasin Iran. I better go now but you two better clean this mess on the page before you leave, it does not look good for an encyclopedia discussion page! Kiumars 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, stop it please!!!


::Even Ahmad Karavi's issue does not make sense because the bulk of population consedider themselves as Azerbaijani not Tati or Talyshi (But of course Ahmad Kasravi later regreted on behalf of his previously statements but never allowed to people to know!). There are also many Persian Mollahs who even want or wanted to destroy Pasargad or other Iranian historic sites! Can we conclude Persians are not Persian but Arabs? Sure not, because they don't consider themselves as Arabs but as Persians. Countdown 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

how do you know ahmad kasravi regretted it? infact, he spent his whole life trying to proove it. the iranian mullahs only see themselves as muslims. at the begining of the revolution, they wanted to destroy all of iran's pre-islamic history, and have iranians only consider themselves muslims, but they couldnt do it. now, they are preserving everything. and do you see the mullahs with the black turban? that means they are descendents of arabs, but nevertheless, they are iranian and most have been persianified by now.Iranian Patriot 22:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

...But later regretted. I talked about ethnic Persians who study religious material and become Mollahs. I don't think for becomming a Mollah one should provide a genetic certification that his ancestores all were Arabs! Many ethnic Persians have been during history and are Mollahs. Countdown 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

no, kasravi never regretted anything, i think your confused with someone else. also, i didnt say all mullahs, i said only the ones with the black turbans. if you are shia, you will understand, but i think your sunni. in shia'ism, mullahs descending from the prophet muhammad are given black turbans. and ofcourse, muhammad was an arab, so technically, that makes them arab, but like i said, they are mostly non-arabs now because they have been diluted over the centuries.Iranian Patriot 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not, he did, before Prof. Hashtroudi. I'm not religious and have no idea what Mollahs clothings mean! Countdown 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

::Still it does not make sense. People change their language or identity during history. It's a common fact. You can find everywhere many linguistic or identity shifts. In Azerbaijanis case, the bulk of population regard themselves as Azerbaijani and neither Armenian nor Persian nor Russian, nor Talyshi! The same as Persians don't consider themselves as Pashtun. Countdown 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

no one is saying that azari's are not linguistically turkic, but this is an encyclopaedia, and there is such a thing called history. what you are saying is that we shouldnt study history, but if you dont study history, you end up repeating it. also, you seem to think that azari=turk but that is wrong. azari is its own ethnic group, and azari does not necessarily mean turkic.Iranian Patriot 22:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Whay you think I think like that?! Noone can force people to call themselves 'Turk' or not. It dependes on whther this people consider themselves as Ethnic Turks or not. This can be solved by citiations through reliable sources. However, Ther is a 'Turkic' classification which is simply linguistic as there is an Iranic or semitic or Germanic. These are based on linguistic data and not ethnical. As an ethnic Group, sure Azerbaijanis are 'ethnic Azerbaijanis' who are linguistically Turkic. But as I said before, whether they call themselves Turks or not can't be solved by our personal arguments rather than by citiations. Countdown 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
but like i have said before, there are azari's who dont view themselves as turkic also, that is why we have to come to a historical conclusion. let me ask you this: do you think the hazara's are mongolic or iranic?Iranian Patriot 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That need a simple citiation and solved. It's not an important issue because they even if exist comprise a small portion of the Azerbaijani community. Just like those ethnic Persian Mollahs who think Pasargad should be destroyed. Hazaras are Iranic because they speak an Iranian tongue Thus also mongoloid by race but are Iranic by speech.Countdown 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, you proved my point. Hazara's are ethnic mongols, however they speak an iranic language. Azari's are not ethnic turks, they just speak a turkic language. see, we come to an agreement afterall. also, i dont understand why you keep bringing up mullahs. what do they have to do with anything? i have to go now, i'll be back in a couple of hours.Iranian Patriot 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I said Hazara are racially mongoloid, and linguistically Iranic. race and ethnicity are two different issues. Ethnicity is primarily a regional commonly accepted self-Identification name. Thus: Hazara are racially mongoloid, linguistically Iranic, and ethnically Hazara! Countdown 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
While not wanting to get involved in this issue (I think the article is fairly balanced on this issue), there was a mistake here made by user countdown. Ahmad Kasravi never made any regrets on his research and his research about turkificaiton is widely accepted by major encyclopedias (Brittanica) and before him Prof. Markwart wrote on this issue. So Kasravi just expanded the research of Prof. Markwart and this itself shows the invalidity of having any regrets! since he did not propose the fact first. The concept of Kasravi having regrets infront of Prof. Hashtrudi is a 2nd hand story made up by a certain Roshan Khiyavi and was mentioned in a pan-turkic site and can not be considered reliable. Much unreliable claims are made through these sites. For example one of them claims UNESCO considered Turkish the 3rd language of the world and Persian as the 33th dialect of Arabic. So one has to do real research. Indeed Kasravi criticized Shi'i Islam, which ultimately he was killed for and so did not shy away from his opinion. His authentic research earned him academic acceptance worldwide and was highly praised by major scholars like Vladimir Minorsky. It is accepted fact now that the language of Iranian Azerbaijan before turkification was middle Persian dialects like Azari (not to be confused with Azeri-Turkish). Also the Mollah that wanted to level persepolis was khalkhali and he was from khalkhal near tabriz. --Ali doostzadeh 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
countdown, your argument is baseless. you are saying that azari's are turkic because they speak a turkic dialect. that doesnt make sense. is a second generation chinese person who only speaks english an anglo-saxon? no offense, but the pan turkic historians have used language as a basis to avoid the facts. you can read about all this on Dr. Kaveh Farroukhs article about pan-turkism and azarbaijan (Dr. Farroukh himself is half azari).Iranian Patriot 01:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kasravi as a nationalist of its time had racial view to the issues of nationality and ethnicity. In fact this view was the trend of many Iranian intellectuals, inspired by German educated ones, back in the first half of the twentieth century. What is amusing is that in this day and age some still see the world through the black and white glasses and assume some type of purity for so called Iranian race! Mehrdad 06:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Kasravi's book on ancient Azeri language does not talk about race. It just proves the linguistic shift from Iranian to Turkic. Kasravi wasn't even the first person to present facts to this regard and Markwart the eminent German scholar mentions it at least 20 years before Kasravi. There is no pure race in anywhere in the world except for some remote island. But one can certainly say a certain group has a predominant characetristics. Although Yaquts are known to be 92% free of admixtures. --Ali doostzadeh 07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mehrdad, this is an encyclopaedia, and we are trying to come to a comprise so as to provide the best correct information we can to the public. Yes, everyone is mixed for the most part, but i dont see what that has to do with anything. we are discussing the Turkic theory, which has been proving wrong time and time again, by many historians. the turkic theories needs to be taken out, because today, almost all historians agree on the turkification of the region.Iranian Patriot 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Mehrdad, if that is your view then by your own standards the Turkic theory in this day and age can not even be tolerated. 69.196.164.190

[Re: the turkic theories needs to be taken out.]. I don’t think it should be taken out, it is something that happened and needs to be mentioned but also to be mentioned clearly that it has not been proven to be a valid argument so that people in the future have knowledge of what has been going on in the past (We don’t want some people reinvent the wheel again, do we?). I have no doubt that other arguments of this kind will pop up in the future and the more record we keep from the past the better! You wouldn’t take Hitler off the history books, would you?Kiumars 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

theories that have been proven wrong should not be mentioned. The "aryans came from europe" theory was disproven, and it is no longer mentioned as fact. the "earth is flat theory" has been proven wrong and is also not mentioned. the "turkic theory" has also been proven wrong, infact, multiple times, and should be taken out. it is not valid, and our objective is to make the best possible information source we can. the iranic and caucasian theories have not yet been disproven, and should be kept.Iranian Patriot 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[Re: Theories that have been proven wrong should not be mentioned. The "earth is flat theory" has been proven wrong and is also not mentioned.].
Interesting to mention this but there is a society that still believes Earth is flat (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html & http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm ). So I think it is important to mention the failed theories for information so that charlatans can not abuse people’s ignorance to bring up other similar theories or revitalize the old theories. That is why I believe it is important and beneficial to mention the failed theories and also explain why they have been rejected. After all, there is no such a thing as “excess of knowledge” but we all know about “lack of knowledge”. Kiumars 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


this is an encyclopaedia, you have to keep that in mind. this is a place where people go and get information. when we include information that is wrong, we are potentially misinforming the public. failed theories are never mentioned in academic encyclopaedia's. could you imagine if someone today were to publish a book and claim that everything revolves around the earth (as was believed a few hundred years ago). no one would take it seriously. Iranian Patriot 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tatars

One important fact was missed from the article, nowhere is it mentioned that before the founding of the ADR the Turkic Muslims of Caucasus were designated as Tatars. The Azeri reference originated at the end of the first decade of the 20th century.--Eupator 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

i have never seen a reference regarding azeri's as tartar's. tartar's are another turkic tribe, they have nothing to do with azari's as far as i know.Iranian Patriot 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Tatar" (or "Tartar") is not the name of a Turkic tribe, but the name given to Central-Asian nomads by Europeans. It is taken from Tartaros, the Greek god of the underworld. It is a reference to the brutality of Central-Asian nomads after their invasions in Europe.
The Russian Empire designated all Caucasus Muslims as Tatars, there were no people that called themselves Azeris or were called by others Azeris on the territory of modern Republic of Azerbaijan until the 20th century.--Eupator 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The name "Turk" ist not a self-designation of the Turkic peoples, but the name that was given to them by Perso-Arabic Muslims. The Arabs called the lands beyond the Syr Darya "Bilad al-Turk" (derived from "Gök Turk", a nomadic tribe in Central-Asia). This became "Turkistan" in Persian, and from then on, every nomad from "Turkistan" was called "Turk", no matter if he was Mongol, Slavic, Turkic, or Iranic. Later, the term changed to "Mongol", and then again to "Turk" - at the end, it was changed to "Uzbek" and "Turkoman", while the original Islamic word "Tork" was adopted by the ruling elite of Anatolia - ironically, "Turks" make up only a very small minority of Anatolia. Tājik 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the Russian Empire designated all Turkic people as "Tatars" or rather "Tartars" to contrast them with Turks of Ottoman Empire. Thus it was a purposeful misnomer by imperial authorities. Meanwhile, Russian sources such as the official ethnographer of the Caucasus for the Russian czar in his 1903 book calls Azerbaijanis as "Aderbeijani Tatars", as do other sources, such as the famed British researcher, Gen. Rawlinson in 1880s. Likewise, many Christians in Azerbaijan were called "Armenians", such as the remaining Christian Caucasian Albanians (Udins, etc). And all Iranians were called Persians, or sometimes Tajiks. Anyways, the ethnonym Azerbaijanis preceeds ADR-1918. --AdilBaguirov 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tajik. Your words are anti-Turkish emotional ones. How can you prove that Turks make up only a very small minority of Anatolia. Have you ever been to Anatolia? Come and be our guest. We will wander around and you will distinguish who is a Turk and who is not? Even medieval Armenian Chronicles say that millions of Turks came to the region.

My Unknown friend! I think you miss-understand Tajik ! Have you ever read the article published by Turkish scholars, a recent genetic surveying shows that current inhabitants of Anatolia have less than 9% their gens from Central Asia! --behmod talk 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed. Any "turk" west of central asia is not really ethnically turkic. they are only linguistically turkic. and tajik is right, the word Turk is a perso-arabic word, which some people use to describe themselves as. just as the words turan are also persian.Khosrow II 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

When are we going to sort out this mess? What is the next step?

Re: Azerbaijani People (Please discuss before editing)

Mehrdadd you keep removing the Factual dispute sign, as you can see from the discussions Ali and me dispute the accuracy of the Ethnologue figures on Iranian Azaris and have provided proofs and analysis on the discussion page. So, what is the next step? When are we going to put the sign up? Meanwhile everyday hundreds if not thousands of people read the article and are made to believe that what they read is fact. Only those who contribute to Wiki know how articles are managed and compiled, majority of the readers believe what is on the page is the final product and a fact. We (well at this stage you actually) are misleading people by not warning them about the fact that there are disputes on the article. Misleading and misrepresentation is a crime in any civil society. When are we going to put the sign up? When are we going to sort out this mess? What is the next step? What is your authority on this article? Kiumars 09:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Kiumars, Although I dispute the figure of ethnologue (it does not fit with provincial statistics and actual statistics carried out), I did not support or reject the dispute tag. The article has made tremendous progress on many other accounts and it is fairly balanced in some other aspects. But if you think the dispute tag should be there, then it should stay until the dispute is resolved. Although perhaps you might want to talk to: Tombseye who seems to be on vacation? I received the same sort of email from ethnologue that they have no source for their 1997 census and they thanked me for providing information from the 1956 census and 1991 census as well as the provincial statistics. I believe the provincial statistics is the best. Probably the oldest census is from Lord Ann Cruzon (about 1890) who quotes a certain Russian official name Zolotoff who had carried out census work in Iran. Zolotoff says that in Iran whose population is about 6 million, with the major groups approximately 3 million Persian speakers, 1 million Tatars (Russians mistakenly called Azerbaijanis as Tatars), 780,000 Lurs, 600,000 Kurds and 300,000 Arabs and 320,000 Turkmens live. Well this is the oldest source I am aware off. Probably the best census I have seen is the following[5]. Keep in mind though that the higher birth-rate of Kurds and Arabs are due to 10% and 5% respectively. The figure is 20.6% for Azerbaijani which matches calculations based on provincial statistics. In this census, 49,588 mothers who gave birth and were issued birth certificates during the Iranian month of Mordad in 1991 were asked about their mother-tongue. Although all these figures have drawbacks, because I know many many Iranian families who have relatives from all over Iran. Specially Tehran where more than 1/4 of the population lives. I must say that I am pretty happy that Irans population now exceeds 70 million. The more the merrier. The major reason for Iran's continous population decline has been the various invasions from Russians all the way up to the era of Ashur Bani Pal. --Ali doostzadeh 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ali, if you read my post carefully you will see that I said “Ali and I dispute the accuracy of the Ethnologue figures on Iranian Azaris and have provided proofs and analysis on the discussion page.”, I did not mention your name in the disputed tag saga (did I?) and the fact is that currently two contributors are disputing the accuracy of the figures on the page although only one of them keeps putting the tag up and the other one does not (I wonder why!). By the way my current dispute is not about the whole article at the moment (although as I said before I am not still sure what the article wants to say or achieve in its current shape and form). As for some of the old historical census (about 1890), as you know demographics changes constantly and I am not sure calculating the current population based on a 110 year old census (that we have not even know how accurate it has been!) can take us anywhere or prove anything today. Bearing in mind that all of the old so called censuses where snapshot sampling of a small number of people, when people even didn’t have birth-certificates (Shenassenameh) those days! I thing they started issuing birth certificates and making it mandatory in the Reza Shah time if I am not mistaken. Nobody in my family really knew how old my grand father was because the Quran that his name and date of birth was written on the back of it was mysteriously disappeared! and even my father got his birth certificate when he was about 10 years old and he had three birth certificates (two of them belonging to two deceased brothers) to avoid going to the national service (Sarbazy)! Now you tell me how accurate a census could be in those situations?

Ali, The statistics you provided about the birthrates puzzles me, why birthrate of Azaris is twice the Kurds and 4 times the Arabs? What are the social, economical and cultural reasons behind those very big birthrate differences? The birthrate difference becomes more questionable when comparing the Azaris and Kurds as they live next to each other and have the same life style and are even heavily mixed in some areas! Can you give me the source of this information please, it seems need looking into!.

As for the Iran’s more than 70 million population, the more is only merrier when you can provide jobs and housing and social services for them otherwise it becomes disastrous! SCI’s 2005 and CIA’s 2006 estimate are almost 69 million (but it includes a few million refugees in Iran and does not include Iranians living abroad I believe, as they are population statistics not nationality statistics) (see SCI: http://www.sci.org.ir/english/default.htm Look under Selected Data / Population Estimation and select from the items on the right (the menu is crap like Wiki's text editor!)

dear Kiumars.. you did not read that statistic carefully. It is from 1991(1370), Mordad. In it the mother language of all mothers who gave birth and received birth certificates for their children. About 20% of mothers that gave birth that month spoke Azeri, 10% Kurdish, 46.2% Persian, 9% Northern dialects (close to Persian), 9% Luri (which is SW like Persian and mutually intelligble). The sample size was around 50,000 people, which is more than enough to provide an accurate balance assuming steady birth-rate. So the statistic was about the mother tongue of all babies that were born during that month. It is the most accurate one I know about and the results match provincial statistics, although one must consider varying birth-rates. For example I know the average Kurdish family in West Azerbaijan has 4-5 kids whereas the national average is little less than 2. Also many Iraqi Shi'ite refugees came to Iran during 1990 and 1991 and I am not sure how many of them were given citizenship and this could explain the 5% Arab (as well as the higher birthrate). Also the site you gave has a good accurate provincial population [6] , which can give a very fair estimate. Thanks for providing it. --Ali doostzadeh 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ali, you are right I did mix up the birthrate with Growth rate! where is my brain? The figures make sense but opens another question on the population of Arabs reported by Ethnologue (1.4 million). Based on the 5% portion of birthrate there must be roughly 3.5 million Arabs. Now as you mentioned the question is whether we had over two million Arab refugees at the time or not! Why these people who do the research don’t think about all the complications they are creating? Why not just ask the women if she was a refugee or not? I understand that there were almost 6 million refugees in Iran a few years ago, and I do not think refugees have been granted Iranian nationality for two reasons, firstly; if I am not mistaken and if it has not been changed recently, in the constitution nationality is only granted on basis of being born from Iranian parents, and secondly; if Iran grants Nationality to the refugees Iran will no longer be entitled to the UN refugee help and supports for the cost of refugees (which would be a big mistake despite the fact that UN has not paid it for many years now! But the financial issue can be sorted later as long as refugees have not received Iranian Nationality). As far as I know Afghan refugees were granted refugee status and conditional leave to remain in Iran and that is why Iran now can and is asking them to leave.

As for Luri being similar to Farsi and mutually intelligible, you must be kidding! I have lived and worked in different parts of Iran (Tabriz, Kermanshah, Ilam, Hamadan, Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Khuzestan, Chahar Mahal and Lorestan) but still find it difficult to understand the Lurs (language has not been the main problem of course!). Kiumars 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ali, on second thoughts, this source (http://khabarnameh.gooya.com/society/archives/010245.php) is only a newspaper/ website article and there is no proff of its authenticity, I like to see the official census report on an official site preferably in English, any idea? Many thanks in advance.

Kiumars 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kiumars, the source is not newspaper. It is in this book:
نجاني، حبيب الله، محمد ميرزايي، كامل شاپور و امير هوشنگ مهريار، جمعيت،توسعه، بهداشت باروري، چاپ دوم تهران، نشر و تبليغ بشري، 1379.


Dear Kiumars if you speak any of the standard dialects beside Tehrani Persian, you can virtually understand other Iranian dialects. That is why I can understand Luri, Bakhtiari fairly well although there is difference pronounciation. If you look at ethnologue(despite their various census numbers, it seems in their 15th edition they have done study on mutul intelligibility) they put about 80% mutually intelligibility with standard Persian with regards to Bakhtiari and Luri. --Ali doostzadeh 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ali, I was just kidding, I said “I find it difficult to understand the Lurs (language has not been the main problem of course!)”. I actually speak Kurdi Kermanshahi and Azari, but a bit rusty on both languages now! Kiumars 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow that is cool. I speak Kurdish Kermanshahi too. Funny thing is that Semnani dialect which is right by Tehran is much more difficult to comprehend than Kermanshahi Kurdish for the average Tehrani. --Ali doostzadeh 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The official language of Iran is Persian, thus using Azerbaijani language as the sole reliable gauge by which to measure ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran is imprecise. This would be correct in actual South Azerbaijan (West Azarbaijan, East Azarbaijan, Hamadan and Ardabil), but would fail in Tehran, where up to half of the population is ethnic Azerbaijani, and where some simply know Persian better than Azerbaijani languages. This typically happens to any national anywhere in the world once he/she is out of their actual homeland. If any of you lives in the West and has taken part in census, then what was the native language you indicated? Perhaps half of you who are ethnically Persian (or Azerbaijani, or Kurd, etc) indicated English or otherwise not your true native language. Also, as I've stated before, according to the Russian Academy of Sciences latest estimate (2004), the Azerbaijanis make up 26-28% of Iran, with another 3-4% being other Turkic people. Russian figures are very reliable, since not only are they a neighbor and have well-developed scholarship and academia, but they possess great intelligence and information-gathering capabilities, have vast spies network and in general keep themselves very informed about Iran. And being on good terms and actually helping Iran develop its nuclear capabilities, Russians know perhaps better than any other nation, including Iranian expatriates, of what is going on inside Iran, the thinking of the government, some secret and semi-secret documents, etc. --AdilBaguirov 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually Hamadan province has done some reliable statistics[7]. The population there is about 28% Azerbaijani, 46% standard Persian, and the rest are other Iranian languages/dialects Kurdish, Laki, Luri, Bakhtiari. The main Azerbaijani provinces where Azerbaijani is spoken by 95%+ of the people are Ardabil, Zanjan, and East Azerbaijan. West Azerbaijan is not an easy issue but one can just say 50% Kurd, 50% Azerbaijani. So the provincial statistics only breaks down in Tehran and I have heared figures from 1/6 to 1/3 Azerbaijani although as I said many people in Tehran have backgrounds from various provinces. I am not sure where 1/2 figure you comes from, but I do not think it is from Russian figures. It is true that more than 90% of Tehran speak Persian, but it is hard to break down whose from where since some have immigrated at least two generations ago and there have been immigrants from all over Iran. I would not put too much trust in Russian intelligence since their country would not be getting eats lunch ate by the US (eg. Ukraine) if they had so much leverage. Counting out Tehran, I think a very reliable figure can be given on the number of Azerbaijani and then Tehran can be guessed. Based on the 1996 actual provincial statistics, the population of Iran was 60,055,488 million. The regions were more than 95%+ spoke Azerbaijani (ardabil, east azerbaijan and zanjan) contain about 4.7 million people. If we add half of West Azerbaijan we get 6.4 million. Adding 28% of Hamadan and approximately 10% of Gilan and 20% of Ghazvin, we get around 7.4 million. Which leaves only Tehran whose population in 1996 was approximately 12 million. Adding 1/6 makes 9.4 million and adding the 1/2 (which I am not sure what the source is) we get about 13.4 million. 13.4 million out of 60 million is 22%. 9.4 million out of 60 million is 15.6%. So adding 3-4% other Turkic speakers makes between 18.6% percent (which one of the sites actually mentions about 18.3%) and 25-26% (CIA Factbook figure). These figures go well with that birth certificate record as well as the 1955 extensive survey where every village and town in Iran and its language was compiled and interestingly enough even the 1890 census (which is the oldest) mentioned by Lord Cruzon.

--Ali doostzadeh 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov, I hope you don’t mind me asking this question but have you ever been to Tehran?

Kiumars 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with his sentence

The Turkic theory does not alter the general view of the Azeris as a Turkic people, as there is no specific ethnic criteria as to what constitutes a Turk

What? from what i gather, this is a loop hole pan Turk historians have been using for decades to rewrite history. How can there be no criteria for what constitutes a turk? Is this trying to say that everyone is potentially Turkic? Its loop holes like this that pan Turks have created that allows them to claim the etruscans, sumerians, native americans, etc... as also being turkic, without any solid evidence. also, these loop holes they have created for themselves is an easy way for them to avoid having to answer historical facts that contradict their statements. this is wikipedia, we cannot have such ludicrous statements like the above in the articles. Statements like these are POV, and should be taken out. I will wait till we can discuss this matter before doing anything.Iranian Patriot 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the term Turkic simply means speakers of what linguistics classify as an Altaic languages. Now is there cultural unity between these groups? Some groups (as you said pan-Turks) would like to claim so, but for example an Azerbaijani has more in common with other Iranians culturally (virtually same food with some local pecularities, habits, mentality, poetry (even if the language is different the cultural universe is the same in the classical poetry), religiously, celebrations (Nuwroz, Charshanbeh soori, Sizdah Bedar, Yalda, Mehregan), history (common history), genetically than say an Anatolian Turk or definitely an Uzbek or Yaqut or Khirghiz or Uighyur. The same can be said for example about Ossetians. They are linguistically Iranian and descendants of the Alans but culturally they seem to have more in common with Russians and Georgians than Iranian speakers. Language shift is very common as Prof. Eghrar Aliyev and many others have shown. English is becoming the major language in India and Pakistan and is thought at an early stage and is spoken by many of educated as the first language, but these people are never going to be English. It is estimated that only 10% of the Turkic speakers of Turkey have actual Turkish genes and even the Ottomans did not consider themselves Turks, although they spoke Ottoman Turkish. Suprisingly one can see it in the language as well, where Greek influence has gotten rid off two of the major sounds of anatolian Turkish: Kh and Q. Also vowel harmony which is another freature of Turkish language does not exist in Azerbaijan of Iran. Even the Oghuz tribes according to Kashghari (the Oghuz language is the main Turkic language of Middle Eest) were heavily mixed with Persians and borrowed many of their words. We can see this in simple terms making the sentence structure: agar, vagar, hich, hich kas, har kas, hameh, hamisheh, na inkeh, taa inkeh. As per Sumerians being Turkic is well rejected and Sumerian is a language isolate. About Native Americans, although not speakers of Altaic, they are originally mongloid and although I doubt a connection, I wouldn't be suprised at least with some linguistic borrowings in Eskimo languages. Since some Eskimo groups live in Alaska which is not far off from Siberia where the original Altaic Turks came off. So the main reason Azerbaijani are called a Turkic people is due to linguistic classification, although we know at least even Tabriz and Maragheh were primarily Iranic speaking 600 years ago and the name Azerbaijani is Iranian word itself. For example even Dede-Qorqud which some try to make a part of Azerbaijani identity was not known by anyone up to 50 years ago and the stories really match more the culture of the nomadic Turkmens than sedentary Azerbaijanis. --Ali doostzadeh 22:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You two must be mistaken. I think both of you are Anti-Turkish, emotional people. I have read Kashgari and did never see even a word to support your ideas like "according to Kashghari were heavily mixed with Persians and borrowed many of their words". This is a lie. Tell me the number of the pages so that everyboy can check. First of all please read the book. Turks borrowed words from Persians after Kashgari. During the Seljuk Empire. Sumerinas being Turks is a dispute. Most probably they were neighbors of Turks who borrowed words from their language. Coming to native Americans being Turks, nearly every 10,000 years there were big migration waves from Asia to America. And some American Indian tribes really have Turkish words in their language. One tribe in Mexico has upto 300 words. There are book written by American scholars on this topic. But this does not make them Turks. But this is a proof of a proto-Turkish connection. I have been to California and had a chance to speak to native Americans. Mostly they admit that they have a Turkish connection. Also I have been to Azerbaijan for a couple of times. The name of the country comes from a Sasanid word to describe the region, the land. Not the people. Azerbaijani people are classified as Turks not because of their Turkish language, but because most of the Azerbaijanis are genuine Oguz Turks. Please visit the country and look at the faces of people and talk to them. Here comes the real question: Why do both of you hate Turks?

Please sign in with a real name. No need to get emotional. No one is talking about hate here and we are discussing Azerbaijani origins. Sumerians had nothing to do with Turks and it is not even in dispute. Sumerian is a split-ergative language and it does contain some sounds that are very common to Turkish. For V (varligh) or Y (Yurt). The American Indian connection is also not taken seriously by any serious scholar. Personally. I said that the only thing that could have happened is that Eskimos who live near Siberian regions borrow some words and passwed them down. As per Kashghari and Oghuz, I will bring you the exact Arabic quote from his book here:

الغزیه لما اختلطت بالفرس نسیت کثیرا من لغت الترک و استعلمت الفارسیه مکانها

Taymas, Abdullah Battal, "Divan Ligatit - Turk Tercumesi", Turkiyat Mecmuasi, clit (XI), istanbul, pg 1954, p. 76
The quote is in volume 1, pg number 73
It translates to: The oghuz due to mixture with Persians (note Kashghari also takes into account Iranian peoples of Central Asia like Soghdians, Khwarazmians, Alans..) have forgotten many of the Turkish words and instead use Persian words for these forgotten words. Also Azerbaijan is not a Sassanid word as Sassanid's were dynasty. It is Old Persian word. --Ali doostzadeh 08:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Turkic theory does not alter the general view of the Azeris as a Turkic people, as there is no specific ethnic criteria as to what constitutes a Turk, but discusses to what extent Turkic groups changed the demographics of the Eastern Caucasus and Iranian Azarbaijan.

This sentence should be deleted, it makes no sense within the article and is very vague.Khosrow II 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense and should remain. I don’t see anything wrong with it. Grandmaster 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
its to vague and it really sounds ludicrous. I mean, what if i was to write in an encyclopaedia that there is nothing specifically that defines bears, or water, etc... the sentence makes no sense. Also, what is so repetitive about what i added? its about 1en words maximum over several paragraphs. there is nothing repetitive about the changes i made.Khosrow II 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Khosrow. Maybe we could remove the part: as there is no specific ethnic criteria as to what constitutes a Turk, but keep the rest of the sentence. But I think we need to ask the opinion of Tombseye, who wrote this article up to the featured standard. Maybe he could improve this line. But the point in general is correct, the theory is not about whether Azeris are Turkic people or not, it is a known fact, the theory is about whether Azeris are migrants from Central Asia or just local people, who accepted the Turkic language. As for Azari, it is given much detail in the Iranian theory, and I don’t know whether it’s worth adding another line about it. And genetic studies give different results, some of them show that Azeris (in the Republic of Azerbaijan) are close to Georgians and other Caucasian people, while others show that they are close to Iranian people. So saying that those studies proved only a certain view is not correct. The article actually says that: The conclusion from the testing shows that the Azeris are a mixed population with relationships, in order of greatest similarity, with the Caucasus, Iranians and Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmen. As you see, you can’t say that it proves only a certain theory, therefore it should be left as it is. Grandmaster 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
yes we can delete that part and keep the rest of the sentence. also, there is no link the the ancient azari language in the iranian theory section, so i had to put in a sense that linked to it while at the same time keeping with the flow of the section, that i why i inserted that. It turns out Tajik has put that in again so everything is fine now for me.Khosrow II 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I don't mind that too. Grandmaster 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Edits

  • It is modern day turkmenistan and the modern day langauge of Azari's. Turkmenistan did not exist then, and the Azari language was not always Turkic.
  • The name of Azerbaijan comes from its former Arabized Persian name, I find it strange how you insist on leaving that factualy part out. Infact, why is it that the former name of Azerbaijan is mentioned yet its origins are not mentioned?
  • When there is a theory, we have every right to bring up evidence that both "proves" it and disproves it, so that the reader can have all the facts. If you can find facts that contradict the Iranian theory or the Caucasus theory, please feel free to add them in.
  • The ancient Azari language was not the only language spoken but it was the main and most used language of the time for the region. Multiple langauges have been used in many different regions of the world, but the dominant langauge is always the one given attention to. in modern R. Azerbaijan, there are many languages spoken but the main language is still the Turkic dialect.
  • Further more, this article should indicate that what is today North Azerbaijan was never called Azerbaijan, and was called Aran. The term Azerbaijan is no more than 100 years old. The Russians changed the name of the region after capturing it from Iran to Azerbaijan so that they can later claim Azarbaijan for their own as well. This should also be indicated in the article.

My edits are factual, and we talked about this. We agreed that if we dont take the Turkic theory out completed (which has been disproven already), then I am still able to put in facts that disprove it.Khosrow II 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan the main pre-Turkic language was the language of Caucasian Albanians. So saying that it was only Azari is not true. Whether North Azerbaijan was or was not called so has no relevance to Azeri people, this information belongs to the article about the country. Persian names are provided in the Iranian theory, no need to repeat the same information twice. I suggest you read carefully the article before making poor edits. Don’t forget that it is a featured article and we should keep it up to the standard to retain the status. Grandmaster 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That is false. A small chunk of modern day Azerbaijan was populated by C.Albanian tribes, that is the North-Western portion of modern day Azerbaijan. The South was Atropatene (Iranian) and the West was Armenia.
Strabo (64/63 BC-23 AD): Cites the people of Iranian Azerbaijan (known as Media Atropatene at the time of Strabo) as Iranians and with Persian as their language [v] . The “Persian” cited by Strabo would have most likely been of the Parthian Pahlavi variety at the time.
On top of that, many others have also written that the language of the region was a language very similar to persian. Also, we can mention the origin of place names to both sections, since they are relevant in both and get to the point right there and then. also, the Arran/Aerbaijan issue should be mentioned briefly in this article as well under the "modern history" section of the article, as well as in the country page (in more detail).Khosrow II 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seljuqs and Turkish language

The information given in this article (based on the US Library of Congress) contradics the information found in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (and Encyclopaedia of Islam). According to the US Library of Congress, the Seljuqs were responsible for the Turkification of Anatolia and the Caucasus. This is rejected by the Iranica. Based on the fact that the Seljuqs were Persian-speaking and considered themselvs "inheritors and descendants of the Old Iranian Shahs" ("... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." "Shahrbanu" by M.A. Amir-Moezzi in Encyclopaedia Iranica), Iranica states that:

"... The transmission of Persian culture to Anatolia begun with the foundation of the Saljuq state in the 12th century and gained speed after the Mongol invasion of Persia in the 13th century. Many Persian scholars, writers, and poets fled to the empire of the Saljuqs of Rum, following the Mongol onslaught on the Iranian lands. These highly educated men played an important role in the revival of Persian culture and literature, which had begun already at the beginning of the 13th century. Subsequently, many works in Persian, dealing with history, literature, philosophy and Sufism, were produced in Anatolia in the 13th and 14th centuries. As a result, Persian became the language of instruction at several madrasas, and Persian words were often used for place-names, personal names, and occupational activities, as well as in certain religious, legal, and official records. As a result of those developments, in the 13th century, Anatolia was thus intensively influenced by Persian culture. Intellectual life developed very effectively in the cities, where scholars copied or created religious works. [...] Scholars of Persian origin who had emigrated to Anatolia continued their activities in the cities of their new home (Aya Sofya, no. 3605), and many of them stayed in contact with their native lands. Students of the scholars active in Anatolia generally consisted of youngsters from princely families and palace officials [...] During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. ..." "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish lLibraries" by O.Özgündenli in Encyclopaedia Iranica

So, as opposed to the information in the article, the FALL of the Seljuq dynasty marked the Turkification of Anatolia and the improved the role of Turkish (because, unlike the Seljuq Sultans, the Turcoman "beyliqs" spoke Oghuz instead of Persian).

Besides that, the Britannica-source attached to that information (#21) does not support this claim at all. Britannica actually supports the view of the Iranica:

"... Persian cultural autonomy flourished in the Seljuq empire. Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship. ..." [8]

Tājik 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Persian was the language of the educated elite, while Turkish was the language of the ordinary people. Therefore it is true that the Turkic language spread among the general population, while Persian was the language of science and poetry. Turkic poetry formed later. Grandmaster 06:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This does not make sense. The population of Anatolia and Caucasus was Non-Turkic at that time. Usually, ordinary people adopt the language of the elite, most of all because that's the only way to contribute to trade or social public. The Seljuqs were not even Persian-speakers themselvs (see above), but also patrons of Persian culture, identity, and literature (see above) - ironically, they themselvs were Turcomans.
Given these facts, you explanation does not make any sense, because - as evident - there has never been a "mass migration" of Turkic peoples or a replacement of the original population. The Turkish language simply replaced the Persian language because - at a certain point of history - Turkish-speakers came to power and, from then on, the ordinary population was forced to speak Turkish, the same way centuries earlier they were forced to learn and speak Persian.
The Turkic-speakers who had joined the Seljuqs were a small minority (small number of tribes), and they did not have the same status as Persian nobles and scholars (see Rumi or Nizam ul-Mulk).
Therefore, the information given in the article is wrong. Not the uprising of the Seljuqs marked the Turkification, but the fall of their dynasty, which - at the same time - marked the uprising of the military elite of their empire: the Turkic-speaking "beyliqs", the most notable being the Ottoman tribe.
This information should be added and corrected in the article. After all, this is supported by both Iranica and Britannica.
Tājik 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that there was no mass migration of Oguz Turks to the region? Turkic language was spread by Oguz Turks, who mixed with the local population. People don't change the language just because thier rulers speak some other language. It is just one of the factors that led to the language change, but not the only one. Grandmaster 09:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tajik, please see the article Azeri Turkish from Iranica:
Azeri belongs to the Oguz branch of the Turkic language family. In the eleventh century Turan defeated Eran and a broad wave of Oghuz Turks flooded first Khorasan, then the rest of Iran, and finally Anatolia, which they made a base for vast conquests. The Oghuz have always been the most important and numerous group of the Turks; in Iran they have assimilated many Turks of other origins and even Iranians. Grandmaster 11:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a known fact that there has never been a "mass miugartion" of Turks into Iran or Anatolia. The Turks - like Mongols and other nomadic peoples of the stepps - were a small but victorious population (the same goes to the Indo-European invaders some centuries earlier). This fact is supported by many (modern) genetic researches, and it is recorded in history:
  • " ... 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 ... " - [Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. S.125, 152]
  • "... 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, S.118]
  • "... many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern Caucasian types (p.1263) ... The U5 cluster ... in Europe ... although rare elsewhere in the Near east, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians and Azeris ... a hint of partial European ancestry for these populations – not entirely unexpected on historical and linguistic grounds (p.1264) ..." -[Richards et al., (2000). Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, S.1263-1264, 2000]
You have no proof for the claim that there was a "mass migration of the Oghuz" ... not even the Iranica extract supports your view. It only confirms the well-known fact that AMONG THE TURKS the Oghuz were the most numerous (that does not mean that the Turkic peoples were numerous), and that the Oghuz - because of their military victories - assimilated others and/or were assimilated themselvs.
I will revert your last change in the article because you have no proof for that. Regarding the spread of Oghuz dialects in Anatolia, I wait another week for an alternative change. If nothing happens, I will correct the article according to the authoritative information of Iranica and Britannica.
Tājik 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Iranica makes it quite clear: "In the eleventh century Turan defeated Eran and a broad wave of Oghuz Turks flooded first Khorasan, then the rest of Iran, and finally Anatolia, which they made a base for vast conquests". I don't think we should make such controversial changes to a featured article, it would be advisable to consult with Tombseye, who made it a featured article and reconciled conflicting views. Grandmaster 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Iranica is implying invasion not migration. Iranica says that Turan defeated Eran, and then the Turks came into the region....that said, the implication is invasion, because there was a war, and then settlement of the victors. that is invasion, not migration. migration is peacefully moving from one region to another. Tajik is making a lot of sense here.Khosrow II 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If it mentions broad wave of Oghuz Turks that flooded Iran, then it was definately mass migration. Grandmaster 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
@ Grandmaster: you are totally overestimating the introduction-sentense of Doerfer in Iranica which - btw - is written in quotation mark. Keeping in mind that the war "between Iran and Turan" is only a mythological metaphor (actually, the Turks had previously been defeated by Muslim armies many times, including Khalif al-Mamun's victory over the Turks in Central-Asia), it has virtually no information about the spred of Oghuz dialects in Anatolia.
Regarding the role of the Seljuqs in the developement of modern Turkish dialects in Anatolia, Iranica leaves no doubt that the Turkish dialects gained improtance AFTER the fall of the Seljuqid Empire:
  • "... following the COLLAPSE of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance ..."
And this is what all of this discussion is about: was Turkish brought to Anatolia by the Seljuqs? The answer is clear: NO! It was brought to Anatolia by a certain number of Turkic clans, headed by their "bayliqs", who filled the political vacuum of Antolia after the fall of the Seljuqids (who considered themselvs "Iranians" rather than "Turks").
The Turks had invaded Eastern Iran many times, most of all after the collapse of the Sassanid Empire. But their numbers have always been very very small compared to the urban population of Iran, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. That's the case with all nomadic peoples; their populations have always been small, and this fact still remains today: Central-Asian and Sibirian Turks (who can be considered "real Turks") are a relatively small population, the largest group being the Uzbeks with some 20 mio (this number also includes assimilated Tajiks and others). In comparison to that, the population of the Turkic-speakers in Anatolia and Caucausus almost explodes with Azeris being some 30 mio and Turks being some 60 Mio. This is a clear proof for the claim that Oghuz-speakers are not "real Turks" (meaning descendants of invading or migrating Turks) but assimilated Non-Turks. The same phenomenon can be witnessed in India, where speakers of Indo-Aryan languages - themselvs being small minorities - forced their languages on their subject peoples. That's why today Indo-Aryan languages are spoken by nearly 500 million peoples wherelse related Iranian languages are spoken by not more than 150 mio, despite 3000 years of history in Iran. Compared to ancient India, the plains of Iran were not populated during the Aryan invasions, and that's why the Iranic family is much smaller than the related Indo-Aryan family. This is also the case with English (the original English population being less than 40 mio, but English is spoken by almost 350 mio native-speakers), Spanish, and French. The Turks were a small group of nomads who were simply lucky and took advantage of the fall of the Hephthalites, the collapse of the Sassnid Empire, and the conflicts within the Islamic world. There has never been a "mass migartion", all sources point to the fact that the Turkish language was forced on the native Anatolian population by the ruling "beyliqs". In Iran, the "beyliq" rule was successfully stopped by Persian-speaking dynasties such as Timurids, Safavids, and so on (Persian being the language of administration and culture), while in Anatolia these beyliqs secured their power and forced their language on the population. The Ottoman Empire was such a "beyliq" state:
  • "... When the Seljuk state was in the process of collapse, the various beyliks, or territories, of Anatolia came into conflict with one another, with the Ottoman beylik eventually emerging as the supreme power in the region. ..." (from Ottoman Empire)
Tājik 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Turkish language gained gradually in importance" is just a reference to Turkic becoming the language of the ruling elite. And Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty, as attested by many authoritative sources, which I don't want to quote again. The article clearly says that "the Turkic theory discusses to what extent Turkic groups changed the demographics of the Eastern Caucasus and Iranian Azarbaijan". It does not say that Azeris are only the descendants of the Turkic trines that migrated to the area. The Oghuz migration was massive, and led to Turkification of the indigenous population. The sources make that clear. Grandmaster 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter whether the Safavids were Turkic-speaking or not. Fact is, that Persian was their administration-language, otherwise Iran would have been Turkic-speaking today. "Turkish language gained gradually in importance" is no reference to the status of Turkish as an administrative language - that is only your interpretation of the text. The sentense is actually pretty clear about the role of the Seljuqs: that during the Seljuq rule, there was NO Tukification of Anatolia and Caucasus. And Iranica even makes clear that this Turkification began AFTER the fall of the Seljuqs. You have absolutely no proof for your claim that there has ever been a "mass migarion" - in fact, you have countless sources disproving your claim (see my quotes above, and see Iranica, EoI, and Britannica). 15 years ago, virtually most of Central-Asia was Russian-speaking, and if Soviet rule were still alive, in 50 years, most other languages (including Azeri, Tajik, and Uzbek) would have perished. That was due to the role of Russian as the ruling language (for only 70 years!) of the ruling elite, not because of "Russian mass-migration". Even today, Azeris, Tajiks, and Uzbeks have Russfied names and some of them still prefer Russian over Azeri-Turkish or Tajik. In only 70 years, Russians left a deep impression on the Non-Russian populations of former USSR ... in case of Turks and Turkish, we are talking about 600 years; 600 years of Turkic rule in Anatolia - only a small minority of soldiers was enough to Turkify Anatolia, the same way only a few thousend European soldiers totally Romanized and Germanized America!
Sorry Grandmaster, but in this case you are totally wrong and I do not understand why you reject facts and authoritative sources. Tājik 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You say that “during the Seljuq rule, there was no tukification of Anatolia and Caucasus”. This contradicts the article in Iranica about Arran by C. E. Bosworth:
The eastern Caucasus came under Saljuq control in the middle years of the 11th century CE, and in ca. 1075-76 CE Alp Arslan sent his commander `Emad'al-din Saboktagin as governor of Azarbaijan and Arran, displacing the last Shaddadids. From this period begins the increasing Turkicization of Arran, under the Saljuqs and then under the line of Eldiguzid or Ildenizid Atabegs, who had to defend eastern Transcaucasia against the attacks of the resurgent Georgian kings. The influx of Oghuz and other Turkmens was accentuated by the Mongol invasions. Grandmaster 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Tajik makes some very good points. Also, for further reference, we can check other Turkic tribes as well as other nomadic tribes throughout history. For example, the Hun's under Atila did not number much at all, infact, their whole army was made up mostly of Iranic peoples, Slavic Peoples, and other Turkic tribes. Now lets look at the mongols. The mongols on their own did not number much, but the subsequent allies they took on through out the years made their armies large. The Oghuz turks were an invading army, nothing more. They had neither the numbers nor the influence to suddenly spawn a Turkic race in the area. Like Tajik said, DNA testing has proven that the Oghuz had almost no genetic impact in the region, and also like Tajik has pointed out, the official language and culture of the Seljuks was Persian, and they promoted both.Khosrow II 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The Huns were not Turkic. That's a myth. Tājik 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing regarding the Saljuqs. According to Ira Lapidus in Islamic Societies, the post-Abbasid Middle East, the Saljuqs (and the other Turkic dynasties) adopted Persian culture and language. In fact, Persian heavily influenced the emerging Turkic languages from Inner Asia to Anatolia. And since many were connected with the slaves of Arab Caliphates, they were multi-lingual. The Saljuqs introduced their feudal system which brought Turkic overlords to the region and did begin the process of turkification. All the sources I've read say this as well. Even if the Saljuqs preferred to speak Persian and did nothing themselves to institute Turkic languages, the people they installed in power did however change the region and being the process. So it's undeniable that the changes began with the Saljuqs I'd say. The Cambridge History of Iran IV, The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, and the Saljuq and Mongol Periods all refer to the changes that took place as a result of the institution of this feudal system. The overlords or former ghulami ghazis do appear to have spoken Turkic dialects and waged war in the Caucasus against non-Muslims and began the changes that would transform Azerbaijan. Remember Tughrul, the founder of the Saljuqs was born in what was then Khorasan and was probably familiar with Persian as well as his native Turkoman. Thus, I think the current version is correct.Tombseye 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Migration or Invasion

The Oghuz Turks invaded, they didnt migrate. Migration would require peaceful movement from one location to another, but the oghuz invaded and subsequently conquered the land, that is not migration.Khosrow II 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with this... you can conquer and subsequently migrate, i.e hordes of people do not as you know come en masse And in any way, you forget that Oghuz Turks migrating from Central Asia settled there as early as IX century, and mixed with local population there already. No question should be raised about presence of Oghuz Turks in Iran, which is what you seem to imply flying in face of all factual data, however the question is in what proportion, the existence of Turkic people can not be denied. abdulnr 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello guys. See my reponse to the issue. It seems there are different views on the subject. Clearly, a change of leadership took place because the Arabs were overthrown by the Seljuks. As for invasion vs. migration, perhaps it was both. At first an invading dynasty took-over and in feudal form parcelled out lands to Turkic overlords as more Turks migrated in. Tombseye 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The thoeries

When one explains a theory, they need to have everything that proves it and disproves it in one place so that the reader can easily find and distinguish. The way it is now, the evidence is dispersed and efficiency is low. I have to suggsetions:

  1. rewriting all the theory sections, including all evidence that supportes or disproves
  1. giving each theory its own article---this one makes most sense to me, that way, the main article will not be redundant and everyone can be happy. Khosrow II 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's ok to make other articles regarding the various origin theories, BUT the article as it is written was done through concensus and the work of lots of people including Azeris, Iranians, and myself. The references are there and the most accepted ACADEMIC theories placed in the article. If you want to further analyze the Iranian origin theory then creating another article is not a problem for me as long as this article remains as it is. Tombseye 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. I mean create a huge indepth article about each, citing the same sources except going much more deeper regarding information that both prove and disprove the theories. and then we can have the article the way it is now, except at the top of each theory section, we can write something like "see main article: ...." like on so many other articles. I think its a good idea, how about you? this can be a group effort just the same as the main article is.Khosrow II 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, actually three articles sounds like a bit much to explain the origins of the Azeris. I would go with one article and then discuss in-depth the theories, but I'm not sure how much it's needed, although I'm not against the idea. The problem is that it's hard to prove the Azeris' origins and thus most references go with the view that they are of mixed origin with links to the Caucasus, Iranian peoples, and Turks. Proving and disproving goes into original research territory and then also will lead to a lot of arguments. You have no idea how much we all had to go through to get this article to become a featured article. First, the criticism from non-Azeris/Iranians often dealt with, for example, redundancy, bad grammar, erroneous statements etc. Then people with somewhat nationalist views kept challenging each other. Finally, by working with the more rational academic minded folks I wrote the article so that it was neutral and just presented the known facts and let the reader decide who the Azeris are. The popular view will thus probably not be changed overmuch. If you want to still write the article (and I would suggest just one article), you can, but you'll probably run into the same difficulties as we did here and it will be time-consuming and ultimately may not bear the results you're looking for. I would suggest a poll though on this page. Maybe I'm wrong and people want an in-depth article and it never hurts as a poll will also get you more people who could help with the article. Cheers. Tombseye 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
sure lets do a poll.Khosrow II 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Book of Dede Korkut as the Evidence of Turkic theory ??

I read these sentences many times, But I do not understand the relevancy of this book to our discussion about Azeri's background and how it can prove the Turkic theory? Is there anybody who can explain it for me more?

The Book of Dede Korkut is a prominent document that supports a substantial Oghuz migration into Azerbaijan. UNESCO recently celebrated the 1300th anniversary of this epic work.[32]


I never understood it either, its not very clear.Khosrow II 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I think these sentences are vague for many readers. Even for people without enough background on Azaris, it does not make sense and they would ask:" How it can prove the Turkic theory? ". We need to revise this part.--behmod talk 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

How about that: The epos of Book of Dede Korkut is an early evidence of active Turkic oral tradition as far back as 11th century - It was composed soon after conversion to Islam on the Territory of modern Turkmenistan, Iran or Azerbaijan and can be used as the evidence of Oghuz migration on these terrirtories. abdulnr 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Frankly, it does not make any sense for me! The book of Dede Kokut was compiled in 15th century, and it can not be a proof for the Turkic background of the Azarbaijan.

But, let’s say that this epos came from old oral epics of Turks, back to 11th (?) century , how oral epos can be the evidence of Turkic theory. I have never heard that any oral thing can be considered as the evidence, especially regarding to the fact that there is no complete agreement on origin of Dede Korkut epos and many scholars believe that they are originated from the Central Asia. So, I think we should remove this part, believe me it does not make any sense for many readers! --behmod talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain and it makes perfect sence. The epos was created after Turkic migration to the area and is celebrated as one of the great examples of the Azeri Turkic language. Grandmaster 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I read this part I just smile. How can a 15th century compiled book a proof? How can oral epics that have unclear origin and nobody knows for sure whether they are from Central Asia or Anatolia or Azerbaijan can be a proof. Please do not let others laugh at people who have had contribution on this article.
Let me tell you something Grandmaster! I know that you have a nationalistic point of view! So, because of the name of Turks listen to the experience that I had in US! In US for many people who are interested in Turkish culture and history and follow these subjects, the fact that we refer every thing to the book of Dede Korkut is a kind of joke for them. I have heard many times that they make fun of us. Do not let them laugh at us because of these poor proofs.
I am going to remove this part very soon, in case that nobody make these sentences understandable!--behmod talk 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See Iranica about Dada Qorgut:
The language spoken today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 5th/11th and 6th/12th centuries and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form. For two centuries after their appearance in Iran, the Oghuz Turks seem to have had only an oral literature. The origins of the stories, attributed to Dada Qorgut, which are about the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks, probably lie back in this period. The accepted text, however, was complied only in the 9th/15th century. [9]
So the epos or at least some parts of it were created in 11th century. Like it or not, but it should be mentioned in Turkic theory, and since there's no consensus on its removal, it remains. Grandmaster 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, let's others laugh at us! This poor proof can remain. Thousands of Armanian, Persian and Assyrian books were written in current Azarbaijan, now we bring a series of unclear origin oral stories as a proof of Turkic theory!!!--behmod talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that has nothing to do with being a turk, since they say they are turks like this!

So even if that book is not a sign, they have more books to proof it.

Cultural dress

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

It would be interesting to read some description of Azerbaijani clothing styles. Is there an ethnic equivalent of a national costume? Just going on the existing illustrations, it seems that there are various styles in favor, including the cloth belt with vest and sometimes long, flowing style; a simple cylindrical hat, and modern Western clothing. Are the older styles influenced by other cultures, or are these largely native? -- Beland 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

A. Dispute on Ethnologue figures

I'm going to put back a dispute tag because Kiumars disputes the neutrality and factual accuracy above and in Wikipedia talk:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents. If you don't think it should be there, please tell me why. --Sbluen 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem: Iran does not officially do a census on how many Azeris there are in Iran. As a result it's all guesswork. See here as to what I mean. Ethnologue is one group that tries to calculate the numbers, which vary. The article goes to great lengths to incorporate as many different sources as possible. Thus, the dispute isn't valid in this regard because Iran does not publish any figures. Hope this clears things up. Tombseye 22:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


from what i understand, iran does publish figures but organizations such as ethnology assume that the iranian government is lying. is that right?Khosrow II 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually no. Tajik and I talked about this a while back and found that the only "official" Iranian reference came from an embassy in Germany. All the Iranian academics listed in the section I wrote say that Iran does NOT publish figures. Ethnologue doesn't go into who is lying or not as far as I know. In addition, unofficial figures are contested as well, but since we don't know what's true or not, we have what we have. Can't please everybody. Tombseye 23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If we are going to use official sources then why not use UN and CIA and the Library of the US congress figures? CIA operated in Iran over many years and had a good data on everything and their data has been consistent over years! Ethnologue on the other hand is not a reliable source and has reported 13 million in its 13th edition and 23.5 million in its 15th edition when the total population of Iran only changed 3 millions during these two editions! I do not understand why Tombseye insists on using an unreliable source that as I have proven in the following spreadsheet their figures even do not add up? Does it make sense to anyone except Tombseye?
Ethnologue 13th edition:http://www.christusrex.org/www3/ethno/Iran.html
Ethnologue 15th edition: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran
Ethnologue data in spreadsheet format: http://www.zen49535.zen.co.uk/Public/Iran/Wiki/Languages_of_Iran_2.zip
PS: As for Tombseye claim that there is no official data from Iran, I refer you to Ali doostzadeh 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) post in the “Is Ethnologue a reliable source?“ section above.
If you read Ali’s posts you will see that a snapshot census was carried out in 1991 on ethnic groups. Where Ali says” Probably the best census I have seen is the following[4]. In this census, 49,588 mothers who gave birth and were issued birth certificates during the Iranian month of Mordad in 1991 were asked about their mother-tongue. In that census Kurds were 10%, Arabs 5%, and Azaris 20.6% of the total which matches calculations based on provincial statistics.” Kiumars 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Ethnologues guess work is just that, guesses, but like kiumars said, sources such as CIA give consistent figures over and over again, then dont jump around so sparodically such as ethnologue.Khosrow II 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I will remove the Ethnologue figures as it is not a big deal I don't think as it is being made out to be here. The CIA estimates the figures as Iran does NOT take ethnic censuses so those too are guesses. As for the best indication of 50,000 people as a 'snapshot' census, that's absurd. That's not a census, but a sampling and is not an actual census. The margin of error in such a small sample could be huge in fact so including that is not logical or viable. The Iran experts seem to believe that the figure for Azeris is considerably higher than 20%, but given the disparities I will include a range from 20% to 33% to be fair to all parties. Tombseye 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the sampling is not just random 50,000 people, but all the people that gave birth that month. And 50,000 samples even done uniformly (which was done because it took every hospital into account) is very very accurate. Please check this link: [10] and test the results. The results are based on the statistical phenomenon of the convergence of law of large numbers. That is why when CNN samples say 1000 Americans about an issue, they only say 3-4% of margin error and based it on the whole US population. I have seen results from 16% to 25% in various sites. I think the provincial statistics is the best statistics we have available in Iran other than the one I already mentioned. --Ali doostzadeh 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the Ethnologue figures and have placed a wide range for the possibility that the sampling is wrong. I figure that's fair to all parties concerned rather than just the folks who seem to think the Azeris are a much smaller group. Yes, I understand the rationale, but a sampling census is rarely given as an accurate one in comparison to national censuses (such as the US census bureau which actually asks people their ethnic origin etc.). I'm not sure I agree that it would be very very accurate given the disparity of views on this subject and the refusal of the govt. to conduct a census on ethnic origin so I'm going to leave the range as is with different sources given. We can add this source as the rationale behind the 20% figure if you want as I have no problem with that, but I do believe we should keep both the low end and high end figures since there is no certainty at this time. Tombseye 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the former government did a relatively accurate census. As per the birth sample, again a population of 50,0000 samples from 70 million people uniformly is very accurate. The margin of error is less than 1% and it asks every mother whose child was issued a birth certificate, their native language. But the best statistics as I said is provincial statistics. The above birth number statistics is very accurate and it matches the provincial statistics. For example check the ethnic map of the University of Texas and then doa comparison with the provincial statistics. Amnesty international gets information from a particular politicaly concernet group and publishes it. I also have a problem with Brenda Schaffer as her book has gotten poor reviews for basic mistakes[11] and she puts a figure between 20% to 30% claiming the majority of figures accept about 25%. The ethnologue figure after contacting the site, had no source and they couldn't figure out where they got the number. So that one is definitely problematic. There are also various sites: [12],The 2005 Britannica has: About one-fifth of Iranians speak a variety of Turkic languages, Here is btw another site: [13]. But I agree with Kiumars that ethnologue should be removed since they specifically stated that they do not have a source for their data in different correspondences and also their numbers don't add up as shown by Kiumars's chart and disparity between two editions. Since that was done, I think the current article is fine. Personally I see no error in the pronvicial analysis which matches the brith certificate rate as well. But the current setting of the article is good although it be useful to add some of the other sources I mentioned. [--Ali doostzadeh 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Since we consider ethnologue figures unreliable, I hope nobody minds if I remove them from other articles as well, such as Talysh. Indeed, I also said that the figures they provide have nothing to do with reality. Grandmaster 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually this does not make ethnologue unreliable in all accounts. (For example their recent number on Kurds on Iran was updated and I believe it is fairly correct). Although overall, I wouldn't list it as a source unless there is no other sources. Through actual correspondences with ethnologue, it was determined that they had no source for their number about this specific matter. So this does not make it false for other matters or groups. I have all their emails which can be checked with ip address as does Kiumars who verified this fact separately. Mainly you can contact Mr. Ray Gordon in Ethnologe. So if you think the Talysh figure is unreliable in another matter, you should contact ethnologue via email/phone and ask them where they got their figure which you believe is unreasonable. My estimates make a 500,000 Talysh reasonable. Talysh nationalists claim 1.5 million (just like every nationalist groups claims high figures). Joshua Project has 1 million. In the book "Menashri, David. Central Asia Meets The Middle East. London and Portland: Frank Cass, 1998", the author says on pg 101: The other group is the Talysh who number around 1 million and are located in the republic of Azerbaijan. So this is an academic book which mentions 1 million. Still I am not supporting ethnologue's figure, but I would check with ethnologue first before removing it (for example what is their source), just so it is confirmed. According to the USSR census of 1926, there was 77,039 Talysh in the republic of Azerbaijan. So I am not sure how the current number given by the government of the republic of Azerbaijan which is 80,000 can make sense either. Anyways this another issue which no correspondence has taken place with ethnologue.com, so it should be checked with ethnologue for their sources although the book I mentioned pretty much says the same thing. Regards. --Ali doostzadeh 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye,
1) Regarding your statement [The CIA estimates the figures], I must ask you if you really think that Ethnologue and its sources actually carried out a census? If not, then when we are comparing two estimates which one is more reliable (the one provided by CIA or the one provided by Ethnologue)? Look at Ethnologue figures and you will see that several languages are spoken by exactly 7033 people! Isn’t that a miracle? Add up their figures and you get a total 5 million more than the population of Iran, isn’t that inaccurate? (See the total on my spreadsheet). What else do we need to start questioning the reliability of a source?
2) Regarding your statement [As for the best indication of 50,000 people as a 'snapshot' census, that's absurd. That's not a census, but a sampling and is not an actual census].
Most of the polls are carried on a very small number of people (a few hundred to a couple of thousands people) and these polls have only +/- 3 % margin of error as we have seen the polls carried on elections have been almost spot on. So a sampling carried over a full calendar month on all birth certificates issued (which covers almost 9% of the annual birth) in my opinion is a very accurate sampling unless you believe that different ethnic groups have different birthrates in different months of the year! I cannot understand why you think it is not an accurate method or the result is less reliable than Ethnologue figures (which I have proven their inaccuracy above)?
3) Regarding your statement [I figure that's fair to all parties concerned rather than just the folks who seem to think the Azeris are a much smaller group]. An encyclopedia has got nothing to do with fairness; the most important thing in an encyclopedia is accuracy. How useful an encyclopedia would be if people did not trust it because it wanted to be fair to some?
As I said before I have no objection to Azaris being even 90% of Iran population, I am not anti-Azari, my objection is about using unreliable sources in an encyclopaedia! If you follow my posts you will see that my question about the reliability of ethnologue actually started on ethnologue article far before mentioning it here on this page.
4) I believe if Ethnologue figures are used in the article the inconsistency and inaccuracy of the source and the figures must be mentioned in the body of the article so that the readers are aware of the case.
5) Re: [so I'm going to leave the range as is with different sources given].
As you can see from my correspondence with Ethnologue, they admitted that the correct figure must be about 11 millions, so if you are going to put a range why don’t you include this figure too? I can forward the email to an administrator if need be (because my correspondence with Ethnologue was from my work email and has lots of personal data in the email header and I do not wish to share that information with lots of people). Kiumars 11:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

B. Dispute on accuracy and impartiality of references

1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL public statement says “The largest ethnic minority in Iran, the Azeri Turkish community is believed to number between 25-30 percent of the total population and is found mainly in the north-west.”. Since when “is believed to” is a factual statement to be used as a reference? Kiumars 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


2. Brenda Shaffer is the Research Director of the Caspian Studies Project and a post-doctoral fellow at the International Security Program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Shaffer's main research interests include political, social, and security trends in the Caucasus and Central Asia, with emphasis on the Republic of Azerbaijan; the Azerbaijani minority in Iran; ethnic politics in Iran; Iranian nuclear program and security policy; Russian-Iranian relations; Iranian foreign policy, with emphasis on Iran’s policy in Central Asia and the Caucasus; U.S.–Iranian relations; energy and politics, especially in the Caspian region, and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. She is also interested in the impact of newly established ethnic-based states on co-ethnics beyond those states' borders as well as the effect on collective identity of political borders that divide co-ethnics. Dr. Shaffer received her Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University for her work on "The Formation of Azerbaijani Collective Identity: In Light of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Soviet Breakup." She has worked for a number of years as a researcher and policy analyst for the Government of Israel and reads a number of languages, including Turkish, Russian, Azerbaijani, and Hebrew. She has served in the Israel Defense Forces.

(i.e. She is Israeli and she works for the Government of Israel! Is she an impartial reference when it comes to Iran? I don’t think so.)

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/person.cfm?program=CORE&item_id=312

http://www.mfa.gov.az/eng/training/2004/brenda.shtml Kiumars 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Brenda Shaffer is a reputable researcher. The fact that she worked for the government of Israel does not automatically make her anti-Iranian. Grandmaster 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Grandmaster, It says “She has worked for Israel Government” i.e. she is still working for them. If she was not working for them anymore it would say “She worked for ….”. And listening to Israel – Iran rhetorics at the moment I would take anything that comes from either side with a big pinch of salt.
Also look at her subjects of interest! main research interests include political, social, and security trends in the Caucasus and Central Asia, with emphasis on the Republic of Azerbaijan; the Azerbaijani minority in Iran; ethnic politics in Iran; Russian-Iranian relations; Iranian foreign policy, with emphasis on Iran's policy in Central Asia and the Caucasus; U.S.- Iranian relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. She is also interested in the impact of newly established ethnic-based states on co-ethnics beyond those states' borders as well as the effect on collective identity of political borders that divide co-ethnics.
Don’t these all look strange to you? Aren’t these what CIA has been using for creating ethnic clashes in Iran? Kiumars 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear GM, I do not think she is reputable scholar.. the only thing that concerns in a google search is the Iranian nuclear program and Israel's defence! (not that anything is wrong with political concerns but clearly shows she has an agenda). Her book has gotten bad reviews and indeed some of the facts have been utterly falsified [14].

--Ali doostzadeh 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Brenda Shaffer does not seem to be reputabal; er name is mentioned several times in media monitor groups listings in a negative way; she is also involved with several PR firms. 69.196.164.190


Dear Kiumars, to solve this issue, I think we should have a wide range and we can mention the Iranian month birth certificate. Anything from 16% to 33% is a range. The users worked hard to make this article as you can see. For example this source can be mentioned: [15] and also the 1/3 figure as well(although Shaffer with her anti-Iranian agenda mentions most sources mention 1/4). Although personally I am 100% of sure the provincial analysis which matches the birth-certificate of the month of Amordad 1991. --Ali doostzadeh 15:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Ali (15:16, 31 July 2006), this is an encyclopedia, there is no place for haggling here, we need to filter out the unreliable sources and concentrate on the most reliable sources otherwise people will laugh at us and Wiki! Kiumars 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kiumars, I looked at Shaffer's psuedo-scholarly book. In it she actually gives a figure between 1/5 to 1/3 but going with 1/4. Her miscalculations on some issues is really funny. --Ali doostzadeh 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag

In my opinion the tag attached by Tajik is a clear POV stuff. The sources he provided don’t support his claims, and there are plenty of other sources, disproving his claims too. The claim that Turkification did not start at the time of Seljuks contradicts to what authoritative sources say. See below a couple of examples:

The Seljuq invasions in the 11th century changed the composition of the local population and resulted in the linguistic dominance of Oguz Turkic dialects.

Encyclopedia Britannica [16]


The eastern Caucasus came under Saljuq control in the middle years of the 11th century CE, and in ca. 1075-76 CE Alp Arslan sent his commander `Emad'al-din Saboktagin as governor of Azarbaijan and Arran, displacing the last Shaddadids. From this period begins the increasing Turkicization of Arran, under the Saljuqs and then under the line of Eldiguzid or Ildenizid Atabegs, who had to defend eastern Transcaucasia against the attacks of the resurgent Georgian kings. The influx of Oghuz and other Turkmens was accentuated by the Mongol invasions.

The article about Arran by C. E. Bosworth from Encyclopedia Iranica [17]

Grandmaster 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the first time, Grandmaster, that you call both Iranica and Britannica "POV". See my sources above: 2 x Iranica, and 1 x Britannica. Tājik 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don’t call any of the 2 POV. On the contrary, I refer to both of them, because they say that turkification began during the Seljuq time. Grandmaster 09:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Tajik, please note that your sources don’t support what you say.
Quote 1: here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints
The fact that Saljuq rulers accepted Persian as administrative and literary language does not mean that the all the Oghuz people, on whose support they were relying, did the same and stopped speaking Turkish.
Quote 2: During the period of the Anatolian beyliks, following the collapse of the Saljuq State in the 14th century, the Turkish language gained gradually in importance, and consequently the influence of Persian culture and language weakened in Anatolia to a certain degree. Turkish had emerged as a written language even in the frontier cities
The words “Turkish language gained gradually in importance” simply mean that Turkish became the language of literature and bureaucracy, but it does not mean that it was not spoken in the region before that time.
Quote 3: Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship
I don’t see how this supports Tajik’s claim. It just says talks about spread of literary Persian, but Turkish remained the colloquial language of the Turkic people. The same source says:
Persian cultural autonomy flourished in the Seljuq empire.
Autonomy is granted to those who have culture and language, different from the majority. As you see, your sources don’t support your claim, and the same sources clearly state that Turkification of the region started under the Saljuqs. See my above quotes. I suggest you remove the tag, because it damages the quality of the featured article, and has no real substantiation. Grandmaster 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The sources, however, make it clear that the ruling elite - the Seljuq dynasty - was neither Turkish-speaking nor had any interest in Turkish culture or language. This should also be mentioned in the text, because right now, it claims that the Seljuqs started the Turkification. That's wrong! BTW: Persians and Persian-speakers have always been a minority in Anatolia. This does not mean that Turkic-speakers were the majority. It is an established fact that at the time of the Beyliqs (and even during Ottoman rule), Turkish-speakers and ethnic Turcomans were a tiny minority in Anatolia. Tājik 10:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The sources simply say that the ruling Saljuq elite adopted Persian as literary and administrative language. It does not mean that they had no interest in their Turkic heritage. I think it can be mentioned in the article, but I don’t see how it can be related to Azeri people. The best place to describe the situation is the article about Saljuqs. Grandmaster 10:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it says that the Seljuqs considered themselvs "Persians" and even made up a new family-tree, claiming the be descendants of ancient Iranian Shahs (which, btw, was the reason why most of the Seljuq princes had Sassanian names, like "Kaykobad", "Khusrow", etc.):
  • "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." "Shahrbanu" by M.A. Amir-Moezzi in Encyclopaedia Iranica)
Why can't you just accept the sources, Grandmaster? Tājik 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I accept the sources. I just don't accept some of your interpretations. For example, this one says that they had their origins traced to the ancient kings of Persia, but it does not say that they considered themselves Persians. They simply were trying to establish some sort of legitimacy of their rule. Grandmaster 10:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
But I think that your recent edit is OK, so let's leave this dispute behind. But it would be nice if Tombseye checked it for better wording, because the phrase "marked the influx" does not sound good to me. Grandmaster 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/z/e/Talk%7EAzerbaijani_people_Archive_4_f010.html"