Talk:Azerbaijani people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijani people article.
Featured article star Azerbaijani people is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Azerbaijani people appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2006.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Azerbaijani people as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Azeri This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
WikiProject Iran Azerbaijani people is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups priority open tasks:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Women Section

Not that I disagree with any of the sentiment expressed, but the Women section is not NPOV in its language, UberIcarus

  • I think that I've found an error in this section. It says "The Republic of Azerbaijan is also one of the few Muslim countries where abortion is available on demand.[92]"

But the reference is pointing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsAroundtheWorld.png ... an image; and I've searched, and the article that should point is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

If this is true, can someone change it. (Sorry about the english)

[edit] Encylopaedia of Islam...

Just a little correction, based on the ENGLISH version of this encyclopaedia, in the word ADHARBAYJAN, "DH" means "Z" (according to the pronunciation), since it has been translated from ARABIC to ENGLISH, so by reffering to the original Arabic versions of encyclopaedias - old and new - the word will be آذربايجان EN: Azær ba i jan.

    • Well I don't think that "Ayatollah Khamenei" is an ethnic azeri, he was born in the city of mashhad, north-eastern Iran, his mom was persian, his DAD was a half azeri living in "Najaf" IRAQ, so he doesn't know anything about azeri culture, I would say he is a persian since he speaks persian not turkish! he is just 25% azeri with no azeri education.
Actually his dad is Azarbaijani and has trouble speaking Persian. Ayatollah Khamenei is related to Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani. As per his mom I am not sure but I am pretty sure she is an Azerbaijani as well. As for being born in Mash-had that is true, but many Azarbaijanis are born in Tehran as well. So just because they are born in a non-Azerbaijani speaking environment, it does not make them non-Azerbaijani. Also Khaemeni speaks Azerbaijani and Turkish well and whenever Erbakan or Aliyev have visited, he didn't need a translator. --Ali doostzadeh 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The spelling of the EI is correct. The Arabic "ذ" is pronounced like "dh", comparable to the English "th". Because Persians cannot prnounce these kinds of sounced, it turned "Azerbaijan". Later, the Turks simply copied from Persian. It should be noted that the name "Azerbaijan" is the ARABIC version of the original Median "Azerpadegan".
As for Khomeini, it is absolutely no secret that he and his family were from India. That's why he always signed his letters with "al-Hindi". The question remains whether his family had setteled in Iran much earlier, or that he himself was an Indian Muslim. Some language experts and reporters (I have no time to google their names right now) maintain that Khomeini was not able to speak correct Persian except for some 100 common words. That's why most of his speeches were written by others and he always refused to give spontanious interviews. Tājik 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake ... you're talking about Khamenei ... lol ...OK, he is deffinitly Azari. :) Tājik 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is the thing, we say that khomeini has an indian background, that doesn't mean that he is an indian which he wasn't. he was mostly iranian, and about khamenei, he has a turkish background from his father side, but he wasn't even born in azerbaijan, i mean he rathers to speak farsi, if he is a turk, so even if we say he is a turk, me as a turk don't know him as a turk coz he hates turks, if he was a real turk, he wouldn't at least forget his own language, so what was his real first language? No persian teaches his or her child turkish, but some turks do teach their kids persian, and the kids are not turks anymore, this is the problem, i mean we have nothing to do with farsi, we like it as it is, but it shouldn't be in a way so every single turk becomes a persian...in that case turks won't accept it as before, coz they know anyways they are turks, like a persian knows his/her background, and names, i would say let's not talk about "azerbaijan" since the islamic culture affected these lands alot, azerbaijan has been written in arabic that way cause that was the best way of writing with an advanced alphabet at that time, the same thing happened to other names, and for your info: azerbaijan is more turkish that any other name, they kept the name as they did their language, if you knew turkish you wouldn't make similarities between that and "padegan", and for more info: have a look at khazar, and ask turkmens what they still call azerbaijan! and you know medians were not persians right? pure aryans? No. .. azerbaijan and cacasia was full of people when aryans were not even close to persia, "persia" is only respectable for persians,but persians are respectable for us, persians belong to persian lands, turks to turkish lands, and so...being a persian or turk has nothing to do with cyrus or babak or khamenei or hitler or gandi, everyone watns to be something neither me or you can change it.

Please read carefully. Khaemeni speakes both Persian and Azeri-Turkish very well. He says in his biography that he learned as kid as it was a language used in his house. When Aliyev or Erbakan comes to Tehran, he doesn't need a translator. Also the name Azarbaijan is Iranian (it is not in any ancient Turkish source). --Ali doostzadeh 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I am curious to know, where did Khamnei said he knows Azeri-Turkish very well . On his own official site[1], there is no mention of Azeri what so ever. Can you please direct me to your source of claim. I can't find any information regarding his ability to talk Turkish with Erbakan either. I am an Azeri Turk myself and have grown up within kilometers of the Turkish border, have Turkish friends, yet not comfortable talking simple topics with a Turkish person , how can he talk state matters with head of another state only talking Azeri perhaps with his grandpa? Thanks. Mehrdad 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azeris in Fars province?

I'm not sure whether it's accurate to state that Azeris live in Fars. I think those who live there are actually the Qashqai who aren't really Azeri. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parishan (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 August 2006.

[edit] "Azeri Genetic"

It's this a new Style of Rassismus ala Hitler or what ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.9.106 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 September 2006.

What's wrong with a little genetics? —Khoikhoi 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they are scared of the results? And last I checked, Hitler and the Nazi's never used genetics. LOLKhosrow II 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information about Pishevari

Please do not remove sourced material from the article, specially the material from Encyclopaedia of Islam.Heja Helweda 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The new encyclopedia of Islam does not consider TOP SECRET declassified information that were recently published by the former USSR within the last 5-10. This changes a lot of the equation and views on Ferqeh. Note the classified documents were memos from Stalin to Baqeroff himself. So unless you have new sources that take this major historic viewpoint shift into account, then it is considered obsolete with that regard. Plus this is not an article on Ferqeh to write 20 lines on it. --alidoostzadeh 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam is a very old resource and many articles have not been updated in years. It is not the best resource for these kinds of topics. Khorshid 06:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To give example, Encyclopedia of Islam does not even call Iran Iran but Persia and Iranian citizens as Persians despite if even they are not ethnically Persian! LOL Khorshid 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia of Islam is an authoritative source written by experts. If anyone wants to disprove the EI, he/she has to come up with REALLY good literature. Tājik 10:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
True it is good on historical aspects. But information on modern politics can change. The new released top secret materials that are memo's from Stalin to Baqirov is a case point. --alidoostzadeh 14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The removed sentences were about linguistic and cultural grievances of Azerbaijanis at that time, this does not need top secret documents :) Heja Helweda 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about Ferqeh. And I disagree that there was wide linguistic grievances as the government of Pishevari would not have fallen in oneday if it was popular. Also any analysis of the movement should take the above unclassified secret materials into account since they effect all aspects of the image of Ferqeh. --alidoostzadeh 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


We cannot rely on our individual beliefs, it is safer to refer to some academic sources. If you can provide any scholarly source regarding your beliefs, it would greatly enhance the article.Heja Helweda 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with alidoostzadeh, your additions are highly speculative and POV. On top of that, your selective "academic sources" are not verifiable as the links you've provided require registration. --Mardavich 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Iran: A country Study by the Federal Research Division, Kessinger Publishing[2] , Without Soviet Backing, the Pishevari government collapsed and Pishevari himself fled to the Soviet Unition. I can show great many instances where the Pishevari government was despised and that is why it collapsed without any resistance unlike the Kurdish democratic party which had some grass root support amongst Sunni Kurds. Also the Encyclopedia of Islam article is old whereas my unclassified top secret sources are new and show there was no internal movement that led to such a party but it was the sole external creation of Stalin. It was previously unknown to some (not all) scholars why the Pishevari government all of the sudden rose up after the USSR invasion of NW Iran, but with the new unclassified information, everything is made clear and the new analysis on the movement should mention these three important sources something the OLD encyclopedia of Islam article does not and tries to find reasons. There is nothing POV about the unclassified top seceret documents showing that the creation of the party was directly by the order of Stalin and thus it was no internal movement within Iran and it collapsed the first day the USSR left within 24 hours. --alidoostzadeh 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I think one of the reasons for irredentist movement in Iranian Azerbaijan was Persianization campaign, which was pursued by Reza shah. This information is verifiable from scholarly literature.

The steps that the Teheran regime took in the 1930s with the aim of Persianization of the Azeris and other minorities appeared to take a leaf from the writings of the reformist-minded intellectuals in the previous decade. In the quest of imposing national homogeneity on the country where half of the population consisted of ethnic minorities, the Pahlavi regime issued in quick succession bans on the use of Azeri on the premises of schools, in theatrical performances, religious ceremonies, and, finally, in the publication of books. Azeri was reduced to the status of a language that only could be spoken and hardly ever written. As the Persianization campaign gained momentum, it drew inspiration from the revivalist spirit of Zoroastrian national glories. There followed even more invasive official practices, such as changing Turkic-sounding geographic names and interference with giving children names other than Persian ones.

Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683

Grandmaster 06:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no irredentist movement, except what the USSR created by the direct orders of Stalin as the unclassified top-secret information clearly establishes. It is true that Persian was declared the only official language since 1906 (before Pahlavi and during the constitutionalist movement) and the Pahlavi's only thought Persian the official language in school except for few cases. And there was a Zoroastrianist campaign which was more at an attempt for de-Islamification of Iranian society much like Ataturk's de-Islamification campaign. But as for choosing the name part, I disagree since majority of Iranians have Arabic names, and Turkish names like Yashar, Aidin, Sanaaz are as popular as any other name during the Pahlavid era. A good example is Shohreh Aghdashloo who is the wife of Aydin Aghdashloo. Of course there was more serious Azerification campaign of Kurds, Talysh and Lezgins and etc or even more serious one in Turkey and Ba'athist Iraq. I am not sure how much of all these informations are relavent to Pishevari. But the current discussion is about Pishevari's movement and there should be a separate article on Ferqeh and Pishevari. According to Iran: A country Study by the Federal Research Division, Kessinger Publishing[3] , Without Soviet Backing, the Pishevari government collapsed and Pishevari himself fled to the Soviet Unition. Not much of a popular movement, if it collapsed less than a day without USSR backing. It actually collapsed in about a day because people of Tabriz actually revolted against it and there is a lot of memoirs about this as well another source I brought from Professor. Hess. I am not sure putting up two three pages about Pishevari movement is a good idea on this article and it should have it's own relavent article. It was previously unknown to some scholars why the Pishevari government out of the sudden rose up after the USSR invasion of NW Iran, but with the new unclassified information, everything is made clear and new analsysis should mention these three important sources and I am of the opinion that any old analysis is obsolete because of these three important sources which shows that the party was created by the direct order of Stalin. --alidoostzadeh 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani Diaspora Population

The numbers cited for Azerbaijani population in other countries are not accurate. It seems this numbers only include Northern Azerbaijani diaspora whilst the southern azerbaijanis of world are much more. For instance a population of just 1400 Canadian-azerbaijanis is a sheer underestimation. Statistics Canada has only classified northern Azerbaijanis (i.e. those who have stated Azerbaijan as their home country) as Azerbaijani whilst a sizeable portion (at lest 50 000) of Iranian-Canadians are also Azeri albeit from Iranian Azerbaijan or soythern Azerbaijan. There is also a considerable population of southern Azerbaijanis in USA, Australia, Uk, Germany, France, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Kuweit, Japan, South Korea, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.198.8.137 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 October 2006.

First of all, do not get confused. People who speak the same dialect of a language are not necessarily the same people.Khosrow II 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Does that make Persians of Califonia a different ethnic group? Parishan 00:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats not what I mean.Khosrow II 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is about both northern and southern Azerbaijanis. Isn't it? So the numbers should include both of them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.198.8.137 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 October 2006.
There are no "north" and "south" Azerbaijani's, there are only one Azerbaijani's, and those are Iranian Azerbaijani's. Read up on the history of the name Azerbaijan, the meaning of Azerbaijani, and the genetics, you'll understand what I'm talking about. I dont have time to explain this in detail right now.Khosrow II 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey pal, I know what you mean and I disagree with you (as many do). But your pan-persian views bear no connection to this topic. Read the article anew. Here "Azerbaijani people" refers to both those who live north of Araz river and those who live south of it.So the diaspora population should be consistent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.198.8.137 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 October 2006.
Obviously you dont know what Im talking about then.Khosrow II 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with 85.198.8.137 here. The name Azerbaijanis or Azeris generally refers to the Turkic-speaking population of Azerbaijan and northern Iran. And yes, Khosrow II, you are expressing a radical Pan-Persian viewpoint by trying to prove that Azeris on both sides of Araxes are different from each other ethnicity-wise (what else could those "only Iranian Azerbaijanis" and "not necessarily the same people" comments mean?). It's enough to read the first couple of lines of this article to realize, what is meant by Azerbaijanis. I understand where you're coming from, but there's no need in undermining the commonly accepted theory, especially if there are ideological reasons behind that. Parishan 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because you dont know the facts does not mean you can insult me or my intelligence. When I post the irrefutable facts, would you promise me that you will conform your point of view to the facts, instead of conforming the facts to match your point of view or simply refusing to believe them?Khosrow II 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I was by no means questionning your intelligence but simply referring to the fact that 85.198.8.137 has a point when talking about including the numbers for Iranian Azerbaijanis outside of Iran to the overall number for Azerbaijanis who live abroad. The article does not talk about Iranian Azerbaijanis (who from what I've understood you claim to be "real" Azerbaijanis) but Azerbaijanis in general as the term is commonly understood by scholars. Parishan 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that you do not want to commit yourself to a situation where you could possibly have to accept something you dont want to accept. Will you promise me that when I post the facts you will accept them for what they are and change your point of view to match the facts, instead of changing the facts to match your point of view or rejecting them out right?Khosrow II 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijani people on both sides of Araks are the same people, and it’s not a subject for dispute. All the major scholarly sources say so, and according with the rules we go with the established scholarly view, and not the original research. Check Britannica, for example:
Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. At the turn of the 21st century there were some 7,500,000 Azerbaijani in the republic and neighbouring areas and more than 15,000,000 in Iran. [4] Grandmaster 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
GM, you know the truth very well. Even you yourself brought some information to my knowledge that I did not even know before. Its amazing that you still deny the truth when you took part in such a revealing discussion.Khosrow II 05:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that Azerbaijani people are the same both in Iran and Azerbaijan, who got separated from each other due to historical reasons. This is confirmed by the major scholarly sources and according to the rules you should keep your personal beliefs out of Wikipedia. Grandmaster 05:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont have time right now, but when I do, we will all be able to see the information and judge for ourselves (you have already seen the information, and at one point you even told that you already knew about it all...I dont know why you reject all the information we talked about). Even Tadeusz Swietochowski, a person whose quotes you seem to use a lot, contradicts your claims. Even he acknowledges the truth about the situation. Even the Russian Encyclopaedia, which again you seem to like very much, contradicts your claims. Good night for now, and I plead with you to accept facts for what they are. A person has to change his or her point of view to match the facts, not change the facts to suite their point of view or just reject facts period. Thats the scientific way to approach the world and you seem like a very educated and logical person, I just dont know why you find it so hard. Anyway, good night, I'll talk to you tomorrow.Khosrow II 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
History is not really verifiable. I disagree with your historical claims but even if you can prove your claims, it's not relavant. Stick to actual realities instead of historical myths. The truth is that we are the same people. We have the same language, the same proverbs, same traditions, music, lifestile, etc. After 2 centuries of political separation we look astonishingly alike. 72.232.27.154 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Shahin
Im sorry, I didnt know you made a comment, I just thought you put the /'s in other peoples comments for no reason. Sorry about that. Also, you just contradicted yourself in your statement.Khosrow II 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither Swietochowski, nor Russian encyclopedia say that Azeris on both sides of Araks are not the same people. On the contrary, they both say that they ARE the same people. So you please keep your personal opinion out of the article, especially considering that this is a featured article. Grandmaster 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Swietochowski clearly distinguishes Arran as a seperate entity from Azerbaijan (Iran). You know this, and I know this. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary clearly says that the term Azerbaijani was adopted, not as an ethnic term, but as a linguistic term, and that Iranian Azari's are Iranians by race (this was the quote you came up with yourself, dont deny it). It was the Russians who came up with the term Azerbaijani first, from the name of North Western Iran, since that was the only region ever called Azerbaijan until 1918. They clearly say that the reason they use the term Azerbaijani to refer to this group of Turkic speakers is to differentiate them from the rest, because Azerbaijani's (linguistic term, not ethnic term) were Iranians by race. Language does not determine language group, or else Africans from the Ivory Coast would be ethnic Frenchmen and women. I can go on and on, but since all three of you have made it clear that you have no respect for facts, what is there to discuss? I have all the facts I need to counter your claims.Khosrow II 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You have no facts. The only fact you try to use as a proof is that the North was not always called Azerbaijan. But if we assume that the two areas had different names, it still does not prove that the people are different. You know how many Arabic countries there are in the world, each with its own name, but the people are all Arabs nonetheless. And Brochaus says that Azerbaijani people are Iranian by race referring to people on both sides of Araks. But ethnicity is not based on race anyway. Plus, as I said many times, all the scholarly sources say that Azerbaijani people on both sides of Araks are the same ethnicity. I don’t think this issue is worth any further discussion. Grandmaster 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to remind you that the region north of Azerbaijan (the real Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan) was never called Azerbaijan, and definetly not in its entirety.
Also, your comparison to Arab countries is not correct. Everyone knows that the people of these different Arab nations are not ethnic Arabs, but linguistically Arab. There is now a resurgent feeling, especially in Lebanon, of the people's pre Arabization past, and ofcourse, the Egyptians know where they came from also. They are all linguistically Arab, nothing more, nothing less. Like I said, ethnicity is not determined by language. Good examples of this is the people of the Ivory Coast, who speak French, but are not ethnic Frenchmen. The Russian Encyclopaedia clearly states that the term Azerbaijani was adopted to refer to the people of North Western Iran only because they had no relations with other Turks except linguistically, and were Iranian by race. The Encyclopaedia clearly states this, the Encyclopaedia clearly states this, the Encyclopaedia clearly states (you yourself found and posted this quote from the Encyclopaedia, thinking that you could use it for your own purposes, but obviously, this was a major blunder on your part.).
Lastly, before I go to sleep, I would like to tell you again, that scholarly sources change, and they have especially changed during hte 20th century with the advent of nationalism and pan Turkism. For example, the 1911 edition of Brittanica clearly states the the only Azerbaijan is the region in the North West of Iran. Now what happened between 1911 and now that Brittanica has changed so drastically? New evidence? No, the only thing that has happened is politics, simple as that. Today, instead of facts deciding things, we have politics deciding them, just as we are seeing here on this Wiki discussion page. You will not be able to find one map, one single map, made before the 20th century that has the region north of Iranian Azerbaijan labled as Azerbaijan. I am the one with all the facts here, I can give you historical accounts, I can show you maps, etc... What have you shown me? Nothing. I garuntee you that if I e-mail the editors at Brittanica and show them all of this evidence compiled on Wikipedia, they themselves would be ashamed of the "academic" job they have done. Remeber that it was not so long ago that one of the Iranian Wikipedians had to e-mail Ethnologue to tell them their numbers were wrong. Do you remember what Ethnologue replied to him? They said that they themselves had no sources for the numbers they had put up, and they very well could have been wrong. This alone goes to show that politics has had more to do with the writing of history in the 20th century than facts have. Any educated scholar of hte history of Iran or the region period, can disprove what Brittanica 2006 says. Even I can. Infact, I am thinking of e-mailing the editor who wrote that article and ask him if he took all of the information I have compiled into account before writing his article. Good night. I will talk to you tomorrow.Khosrow II 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You misread the sources. You only see what you want to see. Russian Brochaus encyclopedia clearly says that Azerbaijani people live both in Russia and Persia, i.e. they are the same people. I provided the link to the original article, because unlike some people I never try to suppress the info, whatever it is. I don’t know what you call "ethnic Arab", but linguistically Arab = ethnic Arab. According to your logic, if ethnicity is based on race, then Pushkin is not Russian. Ridiculous. Professor Swietochowski says that the area north of Araks was seldom called Azerbaijan, but it was called so at times. Plus Azerbaijan as a region had fluid boundaries which included parts or the whole of the territory of modern Republic of Azerbaijan from time to time. So please stop insisting on your POV vision of the things. Azerbaijani people are the same ethnicity, no matter how hard you wish it was not so. Grandmaster 05:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I have not misread anything and I see what is written. It is you who see only what you want to see. Secondly, Swietochowski never mentions when the region north of Iran was called Azerbaijan also, he never even givs a time period. Historical accounts, and every map before the 20th century only show one Azerbaijan. The region now known as the R. of Azerbaijan was went by the names of Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Shirvan, Ganja, and Arran, but never Azerbaijan. Thirdly, the encyclopaedia clearly says that the people they term to be Azerbaijani have very little to do with other Turkic peoples, do you atleast agree with this fact? If yes, then you have to acknowledge that Azeri's are not ethnic Turks. Also, the encyclopaedia makes it very clear that the term Azerbaijani is a linguistic term, not an ethnic term. Therefore, both people across the river, speaking the same dialect of a language, were both labled as Azerbaijani.Khosrow II 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow II, I don't get it. How does historical usage of a toponym prove differences in ethnogenesis? Surely, you don't claim that Azeris of the Caucasus and Azeris of Iran do not constitute a single ethnic group just because at times a piece of land they populate was referred to by different names? Parishan 08:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. If Iran changes its name to Pashtunistan, it wont change the fact that Iran is not Pashtun.Khosrow II 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Khosrow lets work one article at a time. I think for now me and Mardavich and GM have come to some understanding.. I agree with Mardavich's version who has taken out any disputed quotes which is usually the best way to go. --alidoostzadeh 01:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow II, you just answered your own question. Whether the place was known as Azerbaijan or not, the people who lived on it did not change ethnically or transform into something else. They still represent a single ethno-cultural entity. When one talks about differences in ethnogenesis (because this is what you claim), toponymy has nothing to do with it. You can't say Ukrainians in Poland are not actually Ukrainians because they live on a land that has never been called Ukraine - that doesn't make any sense. You need to prove things like major linguistic or racial differences, different ancestry, etc. Parishan 05:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No. You are confused. Ukranians living in Poland are Ukranians, but a nation changing its name to Azerbaijan does not make its people Azerbaijani in the ethnic sense does it? Refer to my example, if Iran changes its name to Pashtunistan, do Iranians become ethnic pashtuns?Khosrow II 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the ways of forging the history is to tell some of the truth and be silent about the rest of it. According to many old sources such as Ibn Khalddun, Esterabadi, etc. Ganja, Nakhjivan, Gharabagh, and even Darband all were parts of Historical Azerbaijan. for exact sources please see the talk page on Azerbaijan Republic on persian Wikipedia. Nizami Ganjavi and Khaghani Shirvani were considered Azerbaijani poets who have contributed to the Azerbaijani school of persian litterature. As Regards the word "Aran", calling this region Aran does not contradict considering it a part of Azerbaijan. Aran was a part of Azerbaijan, Just as Khurasan is a part of Iran or Prussia a part of Germany. Tezarist regime was avoiding calling this region Azerbaijan to suppress nationalistic sentimesnts and to avoid the prospect of it rejoining Southern Azerbaijan. Some people like to show a distorted image of the reallity. One who knows both northerners and southerners will never make such a blunder as saying these are not the same people. -- Shahin
Please cite your sources then. And by the way, those poets you mentioned were not Azerbaijani's because the term Azerbaijani was has never meant ethnicity, and it was only introduced in the later 19th century by the Russians as a linguistic term. Secondly, they wrote in Persian, and therefore were Persian poets.Khosrow II 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Khosrow II, are you arguing the accuracy of the term 'Azerbaijani' or what? Because you can't apply an ethnonym to one part of an ethnic group and deprive the other part of it. And there is no way that the use of an ethnonym may affect ethnic roots of a certain group. Pontic Greeks did not originate in Greece, they don't refer to themselves the way most Greeks do, and they even speak a dialect that is barely intelligible with Modern Greek. But nevertheless, Pontic Greeks are Greeks. My point is, we shouldn't care what Azeris were called prior to the 19th century, as long as we mention this fact in the historical section. Today they are Azeris and nothing else. Parishan 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
They are only Azeri's because politics says so, nothing else, not facts nor history. If there was no pan Turkism, if there was no Soviet Union, if there was no European Imperialism, we would not be having this discussion about Azerbaijan right now, because things would have remained as they were before politics got involved.Khosrow II 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That has been your most inadequate argument so far. Anyone may say 'if there was no Cyrus, if there were no Sassanids, if there was no Abbas I, there would be no Persians'. History is not to be talked about in terms of ifs, buts and maybes. Parishan 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave up any hope to persuade Khosrow of anything. Check Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan, so much has been said, and he still keeps on accusing Britannica of pan-Turkism, because it says that Azerbaijanis are the same people in both countries. Moreover, he inserts his POV claims in all articles about Azerbaijan, which caused some articles to be protected from editing. This cannot go on forever, according to the rules we only include in the articles what the authoritative sources say, and they say that Azerbaijanis are the same people. End of story. Personal opinions and wishes should be kept out of the articles. Grandmaster 06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. GM proved himself wrong on several occasions with source he thought would help his plight, which infact, ended up helping my argument, such as the one from the Russian Encyclopaedia. Also, Brittanica is not pan Turkist, however, it has certainly been affected by the politics that has arisen from movements such as pan Turkism and Turkish nationalism. And yes, I agree, credible sources should only be used, and 1911 Brittanica and the 1890 Russian Encyclopaedia are even more credible, as they were not affected by nationalism and the politics that arose in the Middle East a short while later.Khosrow II 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow still claims there is no historical fact that the area north of Araks was called Azerbaijan. So here I present some facts. These facts are just some instances and far from exhaustive. I have translated and abbreviated these from persian wikipedia: 1. In Ibn Khaldoun's history, Tabriz and Bileghan are mentioned as two of Azerbaijani cities. Bileghan was located near Darband. see Vol 1, p 129. 2. Hafiz Hossein Karbalayi Tabrizi, (16th century) in enumerating some Ansari families of Azerbaijan includes those living in Qarabagh and Nekhjivan. see : Rozat al-jenan va janat al-janan, 2004, Tabriz: Sotude Publication, p.114. 3. Mirza Mehdi Estarabadi, who was Nadir Shah's secretary (18th century) in his dictionary under the word Ganja, Writes: "... Ganja is also the name of an area in Azerbaijan." see: Farhange Sangolakh, 1995, Tehran: Markaz Publication, p.228. 4.Mirza Kazem Beig, in reviewing the book "Darband Name" which was written by german Kalport, repeatedly mentions the area in north of Araks as Northern Azerbaijan. so toy see, although the presnt situation is far more important than the {presumed} history, but even in Terms of history, Azerbaijan includes both sides of Araks. I urge my Azeri friends to search in historical books (all turkish, persian and arabic resources) more evidence will be found. probably If Russia had succeeded in Adhering Tabriz to her Imperial territories, Pan-persians whould claim even Tabriz was not a part of historical Azerbaijan. ~ Shahin

In Ibn Khaldoun's history, Tabriz and Bileghan are mentioned as two of Azerbaijani cities. Bileghan was located near Darband. see Vol 1, p 129. I want to see a map showing the location of Bileghan. The first mention of Azerbaijan ever was in 885, and referring only to Iranian Azerbaijan. Ibn Khaldoun could not have said this, especially in his first volume. The first volume was Muqaddimah and it was not about history, but a pre-discussion about history and criticism of other historians.
Hafiz Hossein Karbalayi Tabrizi, (16th century) in enumerating some Ansari families of Azerbaijan includes those living in Qarabagh and Nekhjivan. see : Rozat al-jenan va janat al-janan, 2004, Tabriz: Sotude Publication, p.114. Aw, here is the first piece of misconstrewed evidence. Families of Azerbaijan, but no where does it that Qarabagh and Nekhjivan were a part of Azerbaijan. It says the Ansari families, influding the ones living in Qarabagh and Nekhjivan. I have a family too, I live in the USA, does that make the USA, Iran? Again, I would like to show how this piece of evidence alone undermines the claim, as it is purposely misconstrewed.
Mirza Mehdi Estarabadi, who was Nadir Shah's secretary (18th century) in his dictionary under the word Ganja, Writes: "... Ganja is also the name of an area in Azerbaijan." see: Farhange Sangolakh, 1995, Tehran: Markaz Publication, p.228. Give me the exact source for this. It makes no reference to what Ganja its specifically talking about, so I want to make sure.
Mirza Kazem Beig, in reviewing the book "Darband Name" which was written by german Kalport, repeatedly mentions the area in north of Araks as Northern Azerbaijan. Sources please? I'm pretty sure you got all of this on a website, rather than actually reading the text yourself with your own eyes.
Also, pan Persianism (if it even exists, lol), has nothing to do with this. Its the facts, and so far, what you have told me so far is either unsourced, misconstrewed, or ify for the most part. I dont deny that certain regions of what is today known as the R. of Azerbaijan were sometimes grouped with the province of Iranian Azerbaijan, but this by no means means that the territory was also called Azerbaijan. In most cases, it was referred to as Armenia, Georgia, Shirvan, or Arran (as evident by the maps of the times). The name Azerbaijan is solely the name of Iranian Azerbaijan.Khosrow II 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Also, further evidence that denounces Shahin's "evidence" is the fact that the terms North and South Azerbaijan were never used until the late 1930's/1940's.Khosrow II 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Interesting, recall this quote by Shahin: Mirza Mehdi Estarabadi, who was Nadir Shah's secretary (18th century) in his dictionary under the word Ganja, Writes: "... Ganja is also the name of an area in Azerbaijan." see: Farhange Sangolakh, 1995, Tehran: Markaz Publication, p.228.
I have actually found and read an English translation of Mirza's book The History and Life of Nadir Shah and he clearly differentiates the real Azerbaijan (Iranian Azerbaijan) from the region to the north! Nice try Shahin, but facts are facts, you cannot distort facts in an attemtp to sway opinion. I knew there was something fishy about the "evidence" you posted.
About Azerbaijan: The most remark­able cities of Azarbigián are; 1. ARDEBIL, considered as sacred by the Persians, for contain­ing the tombs of Sefiaddîn and Heider, the venerable ancestors of the Sefi family. 2. TABRIZ, commonly called Tauris, which, in the last cen­tury, was a large and beautiful city
About the region north of Iranian Azerbaijan: The great cities of Arran and Armenia are, GANGIA, and ERIVAN, its Capital
About Shirvan: 1. BACU, a port on the Caspian lake, whence it is called the Sea of Bácu: 2. SHAMAKHI, a city well known to the Russians: and 3. DERBEND or the barrier, which stands at the foot of Mount Caucasus or Keitáf,
Please do not distort facts again Shahin, this is not respectable on Wikipedia. Once again, the facts are against you. He says that Tabriz and Urmia are cities in Azerbaijan, Ganja and Yerevan are cities in Armenia and Arran, and Baku and Darband are cities in Shirvan. So please tell me, where is the reference to the north of Iranian Azerbaijan being called Azerbaijan by Mirza? Also, thanks for bringing my attention to this historian, just like GM, you have given me another very valuable resource.Khosrow II 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion belongs to the article Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan. Please consider moving it there. This article is about the people, so let’s discuss the edits to this article. Azerbaijanis are the same people on both sides of Araks, that’s an established scientific view and is not a subject for further discussion, unless you cite some real authoritative source on the level of Britannica saying otherwise. Arguments like “Britannica is influenced by pan-Turkist propaganda” cannot be taken seriously. Grandmaster 06:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, you fail to address the main issues. Azerbaijani's are not the same people on the different sides of the borders. Thats like saying that Armenians and Azerbaijani's are the same people, Turks and Kurds are the same people, Georgians and Armenians are the same people, just because they live next to each other. That makes no sense at all. Hazaras speak Persian, but they are not Persian, they are Mongolians. Brittanica's article on Hazaras is proof that even encyclopaedia's can be influenced by politics too. If news media can be influenced by politics, if individual historians can be influenced by politics, and if the whole world can be influenced by politics, Brittanica certainly is not exempt.Khosrow II 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Pointless argument. See Britannica. It is an authoritative source. I can cite many more.

Azerbaijanis and Armenians don’t speak the same language, Azerbaijanis in both countries speak the same language, and share the same culture. Saying they are not the same people is like saying that Russians living in Baku and Moscow are not the same people. Also, please cite authoritative sources supporting your statement that Azeris in two countries are not the same people. Something on the level of Britannica, please. Grandmaster 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If Brittanica is has the last say in every matter for you, then why have you taken out the sourced information about the Persian ruled khanate? You have a double standard GM.Khosrow II 14:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
GM, way to distort information. Here is exactly what Brittanica says: After a series of wars between the Russian Empire and Iran, the treaties of Golestan (Gulistan; 1813) and Turkmenchay (Torkmanchay; 1828) established a new border between the empires. Russia acquired Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Nakhichevan (Naxçivan), and Yerevan. Henceforth the Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasia were separated from the majority of their linguistic and religious compatriots, who remained in Iran.
a) Brittanica does not say that Iranian Azerbaijan and the region to the North were one region that were split and b) it says nothing about Azeri's across the border being of the same ethnicity, it clearly says that they are linguistically and religiously alike.Khosrow II 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Which does not mean that they are not the same people, does it? Another quote from Britannica:
Azerbaijan has a growing and youthful population. The Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis (Azeris), who make up more than four-fifths of the country's population, are predominantly Shi'ite Muslims. They combine in themselves the dominant Turkic strain, which flooded Azerbaijan especially during the Oguz Seljuq migrations of the 11th century, with mixtures of older inhabitants—Iranians and others—who had lived in Transcaucasia since ancient times. About 13 million Azerbaijanis live abroad, most of them in Iran. [5]
It says that they are the same people. End of story. Grandmaster 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for another resource GM, Turkic speaking Azerbaijani's. I will put this into the article. Also, no where does this say they are the same people. First of all, it says Turkic speaking, by that definition, they are similar linguistically, just like the other Brittanica souce I brought up.Khosrow II 13:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis, Iranian-speaking Kurds, Latin-speaking Romanians, etc. Turkic-speaking simply means that Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and the Azeri people speak that language, as they are Turkic people, as attested by Britannica article about Azerbaijani people. Quote from the article about Iran: The largest Turkic group is the Azerbaijanians, a farming and herding people who inhabit two border provinces in the northwestern corner of Iran. [6] Grandmaster 19:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont know how much longer you want to go about this. This is turning out to be something like a dog trying to catch its own tail, and ends up running in circles.Khosrow II 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It’s time for you to drop your unsupported claims, it is clear from all sources that Azerbaijanis are Turkic people, living both in Iran and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said Azeri's were not a Turkic people, they are, linguistically, but that doesnt mean a people speaking the same langauge are ethnically the same.Khosrow II 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
They are. Check Britannica and Iranica. Grandmaster 07:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurds, etc

The Azerbaijani government has also implemented a policy of forceful integration of all minorities, including Talysh, Tat, Kurds and Lezghins.[1] Thomas De Waal writes:

   
Talk:Azerbaijani people
 Many people in the republic of Azerbaijan were forcefully assimilated during the USSR era. Smaller indigineous Caucasian nationalities, such as Kurds, also complained of assimilation. In the 1920s, Azerbaijan's Kurds had their own region, known as Red Kurdistan, to the west of Nagorny Karabakh; in 1930, it was abolished and most Kurds were progressively recaterogized as Azerbaijani' '. A Kurdish leader estimates there that are currently as many as 200,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan, but official statistics record only abou 12,000.[2]
   
Talk:Azerbaijani people

I removed the above addition from the article as it has no relevance to Azerbaijani people. Consider adding it to Demographics of Azerbaijan. But the claims made in this addition are POV anyway. First of all, Azerbaijan could never implement a policy of forceful integration of all minorities. How could it record Christian people like Russians or Armenians as Azeris? Second, Kurdish autonomy was created by Stalin to promote Kurdish separatism in Turkey and Iran. Later he changed his mind, abolished the autonomy and deported the Kurds from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia to Kazakhstan. Only those who registered as Azerbaijanis managed to escape deportation. I have sources to prove that, but if I add all that to this article it will take too much space and the issue will be given an undue weight. Grandmaster 06:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, de Waal never says "Many people in the republic of Azerbaijan were forcefully assimilated during the USSR era". Original research. Grandmaster 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The part from Many people in the republic of Azerbaijan were forcefully assimilated during the USSR era is from the first book and not De Wall. The Kurdish part is from De-Wal. Also there are many other materials which are from scholarly sources. It could be deemed relavent to this article for many reasons): 1) Many Azerbaijanis can be Kurds, Talysh..2) Demographic figure of the article is wrong. 3) Also the section about the modern period mentions politics that are relavent to Iran and Azerbaijans policy. Also how could not be relavent since we are also writing about assimilation in Iran as well although I have some references that none of the areas before the Pahlavid era have lost their Turkic language. Mainly Edward Brown considers just before Qazvin as the place where Turkish changes to Persian as one travels from Azerbaijan to Tehran. This still holds true today. So there is definitely different political POV's here. I think the current version by Mardavich suprisingly has removed any point of contention between all parties. I am just going to make the part on Pishevari shorter.
I think is neutral for eveyone and I think facts that are disputed (wether about Pishevari's movement or Azerbaijani governments assimilationst policy) should be kept out of this article. I think political issues should be kept as much as possible from this article specially if there are various POV's. --alidoostzadeh 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
From the beginning I suggested to make the part on Pishevari movement as short as possible, as it takes too much space and there’s a separate article on that, plus it’s quite controversial. On the other hand, I think that Persianization campaign should be mentioned, as it is a verifiable info. Grandmaster 10:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, either we add contentious political issues or we don't. We must then add information on RezaShah's ancestory and how most of the so called Persianization campaign intellectuals were Azerbaijanis to provide a fair balance and also mention the Azerification campaign. So that I why I suggest we removed political statements one way or another to other pages. --alidoostzadeh 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So if this is the agreement, GM should take out the quotes he added to other articles as well.Khosrow II 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I realized what Mardavich was saying after awhile. Sorry Mardavich, I was a bit confused as to what was going on. I thought you were just taking the info out.Khosrow II 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I left the info on Persianization out for the moment. The issue actually deserves its own article, but I'm not interested in creating it right now. I hope we can resolve our differences without further bitter arguments. Let's just focus on issues everybody agrees on. Grandmaster 06:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Division of Azerbaijan

Turkmanchay treaty between Russia, Persia divides Azerbaijan in 1828. Territory of present-day Azerbaijan becomes part of Russian empire while Southern Azerbaijan is part of Persia. [BBC Country Profiles, Timeline of Azerbaijan]. Southern Azerbaijan is a reality, live with these realities...--Karcha 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note, however, that the article is at Azerbaijan (Iran), not Southern Azerbaijan. If you want to rename the page, please go to that article and discuss it there. Also, the name "Southern Azerbaijan" is primarily associated with politics, while "Iranian Azerbaijan" is more associated with geography, and is therefore more neutral. Khoikhoi 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You are amazing me!--Karcha 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
How so? Khoikhoi 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(unintending) Khoikhoi, if you consider the situation from the side of geography, the Azerbaijan is also a regional name. In this context, it's appropriate to label (the region) Southern Azerbaijan for Iranian Azerbaijan and also Northern Azerbaijan for the Azerbaijan state. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong, both can be used. For geograpical cases, better to call Southern or Northern Azerbaijan. Regards. E104421 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no northern nor souther Azerbaijan, there is only one Azerbaijan, and then there is a nation that just calls itself Azerbaijan. The terms north and south Azerbaijan are part of historical revisionism encouraged during the Soviet era.Khosrow II 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, the problem is that the term "Southern Azerbaijan" is mainly used either by people in Azerbaijan (the country), or Azeris who want to separate from Iran. On the other hand, separatists don't use the more common term, Iranian Azerbaijan. It's not Wikipedias job to take sides, which is why although "Southern Azerbaijan" sounds neutral, it is actually too politcally loaded of a term to use.
Futhermore, the place to discuss the title is at Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran), not here. Khoikhoi 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani or Azeri?

Is there a difference?

I always thought Azeri would refer to the ethnic group and Azerbaijani to anyone living in Azerbaijan. Correct me if I'm wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xpehbam (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/z/e/Talk%7EAzerbaijani_people_bd15.html"