Talk:Azerbaijani Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Azari speakers among Iranian Americans

Iranian Azari speaking folks are officially Iranian Americans and not Azerbaijani Americans! That is their official status. Please do avoid including them here as it is considered a point of view and not an official fact. Persian Magi (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, no one is denying they are Iranian. But the fact that they come from Iran doesn't mean they do not belong to the ethnic group called Azeris or Azerbaijanis. I suggest you read the article Azerbaijani people to get a better understanding of who is considered ethnic Azerbaijani - a respresentative of "an ethnic group mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran." 99.226.143.206 (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be infered from the template at the end of this article that X in "X-American" refers to nationality. --Pejman47 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, improve the template instead of taking information out of the article. There is nothing wrong with the content. There's no conspiracy or weave-plotting about this article, guys, please just leave it be. Nobody is trying to argue that Iranian Azeris are not Iranian. When one says 'Azerbaijani American' the first part is carrying an ethnic sense only. So why are you reverting? Why is this causing a problem? 99.226.143.206 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article is talking about the original ethnicity - and not nationality - then why is it referencing to Azerbaijani Society of America(AZ.republic) and why in the template it is classified as "Caucasus"? Iranian Azerbaijan is not in the Caucasus region. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani Society of America has nothing to do with the country of Azerbaijan. The society was established in 1957! It's only mentioned because it's the first cultural organization ever established by ethnic Azeris in North America. It is not a government institution. Why are you guys looking for some kind of a dirty trick?

It is in the Caucasus section because part of the people who qualify to be called Azerbaijani Americans come from the Caucasus. If you want to add a link to this article into this template, do it by all means, but don't mess up this article. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ASA site explicitly says:

The Azerbaijan Society of America (ASA), established in 1957 in New Jersey, USA, is a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing knowledge about Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani people, their culture and history, as well as promoting ties in economic, cultural, and scientific spheres between the United States and Republic of Azerbaijan. ASA works with various organizations, associations and religious groups to enhance intercultural understanding and to promote peace and stability in the Caucasus region.

Furthermore, Iranian Azaris are identified as Iranian-Americans. Would you call an American Talysh from Azarbaijan Republic a Talyshi-American or an Azerbaijani-American? Persian Magi (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For the last name, this article is not about The Azerbaijan Society of America. It's about ethnic Azerbaijanis from wherever, who have moved to the United States. A Talysh from Azerbaijan who lives in the States is Talyshi-American. An Armenian from Iran or Turkey who lives in the States is Armenian-American. Nobody is questioning the Iranian national origin of Iranian Azerbaijanis. We are talking about ethnicity, not nationality. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK ! I fixed it all ... I think 99.226.143.206 may build a new page for Azerbaijani Society of America (see also : National Iranian American Council). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also fix the template ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind correcting the spelling, and also fix capitalisation and spaces? Because that looks a little messy. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Iranian Azarbaijanis in America

Azarbaijanis in Iran are an ethnicity in Iran and are called Azaris. There are many other ethnicities in Iran like Lors, Mazandaranis etc. Once they are in America, their ethnicity is Iranian and are called Iranian Americans. Similarly ethinicities among Azerbaijani of Republic of Azerbaijan are called Azerbaijani Americans. There is no such a thing as Lor Americans, Taylishi American, Lezgi American etc. So I do not agree with including Iranian Americans of Azarbaijan area in this article. Persian Magi (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are Iranian American because of their nationality, and Azerbaijani/Azeri American because of their ethnicity. You are resorting to OR; what makes you say "there is no such a thing Taylishi American, Lezgi American"? There is such thing. If a Jew emigrates from Iran to the States, he or she is both Iranian American and Jewish American. If an Iranian Armenian settles in the US, he or she is both Iranian American and Armenian American. Azeris (it is the same thing as Azerbaijanis, do not start a discussion on this) form a single ethnic group[1], so no matter where they are from, they will be Azeri/Azerbaijani Americans due to their ethnicity. Along with their nationality (if they come from Iran, they will also be Iranian Americans, if they come from Turkey, they will also be Turkish Americans). 99.226.143.206 (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

==Iranian Azeri Americans==--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Iranian Azeri Americans will be included in this article, as despite originating from Iran, they constitute a portion of a single ethnic group known as the Azerbaijani people. There is no need to set a division between them. Their affiliation with Iran is not being disputed, as there is already a template that includes them into Iranian Americans. But this article emphasises ethnic origins, and from that point of view, Iranian Azerbaijanis qualify to being called Azerbaijani Americans. I included a source that states the following:

• But while the Armenian diaspora comprises several generations and maintains close, nationalistic ties with Armenia proper, the U.S. Azerbaijani community is less rooted -- many Azerbaijani-Americans are first-generation. They are also more diverse, with many coming not from Azerbaijan, but Iran.[2].

I also changed the phrase 'most Azerbaijani immigrants' to 'the earliest Azerbaijani immigrants.' The source is from 1980, and the data collection probably goes back to more than 30 years ago, which is why it is highly unlikely that 'most' Azerbaijani-Americans today are ex-German prisoners. Parishan (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• First to mention that the article [3] is invalid as it's other sentences shows , (like this one ):

  "There are a lot of common issues we all share -- for example, .... There is also the oppression of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran, cultural discrimination against Azerbaijanis in Iran," Memmedli says"

  
  that seems to be a joke more than a reference.
  Second about the the disambiguation link , the link shows whereabout of related information and this article only contains the information about the citizens of Azerbaijan republic , and no information about the Iranian Azeris . Deletion of an disambiguation link needs consensus , that you overlooked many times .
  And the third ,You may not change the reference by your idea ! You think the "Most of the Azerbaijani immigrants" can be changed to " The earliest Azerbaijani immigrants" ?! Why ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And to add , when the article says "By 1980 there were around 200 Azeri families in the United States, with about 80% of them being endogamic" , we may consider the fact that after and before the Iranian revolution (1979), many thousands of Iranians were residents of USA , so given the large percentage of Iranian Azeris among Iranians, the above information is incorrect . The only possible and rational solution is to show the fact that this article is about the Azeris of Az.Rep and use a disambiguation link to lead to the Iranian Americans ( Azeri Iranians ) . By mixing information from one article (Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups) with the information of dubious article [4], the Synthesis Original Research WP:SYN occurs . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What you showed as an example of "invalidity" and "dubiousness" of the article is a quote, not an opinion expressed by the author. And it is not even a relevant quote (even though there is enough evindence to believe Azeris in Iran are experiencing some form of cultural constraints, but that is not the issue here). It is an opinion of an Azerbaijani official that the author chose to include in the article. The author herself is not making these statements. Make sure you know how to differentiate between a quote and main article body. There should not be any dispute over that.

Encyclopædic data is collected and compiled over years, not just within one year. Look in the contents of the book (p.xxiv): the latest year of demographic reference is 1978. Given that this encyclopædia was published in 1980, it could not have accounted for the mass migration of Iranian Azeris after the Islamic Revolution. Heck, the source does not even mention Persians immigrating after the Revolution, because the Revolution had not taken place by the time research was carried out. It does, however, mention Iranian Azeris as part of the Azerbaijani ethnic mainstream.

I changed "most Azerbaijani immigrants" because that information is clearly dated. We are talking 30 (thirty!) years back. One does not need to come up with supporting sources to state that in 2008, the Azerbaijani population of the United States does not consist mainly of those who came out of Nazi prisons in 1945. I changed it to "earliest" because that is the first group of immigrants that the author mentions. Parishan (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway ,using a "source" in Wikipedia , has it's own roles . You may not use a single sentence out of a non neutral point of view source as a "reliable data" . You may not combine the information with your estimation .The information in the source may be out dated , that's OK , but you may not correct it by your understanding : that's Original research . The author mentions "most" and you change it to "first" : is it acceptable? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is reliable. Like I said, just because the author Julie A. Corwin quoted a certain Memmedli in her article does not make the article biased or unreliable. That is why it is called 'a quote' and that is why it is put in quotation marks.

I really do not see much difference between 'early' and 'first' in this context, but if that makes it more appropriate for you, then sure, go ahead. Parishan (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No difference between most and first ? What do you yourself think ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

About the reliability of the source , I think it is invalid because of "undo weight" and lake of Neutral point of view. The radio free Europe , is officially a foundation founded by US congress to broadcast for "unfree" countries of the Asia and Europe. The article itself does not informs about the composition of the Azeri lobby in USA , but only mentions about " many coming not from Azerbaijan, but Iran" . What does that "many" means? Does it mention one third of all Iranian-American population that are Azeri? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter how many. We are not providing any numbers in the article as of yet. The source is to support the claim that Azerbaijani-Americans come from both Azerbaijan and Iran. Parishan (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again , that's your interpretation . If that article was reliable , the sentence would only show " [Among]the U.S. Azerbaijanis , many come not from Azerbaijan, but Iran":Many is a weasel word--Alborz Fallah (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) .

That is not 'my interpretation', that is exactly what the article says. Many would be a weasel word if we were to assess the demographics of Azeri Americans by country of origin. We are not making those statements. Many, some or few are not the issue here. We are stating two basic and equally accurate facts:

1. Azerbaijani-Americans come from Azerbaijan.
2. Azerbaijani-Americans come from Iran.

Both of those are supported by that article. That's all. Parishan (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia , when we use a sentence of a text , we can not use the logical result as the citation of that text . That's all .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Again as example , "Many" in the above sentence can have a large spectrum of meanings.There are some ethnocentric persons among every big nation that prefer to count themselves as citizens of an other country that they consider their original homeland : like Hitler who was Austrian , but counted himself as German. What if that " many " in the article is pointing to Iranian born persons who want to consider themselves as citizens of Az.Rep ? Let's read it again : " [Among]the U.S. Azerbaijanis , many come not from Azerbaijan, but Iran" : why not consider them as many who first [mentally] change their citizenship , then get involved in lobbying for their new country ? I mean that " many " may not mean the Azeri community is divided between two main branch , but mainly the Az.rep citizens are the body , and many Iranian Azeris are absorbed to them ( and in all case , the number is unknown : the author may consider 20 persons as many )
anyway, it is incorrect to use our own understanding as the statement of the text . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not say anything about Azerbaijani citizenship, mental or other kind. Please refrain from interpretations. I did not interpret the data. The source say U.S. Azerbaijanis come from Azerbaijan and Iran, and that is what is going into the article. Parishan (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show where in the text it says "U.S. Azerbaijanis come from Azerbaijan and Iran" ? (Please refrain from interpretations !)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you use a citation , you may only use the exact sentence of the text ,after proving the reliability of the source . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Gladly: "the U.S. Azerbaijani community is less rooted -- many Azerbaijani-Americans are first-generation. They are also more diverse, with many coming not from Azerbaijan, but Iran."

Why do I need to prove the reliablity of the source, if there are no obvious reasons to doubt it? It is a well-known global media organisation that been functioning for nearly 60 years with an estimated audience of 35 million. Parishan (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The common definition of Azerbaijani-Americans does not include Iranians who are simply classified as Iranian-Americans. Radio Free Europe is a political/advocacy organization, and her editorial can not be used as reliable source, as it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"They are also more diverse, with many coming not from Azerbaijan, but Iran" the reference of the sentence (in word "they" )is to the community , not the definition of the word Azerbaijani-American. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The complete section is that :" Just as the Turkish lobby squares off against the Armenians on the genocide issue, many Azerbaijani-Americans would like to increase their influence in the debate over Nagorno-Karabakh.

But while the Armenian diaspora comprises several generations and maintains close, nationalistic ties with Armenia proper, the U.S. Azerbaijani community is less rooted -- many Azerbaijani-Americans are first-generation. They are also more diverse, with many coming not from Azerbaijan, but Iran. "
That shows the writer is talking about the "Azeri lobby " and / or an especial group of Azeri nationalist that may be Azerbaijani (Az. republican) or Iranian Azeris that connect to this group : not any American that it's primary language was Azeri . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, you are interpreting the source. It states clearly that Azerbaijanis living in the US come not only from Azerbaijan, but also from Iran. That is the essence. The article does not need interpretations, especially having to do with guessing what the author wanted to say. Parishan (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurdo777, sorry, I just don't buy it. Parishan (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyway , regardless of our different understanding of the "source"'s text , because the report is not directly dedicated to the topic of "Azerbaijani American origins" and because it is not a peer-reviewed source that are accepted as reliable source in Wikipedia , I think you may not build the whole article on a single unreliable source , and I suggest to ask a third party to judge about the different point of views . Thank you , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the only source, nor the primary source that I am using for this article. The source is merely to show that Azerbaijani Americans includes immigrants from Iran, as well as immigrants from Azerbaijan. As for getting a third party involved, I have no objections. Parishan (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok ! Then let's find what's the other editors opinion (consensus). According to talk page history ([5]), these are the editors that participate in the talk page : User:Kurdo777 and User:GeorgeClintonWiki. The second one doesn't seems to be reliable (due to his fake identity). The editors of main article are as fallows : User:Zuluzuljinho, User:Raayen and User:Johnpacklambert.Shall we invite them as the third party opinion and/or consensus ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Parishan tends to deny the Republic of Azerbaijan and renames it into Azerbaijan. "Which Azerbaijan?"-one can question the editors. Doubtlessly, Parishan has aimed to fool the Wikipedia users.--Zuluzuljinho (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• The full quote from the new presented source: Touraj Atabaki, Sanjyot Mehendale. "Central Asia and the Caucasus", Routledge, 2005, p. 101: Stephan Astourian, "State, Homeland and Diaspora:

The Forum is not the only attempt at mobilizing the Azerbaijani diaspora. The World Azerbaijanis Congress, an organization made up essentially of Iranian Azerbaijanis, was founded in Washington DC in 1997, and held its fifth congress in Malmo, Sweden, from August 10–12, 2001. It now has branches in 36 countries, stretching from Australia to Russia and the US. Even though its latest proclamations are quite similar to those of the Forum of World Azerbaijanis,

its main focus is the independence of Iranian, or southern, Azerbaijan, and its unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan.(107) Its bylaws emphasize, among many other things, democracy and human rights, the defense of the rights of Azerbaijanis in the motherland, and the necessity to appeal in these regards to international organizations. Clearly, the sources of inspiration of this organization are to be found in the Tabriz revolt of 1920 led by Shaikh Muhammad Khiabani and in Sayyid Jafar Pishevari’s autonomous regime in the same region in 1945–6. (108) To these must be added the “literature of longing” and the creation and institutionalization of the “Southern Question” which the Soviet regime promoted in Soviet Azerbaijan from the end of the 1940s on. (109)
(107) For the program of that organization, see “Dunya Azerbaycanlilari Konqresinin Meramnamesi,” February 7, 2002, [6], pp. 1–3.
(108) On those events, see Touraj Atabaki, Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in Twentiethcentury Iran (London and New York: British Academic Press, 1993); see also Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition, pp. 61–5, 74–5, 94–100, 135–62.
(109) Nissman, The Soviet Union and Iranian Azerbaijan: The Use of Nationalism for Political Penetration, pp. 41–55; idem, “The Origins and Development of the Literature of

‘Longing’ in Azerbaijan,” Journal of Turkish Studies 8 (1984), pp. 197–207.

They are an interest group, not people. The book dosn't say Azerbaijani Americans also come from Iran. BTW, It seems the reference of the book is the web site of the organization itself.--Raayen (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources are not reliable

For the new given number of Azerbaijanis in USA , two new sources are mentioned . These are the fallowing sources : 1- [7] , Az.Rep publication in Canada . Giving number of 300,000 in page 5 . 2- A website for an organization who believes to represent the Azeri diaspora worldwide [8] .

I think the numbers of this two sources are not reliable . The source 1 is not the official statement of Az.republic embassy and that is only personal points of views of one person who is a member "Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy" , plus he himself says this number is a very controversial figure and include all Iranian individuals of Azeri ethnic background . This report also sees 40 million Iranian Azerbaijanis in Iran as diaspora (Azeri outside motherland )! Despite their Iranian root of more than a millennium (according to report itself) . So this figure is not reliable as this report itself says and we may not use a sentence outside content . The source 2 is the website of this group and the figures are of the president of this foundation and according to WP:SELFPUBLISH this numbers can't be used as a source .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

but if the article confirmed in all Wikipedias then why do not claim the same like the source it can be compared with the sources of such items as the Turks in the U.S. and Belarus in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.15.84 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The exact number of Azerbaijanis living in the U.S.

I party wever11, and I would like to ask you to replace the article Azeris in the U.S. census at the source with*[9] a source of specialized media *[10] or because these sources are written in the real Number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S. and also because there are similar sources in the article Turks in the U.S., Belarusians U.S. and Iranians in the U.S. and yet I would advise to put pictures of famous Azerbaijanis living in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wever11 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Two issues with your edit

• Anousheh Ansari by the way is not Azerbaijani, but this was madeup in the Azerbaijani media. See the talkpage of Anousheh Ansari where message from her spokesperson (which was send to relavent admins) confirms this.
• Some of the author people you put, like Maz Jobrani, need reliable statements from the author. Maz Jobrani has always identified as an Iranian-American. So he is an Iranian-American with some Azeri background possibly.
• Same with Googoosh, she has Azeri background but she is an Iranian-American and you need to show proof that she identifies herself as "Azerbaijani-American" instead of Iranian-American.
• Same with Catherina Bell.. there is no proof from her official website she is Azeri.. Her mother is Iranian (whatever background) but you need to provide evidence/statements from reliable 3rd party (not website) sources that she has claimed to be an Azerbaijani-American.
• Provide a clear source for some of the authors from Iran where they identify as "Azerbaijani American". If they do not, then there is no reason to put them. Else you are violating WP:BLP
• Websites that are from lobbyist organizations and an interview in Russian are not reliable.. the 2,000,000 that you put is way overbound and not realistic. The number of Iranians in the US is not even 2 million. You may ask for an RfC on the numbers. Anyhow, a new US census for 2010 is due out soon (maybe already) and should have real numbers. Wikipedia works with official numbers. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't count Iranian Americans as Azeri Americans

Pages like Indian American versus Gujarati American shows we may not count Azeri Iranians as Azeri Americans . Does a page about Bangali Americans that supposed to came from Bangladesh and Bengal province of India should count this group of Indians as a separate group ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pages like Iranian American count many ethnic Jews and ethnic Azerbaijanis (including those born in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR), among others, as "Iranian American". Please let's fix that before we raise any objections here. Azerbaijani-American, like Iranian-American, is a nationality, not ethnicity, and includes anyone from historic Azerbaijan. Same applies to Russian-American (and here's a source stating their were undercounted *[11] and another source that goes as far as dividing Russian-Americans into Jews and non-Jews: "The Jews, in particular, went to New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and other large cities. The non-Jewish Russians from the Russian Empire and the Carpatho-Rusyns settled in these cities as well as Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and the coal mining towns of eastern Pennsylvania." *[12]), problems with the Jewish-American count *[www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1988_6_USDemographic.pdf] - as apparently some Jews are counted as Iranian-American, Hungarian-American, or any Chinese-American vs. Taiwanese-American, for example. There is no restriction per Wikipedia rules, and irrespective of where an ethnic Azerbaijani was born, or irrespective of which ethnicity was born in Azerbaijan, they are also Azerbaijani-American. Of course, that does not deny them other nationalities, ethnicities, citizenships, religions, or any categories of classification.

Also, the Azerbaijani-Americans live in many US states - not sure why 213.87.136.179 deleted several. Here's a list of proclamations from states like Pennsylvania and many others,*[13] that prove there are sizeable and active communities there, thus meriting inclusion in the list.

Finally, the census-related research supports the terminology I used in the page, such as "misclassification" - here's from Census Bureau itself *[14], and here's from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO))*[15], and from here *[16], and here *[17], or "every census since 1940 has significantly undercounted certain groups, particularly immigrants" from a major institute *[18]. There is more about people choosing to write in simply "American" or the country of their birth, instead of their ethnicity: *[19] --Saygi1 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Even this Iranian-American scholar, Dr. Nilou Mostofi of the University of Chicago, is asking questions and denoting that Azerbaijanis immigrated from Iran cannot always be lumped exclusively into the Iranian-American category: Who We Are: The Perplexity of Iranian-American Identity Author(s): Nilou Mostofi, Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 681-703 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120728

"Iranian immigrants in the United States are not homogeneous-they come from a variety of religious, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds. The first section below focuses on the diaspora of the majority- status immigrantsin Iran who came to the United States with either professional skills and/or money and analyzes how these specific immigrants construct an Iranian identity. This section also asks whether this identity has permeated into a shared cultural experi- ence by all other Iranian immigrants such as the Kurds, Armenians, and Assyrians. In other words, has the Iranian-American identity created by the dominant group become accessible for Iranian subgroups and, consequently, has a community emerged from this identity? Posing this question leads to understanding Iranian cohesiveness, or lack thereof," (pp. 683-684)

"Iranian immigrants range from all sectors,ages, and walks of society. They came from radical political backgrounds, working-class traditional families, and Westernized bour- geoisie and elite classes. They came as persecuted intellectuals, oppressed minorities, rich professionals,and educated workers. There are religious and ethnolinguistic differ- ences among the Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Christian, Turkish, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Assyrian groups. They came as refugees, asylum-seekers, expatriates, immigrants, students, families, and individuals. In simple terms, these immigrants are a heterogeneous group who lived very different lives in Iran and endured extremely distinct experiences during the revolution." p. 685

"In diaspora, Iranian Muslims, Jews, Christians, Turks, Armenians, and Assyrians can construct and collectively adhere to an identity composed of neutral cultural experi- ences and characteristics such as No Ruz (New Year), Chahr-shambeh-yi soori (the last of the year), Seezdeh beh dar (thirteenth day of spring),3ta'arofand roodar- Wednesdayvasi (forms of etiquette),4 and dowreh (gathering).5 Yet, the incorporationof these non- religious holidays, nonspecific cultural mannerisms, and ethnically neutral traditions into a collective Iranian diasporic identity has been created by affluent Muslims in South- ern California (who are not necessarily practicing Islam and were the majority in Iran). So although other Iranians can relate to these traditions as Iranian cultural universals, they may not be enough of a stimulus for all Iranians to create a community." p. 689 --Saygi1 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Jews is not reliable , because Jews are especial case . The only case of ethnic-religious nation . Although in the case of Iran , the Jew Iranians are not counted as Jews , but Persian Jews... Anyway the common way of Wikipedia as mentioned about Indians is not to divide the larger group to ethnic items of it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Jews or anyone else is totally valid and reliable. Please prove otherwise. In the page Iranian American you count Jewish-Americans like Sam Nazarian and Azerbaijani-Americans like Lutfi Asker Zadeh as Iranian-Americans just because at some point in their lives they lived in Iran. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There you wrote "Azerbaijani-American, like Iranian-American, is a nationality, not ethnicity, and includes anyone from historic Azerbaijan." and in another sentence you said "and irrespective of where an ethnic Azerbaijani was born, or irrespective of which ethnicity was born in Azerbaijan, they are also Azerbaijani-American" . In first sentence you say that is a nationality and in second one you say it may include ethnicity . In Wikipedia we may not use OR ( Original Research ) what is the basis for those definitions ? More than that , historic Azerbaijan does not include the today AZ republic and its name was Arran/Shirvan - Not Azerbaijan . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "misclassification" may be used as a general term , but applying it to an especial ethnic group is again OR . Nilou Mostofi may discuss about her own ideas (POVs) but that does not gives weight(see undue weight) to the theory.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "misclassification" is used in multiple sources and thus will be used in this article too. Anything else is your POV and OR. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• The article of Nilou Mostofi is not really relavent as she does not define "Azerbaijani-American" and thus it is a synthesis to mention it with regartds to the definition in this artice.

Mostofi's article is quite relevant, and she doesn't "define" all other ethnic communities either. Indeed, most articles used in any pages, including Iranian American, do not define what they are cited/used for, in their case, "Iranian-American". --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Without getting into history, "Historic Azerbaijan" is like saying "historic Iran" or "Historic China" or "WWII Japan" or Achaemenid empire, which does not apply to such articles. Moreover, at least half if not majority of Western Azerbaijan province in Iran is Kurdish or there are Armenian, Assyrians etc. from Iranian Azerbaijan, Talysh and etc. *The fact of the matter is that if there is that the US census is most reliable, and if a group of people do not identify as "Azerbaijani-American" from Iran, then there is no point in adding them. First the legal definition is the key (from the said country). But the ethnic definition is ambigious in the term that it depends on self-idenification based on census and until such groups self-identify, then it is WP:OR. For example if we judge the US Census of 2000 (5000-6000) it appears the vast majority of Iranian-Azeris did not include themselves in such a category.

Please apply what you are saying across Wikipedia, starting with Iranian American. Otherwise, a double standard is lurking. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also the two sources mentioned: "Shirin Hakimzadeh, Iran: A Vast Diaspora Abroad and Millions of Refugees at Home, Migration Policy Institute, September 2006 (Retrieved 2011-06-23.)" James S. Kessler, Iranians, The Encyclopedia of Chicago, 2004 " do not give such a definition. The first sources says: "While the Iranian community of Chicago is not large, it reflects the diversity of Iran, with representatives of most of the major ethnic groups from that region, including the Azeri Turks and the Kurds, as well as members of religious minorities, including the Bahāءīs and Iranian Jews. However, most Iranians in Chicago are Persian-speaking Shī’ī Muslims." So it is using "Iranian community"

Right, and it does not use "Iranian American". And how does that contradict anything? People nowdays are global travelers and change residence, as well as can have mixed heritage. A person who has a one parent who is Persian and one who is Azeri can be both Persian and Azeri (of course, father's heritage is key, but still). --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The second source says:"This mosaic of diverse ethnic groups is still visible in Iran today, where Persians compose only 51 percent of the population. Other groups include the Azeris (24 percent), Gilaki and Mazandaranis (eight percent), Kurds (seven percent), Arabs (three percent), Lurs (two percent), Baluchs (two percent), and Turkmens (two percent). " There is nothing about Azeri-Americans or its definition. There might be a few Iranians that identify as "Azerbaijani-American", but unless this holds for 100% of Iranian Azeris, then the original sentence is OR. None of these two sources mention Azeris from Iran as "Azerbaijani-Americans". There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS in wikipedia.

These sources do not have to mention "Azerbaijani-American" - if a person is Azerbaijani, and lives in America, he/she is Azerbaijani-American. Simple. And that's the approach used in Wikipedia for all other such articles about hyphenated Americans. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the two above sources, and only a wikipedia WP:RS can make such a statement, this putting a and tag, until that definition is given from a mainstream (non-affiliated) academic journal or site. Because definition of Iranian American is "Americans from Iran" and Indian American is "Americans from India" is clear. The article can be split into "ethnic Azeris in America" which is a different concept and I would not disagree with that. But "Azerbaijani-American" claims both Iranian Azeris and also say Armenians from Azerbaijan (since they are from NK territory which is legally part of Azerbaijan) or Lezgins from Azerbaijan. Such definition is OR. Moreover, the 2000 census shows that by 14,205, Iranian Azeris did not identify as "Azerbaijani Americans" for the majority of the part.

It doesn't matter - this is an article about Azerbaijani Americans, not about census or Azerbaijani Americans in the Census 2000. Same exact rules apply here as they do for all other hyphenated Americans, such as Iranian-Americans. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence starting with the WP:WEASEL word "undoubedly" is removed as well as these sources do not described the mentioned topic.

• I have kept the lobbyist/advocacy organizations since they are attributed but strictly speaking they would not be WP:RS sources at all. I would estimate the total Iranian population of the US at no more than 800,000 and probably at most 100,000 of them are Iranian Azeris (about 1/3 of Iranian immigrations are from religious minorities actually).

There is no lobbyist organizations used, and your own estimate is OR. The White House and State Department estimate the Iranian community at 2 million. --!!!!

• However these lobbyist groups are highly unreliable. Please note this survey, [[20]] about 11% of Iranian Americans are Azeris. So the 500,000 figures and etc. are out of proportions and it is understandable that political organizations want to boost their numbers, but they lack any concrete census behind these numbers. *The US census might undercount but not by 90% as some of these sites are making.

You replace independent sources with an Iran Study Group source made up 100% of Iranians (except just prof. Ficsher): [21], [22] and [23] So sorry but this source is not reliable, or authoritative. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Undoubdetly" is a weasel word.

It could be changed, that's not a problem. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• If there is a definiton of "Azerbaijani American" based on the first sentence of the article, I ask that the person puts the exact quote and google books/scholars location of the mentioned article. No synthesis. It has to put either from official US census or a some heavy duty notable scholars.

It is used extensively by USAN, which is a U.S. Census Official Partner - and a link to the Census Bureau website was provided to prove that. So your test of "officialness" has been satisfied. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• One can create an article "Americans of ethnic Azeri origin", but lumping two definitions of "Ethnic Azeri Americans" with "anyone born in the republic of Azerbaijan" creates a confusion. Or change the title to "Azeris in America" or whatever.

Why should I do that? I simply follow the same standard as is on Wikipedia for, for example, Iranian American. Unless Iranian American is changed to conform to your POV and OR, then there is no sense for me to change this articles title or definition. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The current definition (born in Azerbaijan) would allow for Armenians from Azerbaijan to be "Azerbaijani Americans" which is fine, then a category needs to be added for Armenian Americans (besides Turkic Armenians). However, if the article changes to "Ethnic Azeris in the US", and then has a section on Azeri-Americans, then maybe the problem is solved. However, one cannot have Kurds from Western Azerbaijan province in Iran, Armenians from Karabagh and then ethnic Azeris from Tehran or Moscow all lumped into one category. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if they wish so - if there is no problem with Jewish-Americans to be counted as "Iranian Americans", then why not? I won't add such a thing though, since I haven't found any Armenian that considers him/herself as Azerbaijanji-American. If you have such a source, please add. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

These large numbers like 500,000 are way of, as I said, since Iranian-Americans are about 800,000 in my opinion and about 11% of these are ethnic Azeris. Given at most, another 50,000 ethnic Azeris from different countries, you have at most a figure of 150,000 today. I do not buy it that the US Census of 2000 has miscounted 90%. We may wait for the 2011 census on this issue, but I have put a dispute tag for the azeri consular who is putting a figure of 200,000 or 500,000 as it is not an independent source (nor or the two other organizations). It is just too different from official census (5000-24000 say to 200,000-500,000!). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

this is OR and POV. No, Iranian-Americans are not "about 800,000" - the Census 2000 gives 2,5 times lower figures, whilst the White House and State Department and a host of other sources estimate the number to be 2 million. Indeed, even Sec. Albright already in 2000 used the estimate of "one million strong"[24]. The sources I cited are not just the Voice of America (VOA) which among others cited an Azerbaijani consul general, but a host of other sources. That merits their inclusion into this article according to Wikipedia rules. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• The safest way to do this:""Azeri-Americans are those Americans who are from the republic of Azerbaijan irregardless of ethnic background. In some definitions, it may also include those with ethnic Azeri backgrounds from surrounding regions who foremost or concurrently self-identify themselves as Azerbaijani-Americans regardless of the country of origin while fitting other X-American categories as well". (I can work on the structure but I think people get gist). Note the first sentence is concrete but the second is a compromise version. I mean if an Azeri from Russian or other places identifies as "Azeri-American" then this definition fits per US census. However, if Azeri from Iran identifies as Iranian-American, then they are "ethnic Iranian Azeris in the US" but not necessarily "Azeri-American" rather "Americans with an ethnic Azeri background". Jews as Alborz says are a special category as they are both a religion and ethnicity.

No, Azerbaijani-Americans as a category is not limited to just people from the Republic of Azerbaijan. Much like the page Iranian American. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have asked Golbelz to comment on this issue if my compromise version is not acceptable. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no compromise of any sort from you. I will ask admins to look into this as well if needed. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh lord. My only question at the moment is, the census numbers in this article, are those specifically for people from Azerbaijan? Rather than people who 'self-identify as Azerbaijani'? --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well good luck, your an American so you should know. That is what I am trying to find out. In reality: "Azerbaijani Americans are those that identify as Azerbaijani Americans".

The problem is that while most Western sources use "Azeri" for the ethnicity, in Wikipedia people have changed it to "Azerbaijani". That is articles like Azerbaijani people or ethnic Azeris etc. should be Azeri rather than Azerbaijan. The name Azerbaijani(and Azeri) was adopted by the speakers really in the 20th century as an ethnonym. And at least in 1918, all citizens of the Musavatist government were called "Azerbaijani" while the ethnicity was called "Azeri-Turk". Due to USSR, the term "Turk" was dropped and since 1991, the term Azerbaijani was adopted both as a citizinship and also as an ethnicity. IN Iran we use "torkzabaanaan-e Iran" (Turkish speakers of Iran), and "Azeri", and even "Tork", but hardly "Azerbaijani". Those are side comments, but I believe Wikipedia articles should use Azeri primarily for the ethnicity and Azerbaijani for citizeship of the country. Please note these sources:

• [25] quote: "Throughout, "Azeri" will refer to those who are ethnically Azeri, such as an " Azeri women" or an "Azeri-populated village." "Azerbaijani" will refer to organizations connected with the Republic of Azerbaijan,"
• Svante E. Cornell (he is a pro-Republic of Azerbaijan source), "Azeraijan Since Independence", M.E. Sharpe, 2010. "The term "Azeri", used mostly by foreigners has come to possess a narrower, ethnically based meaning whereas the term "Azerbaijani" is understood to refer to residents within the territory of Azerbaijan, embracing the country's entire population" . Even though this source is biased, yet he is correct that most foreigners use "Azeri" for the ethnicity.
• Those were side comments. On the current article, I am not sure myself.
  • If it is about people born with Azerbaijani republic citizenship, then it includes Armenians, Lezgins, Talysh, etc. from republic of Azerbaijan and so it cannot be a mono-ethnic article. I am not sure if Armenians from Azerbaijan republic self-identify as Azerbaijani-Americans, but by legal definition I would say they are Azerbaijani-Americans as they originate from the country of Azerbaijan.
  • If it includes people from the region of Azerbaijan in Iran, then it is saying Kurdish, Persian, Talysh, Tats, Assyrians, Armenians of these regions. Obviously impossible.
  • If it is about ethnic Azeris from any country, then from available numbers, ethnic Azeris from Iran are counted as Iranian-Americans much like other Iranians (from variety of

backgrounds). I am not sure how it is with Turkish-Americans. I have an Iranian Azeri friend by me right now, and he identifies as simply as Iranian-American. Of course I am not saying that is 100% the case for every ethnic Azeri pereson from Russia, Iran and Turkey. And some(not all) people might fill several categories.

• Anyhow, this problem will persist as long as wikipedia articles use "Azerbaijani" as both a citinizeship and ethnicity. Where-as Western sources mentioned above

use Azeri mainly as the ethnicity and Azerbaijani as a person from the country. But they also have blurred the two definitions, but I think the majority use these distinctions.

"Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" refers not just to people from the Republic of Azerbaijan. There are tons of sources showing that it applies to the ethnic Azerbaijanis from the Azerbaijan region of Iran. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the current definition of the article as it gives prominence to people from the republic of Azerbaijan, but then includes Iranian-Americans. Most of the websites linked are really lobbyist groups whose aim is to do lobbying on behalf of the country (probably to counter the Armenian lobby and I have always been against lobbyist groups irregardless as it is a form of corruption). Putting that on the side, this probably explains the inflated numbers of 200,000 to 500,000, and before there was a user who constantly put 2,000,000. The question I have is that how could the US census of 2000 with 6000-10000 or whatever undercount a group by 90% of its claimed group. The MIT estimate notes that 11% of Iranian-Americans are Azeris (note majority of Iranian immigrants came from Tehran and also a large number are Iranian minorities, such as close to 100,000 Iranian Jews and possibly another 150,000 Iranian Assyrians/Armenians.. A great chunk were also richer Persian speaking Muslims. So the 11% for Iranian Americans is different than say the 16-25% of Iranians who are Azeri, as the immigration from Iran is not uniform).

the "MIT" source you mention is the Iran Study Group source made up 100% of Iranians (except just prof. Ficsher): [26], [27] and [28] So sorry but this source is not reliable, or authoritative. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a solution is two separate articles:
  • Azerbaijani-American (using Azerbaijani as citizenship which seems to be the more legal and mainstream definition)
  • Ethnic Azeris in America

No, because there is no such articles and separations for article Iranian-American. We either apply a uniform standard or desist from double standards. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I look forward to Golbez as a 3rd party admin to solve the problem, as I do not think regional users can solve these issues. I have given my input on all aspects (sorry for the lengthy comment) and will abide by his decision. I have given my input and probably have nothing more to add except that how other articles are structured goes under (wikipedia other stuff exists). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"your an American so you should know." That's not how this works. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• That was a joke to lighten up your day (sorry if it got across wrong). I am confused as much as you are and I am American (Iranian-American too).
• Simply put, I am confused by this: Is this article about the ethnicity (then it should be ethnic Azeris in America as the title) or about citizenship (then it includes Azeris, Armenians, Lezgins, Talysh, Russians, Avars, etc. as well as of from the republic of Azerbaijan) or some other factor?. No synthesis in definition. If it is citizenship, then it can't include those with Iranian or former Iranian citizenships (as well as other countries). If it is about ethnicity, then in my opinion, the definition cannot include anyone from the republic of Azerbaijan and the article should be changed to "Ethnic Azeris in the USA". I trust that Golbez will resolve it and no WP:OR/WP:synthesis. The definition of Indian-American or Iranian-American are solely geographically based (not ethno-linguistic) from countries with defined borders and people whose ancestors had Iranian citizenship (nationality=citinzeship) and became US citizens.

That's not so - the page Iranian-American includes not only many Jews, but includes Prof. Lutfi Asker Zadeh, an ethnic Azerbaijani born in Baku, lived in Baku, then lived in Iran for some years and then immigrated to US decades ago. How is he "Iranian-American" and how is his inclusion consistent with the definition you gave above? --Saygi1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• My other issue is with numbers. I agree that a census might at worst say 1/3 of the population recorded (say Iranian Americans or Turkish Americans who believe they are double the number)..but 1/20th or 1/30th or even 1/10th are unprecendented. One user had previously put 2 million.

whoever gave 2 million did not include any sources and was obviously incorrect. It's good that he/she was corrected. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Once the 2011 census comes out, then we can gauge how correct are numbers such as 500,000 are. My guesstimate is that the number will be close to 25,000 to 50,000 and not 200,000 to 500,000. Iranian-Americans probably 500,000 and Turkish-Americans around 500,000.

This is OR and POV - why is 1/3 acceptable, but 1/30th - not? It's a very convenient POV. Also, if an Azeri is born in Iran (Russia, Turkey, etc), but lives in US, he/she is both Azerbaijani-American and Iranian-American (Russian-American, Turkish-American). People have multiple identities and belongings nowdays, it's more fluid. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also "Turkic Americans" redirects to Turkish Americans, I am not sure if the US has a separate census category for "Turkic-Americans" or "Slavic-Americans" or "Iranic-Americans" or "Germanic-Americans" or "Indic Americans" and "Semitic Americans". Turkic is a wide linguistic group of diverse peoples and for example one would not categorize Uzbeks and Kyrghyiz with Azeris in one American-X group based on a 19th/20th century linguistic definition. That is like putting Anglo-Saxons, Dutch and German Americans as "Germanic Americans" or Russian, Polish, Ukranian, Lithuanian in one group as "Slavic Americans". So such a category does not seem to be used in official US census figures. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The term exists though. Again, this is not a page about census. Census is just one of the very authoritative sources used. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay it is hard to go through each line and respond. But I'll summarize again.

• How is Turkic-Americans different than Slavic-Americans and Semitic-Americans? For example Semitic-Americans would mean Jews, Assyrians and Arabs are in one category. I think it is really an unheard of term in terms of Official US census or any other US statistics. With the exception of a language from the same family which are categorized as two separate languages, Azeris have a different history, culture, physical features than say Kazakh Americans. Their DNA is widely different and etc. I understand there are Pan nationalist movements trying to bring these people under one umberella, but as the recent Qerqiz and Uzbek conflict shows, this is really idealistic. It is the same, for example Iranic-Americans would mean Ossetians of the Caucasus are under one group with Baluchis in Pakistan. Slavic-Americans (there are also some pan-Slavic movements) would mean putting Croats, Polish people and Russians are one group. Anyhow, if it is not used in offical and scholarly documents, it should not be here.

What do you mean by how different is Turkic-American from Slavic-American, Semitic-American? You know the difference very well. Obviously, a Jewish-American would also be Semitic-American, as would be Arab-Americans and Assyrian-Americans. Likewise, Slavic-Americans include Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc. I didn't invent those categories, you know. As of DNA - these categories have nothing to do with DNA, and secondly, a DNA test has to become standard for each and everyone then. It is not, and there is virtually no one in America that defines those labels based on some DNA testing. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Lotfizadeh had Iranian citizenship. So did those Jewish Iranian. They immigrated with their Iranian citizenship to the USA, so they are Iranian-Americans. Note it is not an ethnic definition, simply a geographic definition about modern Iran. So as I take by the US census, the definition of Iranian-American is people who are from Iran or who had Iranian citizenship or who had ancestors who had Iranian citizenship and migrated to the US. For example [29] "The L.A. Times recently named L.A. area Iranian Jewish businessman Sam Nazarian as the most powerful nightclub owner on the West Coast after his company".. "For many Southern California young Iranian American Jewish professionals, Nazarian".. It seems that Iranian-American is geography and Jewish is the religion/ethnicity. Iranian American is purely geographically like Indian-American (someone who is a long resident of Iran with citizenship migrated to the US or had ancestors with Iranian citizenship). So it is not an ethno-linguistic definition.

Lutfi Zadeh had also a Soviet Azerbaijani citizenship - so why are you omitting that?

And are you saying that Iranian American is defined by citizenship? In that case, the article should be renamed Americans born in Iran, or Iranian Citizens in U.S., half of the people there should be removed, as many don't have Iranian citizenship and were not born in Iran. Do you want me to rename the page, or will you do it yourself?

So a newspaper is OK in defining Nazarian to be an Iranian American"? Good. Then it's just as good for Azerbaijani-American page. So please don't place those tags. And one more thing - Nazarian is still Jewish, and thus is still Jewish-American. But certainly, since he was born in Iran, and perhaps speaks Persian, he can be considered Iranian-American as well. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The MIT study is actual census done, not a guess. Their methodology is clearly explained. Further it is not quoted. I am just suprised that a 2000 census who could only count 1/10 or or 1/20 of a group (say the 500,000 number). There is no proof that MIT's student group census was plagarized. Being "made up 100% of Iranians " does not gauge reliability as this is not a advocacy group and it is not really guess-work, but an actual census. Unless we claim these people plagarized their census because they are Iranians. On the other, the sources you quoted are guesstimates.

What do you mean an "actual census"? They went door-to-door and physically counted? No, they didn't. Then it's not a census. It's a poll. A guesstimate. With a large deviation and margin of error. And being performed by a student group, with most being Iranian citizens and thus potentially collaborating with Iranian intelligence services, it does not inspire people to be very open with them. Everyone knows that "ethnicity" as a category is absent from Iran's own census. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Even if we take the large inflated number of Iranian-Americans (1 million which is mentioned by albright) in 2000, it is 1/3 of the official US census. But 1/10 or 1/20 are just statistical anamolgies. And as you note the US government officials have cited 1 million for Iranians. DO you have US officials citing 400,000 or 500,000 for Azerbaijani-Americans? Note the MIT group is not quoted as you mentioned since it is Iranian (but at least they did take a census which if uniform, would have a very small margin of era). So, if you have a 3rd party independent sources on numbers, we should put it in with attribution. One can do the same and say "Albright mentions 1 million ...". One can even put the MIT group with attribution (it is not a lobby organization but a student organization). But Albright would be somewhat reliable where-as it is hard to say this about non-US offical ethnic sources (even lets say the MIT group).

Please see below subhead. The number of 1 million is actually an under-estimate. The estimate used by the US State Department -- that's quite authoritative and reliable -- is 2 million. And 11% of 2 million is 220,000 Azerbaijanis from Iran. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• This article fairly good, except for one major issue. The main issue is Azerbaijani-American the ethnic group or citizenship? If it is citizenship (like say former citizens of Iran or India or Iraq), then there should be a separate article "ethnic Azeris in the USA". I am not saying Iranian Azeris of America are also not ethnic Azeris, but they are not citizens of the republic of Azerbaijan. This article gives primary to the republic of Azerbaijan and includes all non-ethnic Azeris from there. At the same time, it includes Azeris from various countries. On the other countries, it is simply people with citizenship (ex-citizenships) from those countries irregardless of origin.
• You say: "I won't add such a thing though, since I haven't found any Armenian that considers him/herself as Azerbaijanji-American. If you have such a source, please add." but then again not all Iranian-Azeris identify as Azerbaijani-American. They might for example like my friend identify as Iranian-Americans but also ethnic Azeris. So he would be " Iranian-American of Azeri background". Also by this fact, then the article cannot include just anyone from the republic of Azerbaijan (if we take your definition). Currently it has anyone from the republic of Azerbaijan. On Iran I answered your question it is simply people who had citizenships or had ancestors with citizenships from the country of Iran. Nothing more. It is not a multiple definition or pan-ethnic definition. For example Persian speakers of say Bahrain are not Iranian-Americans but Bahraini-Americans of Persian ancestry. I agree with you, people can be ethnic Azeris and also Iranian-American. We can say Iranian-Americans of Azeri origin but "Azerbaijani-American" has the notion that they somehow are related to the republic of Azerbaijan.
  • Back to Golebz's main point: " My only question at the moment is, the census numbers in this article, are those specifically for people from Azerbaijan? Rather than people who 'self-identify as Azerbaijani'? ". I take it to mean from the republic of Azerbaijan as Afghan, Iraqi, Iranian, Indian etc. Americans means country (geography). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps a title change would be:"Azerbaijani-Americans and ethnic Azeris in the US" or two separate articles. I'll go with whatever Golbez decides. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Khodabandeh14 says: "Please note this survey, [[30]] about 11% of Iranian Americans are Azeris." Although the survey is done by Iranians (some Iranian-Americans, some probably not) and their Iranian Study Group, but even if we are to accept their unreliable figure of 11% of the "Iranian-Americans are Azeris", it proves two things:

1) There are ethnic Azerbaijanis among Iranian-Americans, their numbers are at least 11% according to even this pro-Iranian source that Khodabandeh14 and others cite, and they are distinct and separate, even as a subgroup of Iranian-Americans.

As noted before, one person can be both Iranian-American and Azerbaijani-American, just like they can also be, at the same time, Muslim-American, European-American, Asian-American and Middle Eastern-American. A Taiwanese can be: Asian-American, Chinese-American and Taiwanese-American, all at the same time. A person from Kashmir can be Indian-American and Asian-American and Muslim-American. A person from Lebanon can be Lebanese-American, Arab-American, Middle Eastern-American and Asian-American. A person from Russia, such as Maria Sharapova, can be a Russian-American, a Tatar-American, and a Turkic-American, as well as a European-American and Asian-American (as Tatarstan is in Asia).

2) Since already in 2006 there were already an estimate 2 million Iranian-Americans according to the U.S. State Department [31] and [32], Nobel-prize winning Shirin Ebadi [33], Douglas McGill [34], Alliance of Iranian Americans [35], Iranian Trade Group [36], then it means the Azerbaijanis make-up at least 220,000 of that number. This is according to pro-Iranian and Iranian sources. And since Khodabandeh14 said that a 3 time underestimate is conveniently acceptable to him/her, then suddenly the estimate 400,000-600,000 Azerbaijani-Americans is very much an accepted estimate for Khodabandeh14 and others.

Meanwhile, I am glad that Khodabandeh14 brough up the category of Armenian Americans. Because Armenian-Americans include not only those born in Armenia or USA, but also those born in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, France, Ephiopia, Iraq, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. Thus, whatever rationale allows that page -- Armenian American, as well as Iranian American, to exist without problems and without user Khodabandeh14 making extensive changes, the very same rationale and rule applies to Azerbaijani Americans. Thank you. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just because there inaccuries in other articles, it does not mean this this one is not inaccurate. Armenian Americans seems to be a clear ethnic definition. Iranian-American is geographic term (ancestors from Iran) like Indian-American. Actually, we should strive for consistency.
• On the Math you did, if we do assume 11% of 2,000,000 (which is a wild figure), it is around 200,000. But this MIT source or others do not mention ethnic Iranian Azeris as Azerbaijani-Americans. Even if there are 2,000,000 Iranian Americans, then 200,000-300,000 (but not 500,000) seems like a reasonable figure for Iranian-American ethnic Azeris And actually, if 3000-4000 people are sampled out of a one or two million, if the samples are done uniformly, then the margin of error is extremly small. It is fact that the majority of Iranian Americans (overwhelmingly) are Persian-speaking as the areas of migrations from Iran and groups that migrated are known to an extent. Although the 2 million (despite the many websites) seems exaggerated. But the rate is very different. If we assume Iranian Americans are 1 million in 2000 (which is reasonable), then 340,000 or whatever makes around 1/3 (Census 2000). However, the article has Azerbaijani-Americans in 2000 as 24000 thousand yet it claims 200,000-300,000-400,000-500,000, which is 10% to 20% of the estimated figure. Be that it may, those sources for the numbers on Iranian Americans were interesting and it will be interesting to see what the 2011 census states. At the same time, many other sources put the figure below 1 million.

Excuse me, but the math I did is not wild. I cited you a U.S. State Department official press release that states there are 2 million Iranian-Americans. If you disagree, please complain to them, but this source is just as good as the Census Bureau, as they are both departments of the U.S. government. The math you did is wild - 11% of 2,000,000 is not 200,000, but 220,000. What I did say that MIT's Iranian student group underestimates the number of Azerbaijanis within that category, but even at 11%, that's 220,000 Azerbaijani-Americans from Iran. Since you brought in the MIT Iranian source as a reliable, authoritative and credible source, and used it here first, and obviously U.S. State Department knows better than you and me the true numbers of Americans from Iran, then you and others have to accept these results ("wild math"). Also, you said that 2-3 underestimate is understandable and acceptable to you - you said this on this very page. That means the 220,000 are easily 440,000 or 660,000 - that's just Azerbaijanis from Iran, not counting Azerbaijanis from the Republic of Azerbaijan, from elsewhere in the ex-USSR or Turkey. Please accept the results of your own sources and words. I hope everyone else will do the same and refrain from unconstructive edits.

Also, the MIT Iranian group does not need to mention their underestimate of 11% of Azeris as Azerbaijani-Americans. They could not have done so by definition - they were researching the percentage of Iranian-Americans that are of different ethnicities. They didn't call the Jews, Kurds, or Armenians as Jewish-Americans, Kurdish-Americans or Armenian-Americans either, yet that's what they are. Countless Jews like Sam Nazarian and others, or Armenians like Andre Aggassi or Vartan Gregorian are both Iranian-American and Jewish-American or Armenian-American at the same time.

Meanwhile, here's proof that someone you defend being called "Iranian-American" is an Azerbaijani-American - [37] in a book written by highly-educated authors [38]. Likewise, a Jew in America can be an Azerbaijani-American - [39] in a book by another Western European professor [40]. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• • BTW I checked the numbers for the high population (300,000 to 500,000)
  • http://www.stlamerican.com/reader_interaction/letters_to_the_editor/article_a906f9d6-4a8f-11e0-9d87-001cc4c03286.html . Quotes Elin Suleymonov.
  • http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav050809c.shtml 400,000, according to USAN
  • Baku, Azerbaijan, Jews and The Klionsky, By Michael “Misha” Sapozhnikov, Fair Lawn, New Jersey. This is a personal website.
  • http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2006/10/iazerbaijan-deserves-us-public its quoting an activits (not independent)
  • USAN it is a lobbyist organization (not independent but affiliated and government)
  • Paul Globe, "Paul Goble -Director of Research and Publications Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy" (the PDF looks highly biased but this is affiliated with a foreign government)
  • http://www.fuquay-varinaindependent.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Muslims+celebrate+national+holiday%20&id=7470429&instance=news_special_coverage_right_column quoting Heydar Qasimov
  • Self-published Power point files highly make RS.
  • http://www.stlamerican.com/reader_interaction/letters_to_the_editor/article_a906f9d6-4a8f-11e0-9d87-001cc4c03286.html (a letter from Emin Hajiyev - unreliable)
  • You said the US secretary said Iranian-Americans are 2million, and dismissed the MIT source because it is an Iranian organization. However, I do not see a single independent source here except quotation from various affiliated non-independent organizations. This can hardly qualify as: *" private and independent academic" which needs a source for "independent".

I did not say anything - I cited you a U.S. State Department official press release that states there are 2 million Iranian-Americans. I did say that MIT's Iranian student group underestimates the number of Azerbaijanis within that category, but even at 11%, that's 220,000 Azerbaijani-Americans from Iran. Since you brought in the MIT Iranian source as a reliable, authoritative and credible, and obviously U.S. State Department knows better than you and me the true numbers of Americans from Iran, then you and others have to accept these results. Also, you said that 2-3 underestimate is understandable and acceptable to you. That means the 220,000 are easily 440,000 or 660,000 - that's just Azerbaijanis from Iran, not counting Azerbaijanis from the Republic of Azerbaijan, from elsewhere in the ex-USSR or Turkey. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• • It claims VOA and Eurasianet etc. has done research, but they do not do research, and simply have quoted ethnic lobby organizations. It is no different than saying the leader of Al-Qaeda, or Obama and then claiming it belongs to the research of VOA/Eurasianet. News sources quote organizations, it does not make these organizations as RS and thuse the sources need to be adirectly attributed.
  • Finally, the sentence says "According to research done by U.S. government". What research by the US government?

With the possible(??? he seems affiliated) exception of Paul Globe, the rest of the sources do not really meet WP:RS. However, this is not an article about science or ancient history or math, I just request that the sources above be attributed. If VOA is quoting Elin Suleymonov or some affiliated organizations, then it needs to be noted that it is quoting Elin Suleymonov and not "researchers at VOA". It should mention that according to X..the population is Y. According to X1 the population is Y1. etc.

The "research done by the US government" needs to be seriously sourced. When did the US government under which researchers publish a report on number of Azeri-Americans?? Is not the US government the census what is being criticized here but these non-federal organizations (these are advocacy groups not controlled by the US federal government).

All these sources do not meet WP:RS, but to be fair, this is not the only article suffering from such a matter. However, the above should be attributed and US government should be removed. The phrase "independent academic" is a weasel as "academic" and "independent" need sources. "far more numerous" is weasel/OR. "numerous articles in US press" is a weasel. So these things should be attributed, as they are positions of Azerbaijani government (Elin Suleymonov) and ethnic lobbyist groups, not the US government/etc. Just like if I quote the MIT group (which I have not), it is attributed to that group.

Please note also this sentence:

• • "The case of the Azerbaijani Americans is no exception, as they are far more numerous in the United States than census 2000 data indicated, being a victim of undercount, due to either poor participation, assimilation or misclassification"
  • The sources are:
  • http://www.civilrights.org/census/education-kit/reasons-behind.html "Several reasons account for the persistent and disproportionate undercount of people of color and low-income people" (I do not think this is about Azerbaijani Americans)
  • NY1 News and Time Warner Cable, Making Census Of It: Brooklyn Officials Claim 2010 Census Undercounted Borough, 06/12/2011 (Retrieved on 2011-06-23. ) "This is talking about Brooklyn, 2.5 million vs 2.6 million" (not directly related)
  • KPCC - Southern California Public Radio, State officials say census undercounts California by 1.5 million, Dec. 31, 2010 (this is not mentioning Azeris)

Right. Except that I cited [41] and other sources for Alborz Fallah, to show the terminology, plus this source is clearly about immigrants as the rest of the sentence easily proves: " they fear that census responses may be used by immigration or law enforcement officials to deport" and " difficulty with the English language". Once again, this and some other sources were simply used to prove the terminology used because of being questioned and reverted by Alborz. These sources could be modified or removed completely as long as it doesn't change the article itself. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The whole sentence is not sourced. "Far more numerous" is not in the sources.
  • Perhaps it is better to note that the X or Y organizations say "Azerbaijani-Americans" are more numerous because of Z1, Z2..etc.

So these two sentences can be dismissed in their current form as OR/syntehsis. However, lets say that these two sentences (it is not my main issue with the article but the US government research should be sourced at least or deleted ) are accepted and obviously anyone can raise these points,.. but..

My main issue is this (and yes it occurs in other articles but I noticed it here and I think a general guideline should be set for all articles):

The current starting sentence includes: "Azerbaijani Americans (used interchangeably with the term Azeri-Americans) are Americans of ethnic Azerbaijani origin or who were born in Azerbaijan,". But this includes say Armenians from Azerbaijan and yet Azerbaijanis from Iran/Russia! "Americans of ethnic Azerbaijani origin" (includes ethnic Azeris from Russia, Iran, Turkey, Georgia etc.) and then the quantifier "or" (which sort of implies that we are not sure about the definition in the article) and then "those who were born in Azerbaijan" (which means include Armenian, Russian and etc. who according to you, at least the Armenians do not self-identify as Azerbaijani-Americans). That is two different definitions which may complement each other but also do contradict somewhat. Which one is it and based on what scholarly source which one is chosen? Is it "Americans of ethnic Azerbaijani origin" or is it "those who were born in Azerbaijan" (including Armeians)? It doesn't matter if 0% of Armenians from Azerbaijan do not identify as Azerbaijani-American or 100% do, because the current article includes them by the first sentence. If it is people from Azerbaijan republic, then that is the RS definition. If it is ethnic Azerbaijanis, then possibly that is the RS definition.

The page is consistent with the page about Iranian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, and many other hyphenated Americans, such as Hungarians, Russians, Jews, Chinese, and many others, who are not coming from one country that bears the respective name. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be interested with what Golbez says and I'll accept his wording. Else it is just back and forth on my last point. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I wrote in Golbez's page: "Hi, as I said I'll be happy to accept your definition. I am wondering for example in Iranian Americans (a multi-ethnic term) can one include say Tajiks of Central Asia (cause they speak an Iranic language) and at the same time a person from Iran? X-American I always thought means a person from the said country who has ancestors there or held a citizenship there, and then migrated to the US. There is actually a good point though in the discussion that it seems most of the X-American articles are not consistent. Armenian-Americans for example. Does it include Yezidi Kurds from Armenia or Azeris that were born in Armenia? Please clarify and perhaps we need a consistant definition in all relavent wikipedia articles. The user above has a point that some other X-Americans are not consistent, however this simply means that there needs to be general guideline on this issue. Some territories (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Kuwait etc.) have nationality/citizenship without the name of the ethnicity. But those territories that have their geographical names coinciding with the main ethnicity (republic of Georgia,republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia federation,People's republic of China..etc) need a general guideline. Personally, I prefer the modern country-geographic based approach for all such articles as it is clear definition but will await Golbez's response. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For Golbez. The document here: [42] which is an official US government census document references people born in Azerbaijan. So the primary definition should be the modern country geographical-based approach (people born there or had ancestors from there or had citizenship from there and moved to the US). If the ethnic definition is chosen, it should say majority of ethnic Azeris in the US are Iranian-Americans. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

dear Khodabandeh14, the above document only references people born in Azerbaijan. That's clearly not all Azerbaijani-Americans. It contradicts not only other similar pages of which you are well aware, such as Iranian-American or Armenian-American, as they are not limited to either ethnicity or even country's borders, as they include descendants of people who immigrated long ago, but it also contradicts the fact that you, a person who previously edited this page, long before me, had never removed the references of Azerbaijani-Americans being from Russia or Turkey. If you and all other "objectors" who suddenly popped up here with vicious reverts were OK with Turkey and Russia as country of origin for some Azerbaijani-Americans, then how can you object to Iran? Ironically, you even insisted on adding Armenian-Americans to the list, which I gladly agreed to, as indeed, the page about Azerbaijani-Americans is very close to the concept of Armenian-American. And you don't see to object to the inclusion of Armenians born in Iran into the list of Armenian Americans only, not even shared by the list of Iranian-Americans. Why is that? Is it religious discrimination?

Plus scholarly sources, such as one's I've just cited about Lutfi Asker Zadeh and Max Black, contradict you, even your MIT Iranian research shows clearly that at least 11% of the people from Iran that live in America are considering themselves Azerbaijani, and thus rightly can be called Azerbaijani-American as well. What I advocate is consistency, common and fair approach. You, and some others, on the other hand, advocate many different things, with constantly changing positions that are counter-intuitive and self-contradictory. Thanks. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• User:Saygi1's edits are unacceptable. They violate WP: Fringe, WP:Undue, WP:Synth among other polices. The exaggerated figures like "400,000" are neither supported by the independent academics, nor reported by reliable notble media outlets. The figures almost exclusively comes from Azerbaijani lobbyists and activists in the United States, who have an interest to exaggerate the number of Azerbaijanis , for their lobbying efforts. User:Saygi1 is even citing some of these lobby groups as a "source". I've restored the last good version. User:Saygi1 needs to get a clear WP:Cons before attempting to reintroduce the disputed material again. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo777, your revert is unacceptable, and are highly confrontational despite making your first edit. Not a nice way to start your journey here. No, this does not violate WP: Fringe, WP:Undue, WP:Synth or other policies. It is fully in line with all Wikipedia rules and policies.

Dear talk:Khodabandeh14, the sources used are all good, all from academic or Western sources, such as newspapers and journals, as well as Voice of America and writers such as Dr. Paul Goble. If you find better sources, please cite them. But there is no reason to remove the sources otherwise per Wikipedia policy. There are no lobbyist sources used, although would be fine, too, and if Voice of America cites Suleymanov, that's their right, and not up to you to deny. The only source that's from Azerbaijan itself is the ADA publication, but that's a scholarly resource, and in any case, the writer of the article is Dr. Paul Goble, who has full editorial control over that publication. So any objections to ADA publication are without merit. It's probably more authoritative that the MIT Iranian student group. Same applies to all the American newspapers that featured articles by Azerbaijani-Americans. Obviously, Azerbaijani-Americans know best their community and are more qualified to speak about it. Wikipedia requires credible sources, and all those newspapers are. It doesn't mean they can't err - but I've provided a variety of sources to avoid any undue weight to any one source.

Meanwhile, "Azerbaijani American" is not an ethnic definition - indeed you contradict yourself, as you want to restrict this meaning only to those Americans who trace their heritage to Azerbaijan, and then even inserted Armenian-Americans. This is very self-contradictory.

As I said, I am glad that Khodabandeh14 brough up the category of Armenian Americans. Because Armenian-Americans include not only those born in Armenia or USA, but also those born in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, France, Ephiopia, Iraq, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. Thus, whatever rationale allows that page -- Armenian American, as well as Iranian American, to exist without problems and without user Khodabandeh14 making extensive changes, the very same rationale and rule applies to Azerbaijani Americans.

As noted before, one person can be both Iranian-American and Azerbaijani-American, just like they can also be, at the same time, Muslim-American, European-American, Asian-American and Middle Eastern-American. A Taiwanese can be: Asian-American, Chinese-American and Taiwanese-American, all at the same time. A person from Kashmir can be Indian-American and Asian-American and Muslim-American. A person from Lebanon can be Lebanese-American, Arab-American, Middle Eastern-American and Asian-American. A person from Russia, such as Maria Sharapova, can be a Russian-American, a Tatar-American, and a Turkic-American, as well as a European-American and Asian-American (as Tatarstan is in Asia).

Therefor I respectfully request a more constructive approach here and not to call on various users to come and revert my diligent work under flimsy pretenses. I follow the exact same logic and rationale that is used in the pages such as Iranian-American and Armenian-American, among others. --Saygi1 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think we all can be constructive here, but I'll await Golbez's comment for a 3rd perspective. Also I am not responsible for anyone else's edit and I think it is still to edit-war on this topic, there is a dispute tag which is fine with me.
• "If you and all other "objectors" who suddenly popped up here with vicious reverts were OK with Turkey and Russia as country of origin for some Azerbaijani-Americans, then how can you object to Iran?", I had put this on my watchlist ever since a user put 2 million.
• On the issue of Armenian-Americans being Iranian-Americans, that makes sense because Armenian-American is an ethnic group but Iranian-American is a geography. Lotfi-Zdeh is a special case, but I take the reference to "Azerbaijani-American" to mean he was born there and to "Iranian-American" to mean that he moved to Iran, obtained Iranian citizenship and lived there, and then moved to America with an Iranian Note Lotfi-Zadeh could also be called Azerbaijani-American (ethnicity) and Iranian-American [43]. At least there is an interview with him from a pro-Azerbaijan source which he says he is all of that [44]. So here we do have an author claiming all these belognings.
• Let me summarize my main issues again:
  • However, if the VOA of America quotes Al-Qaeda (this is hypothetical example and I am just tryiong to illustate a point) it does not mean it is research done by VOA! or if NY-times or some newspaper publishes an opinion piece from AL-Qadea, it does not become the opinion of the NY-times. I am not saying those opinion pieces should be deleted but they need to be properly attributed. It is not a VOA repoter who is stating this statement but rather it is consular general of a country (which obviously would like to boost their number). Paul Globe is still affiliated with that Azerbaijan related organization and his opinion should be attributed along with his connection to that organization. So since this is a minor article (and I don't think any of those sources are RS), I am simply saying that it should be attributed. Power-point files by the way are hardly RS. I am not going to delete any of these sources, since I think once the US census of 2011 comes out, we will get more clarity on this issue. I actually think it is good to have these other sources for such an article that is not about science, math, history, etc. but only with proper attribution. So if an ambassador Suleymnonov believes Azeris are 400,000 or 4 million, lets attribute the quote to him.. Example:"The VOA has quoted Mr. Suleymnov, the consular general of Azerbaijan that the number of Azerbaijani-Americans is X". For example if I quote MIT group, I would simply say"MIT Iranian Student group which has done survey has reported...X ".
  • So the sentence should be restructed and actually, it should be under a subtopic, and words such as "numerous", "independent" and etc. should be changed.
  • There is no US government research and that needs to be removed. If there is a US government research then please provide a source. I thought all those other sources you brought (which in my opinion is not RS but it is fine with attribution for such articles), are criticizing or at least contradicting US government research (which is the census really as there is no other federal dvision doing research)
  • However, all the above issues can be fixed. Simply attribution with those sources and removal of "research by US government" (Unless ther is such a research). Like "VOA of America has quoted... " The St. Lous published a letter from Mr. X claiming that there are X numbers...
  • My only issue is this. The article is not clear if Azerbaijani-American means from Azerbaijan (which includes Armenians from Azerbaijan) or is it an ethnic definition. Other articles could have a similar problem, but I take Iranian-American, Afghan-American, Indian-American to mean people with ancestry from these countries (or citizenship from these countries who moved to the US and obtained US citizenship). That is these terms are geographical. An "Afghan" (which means Pashtun also) does not include a Pashtun from Pakistan (who would be Pakistani-American). Or for example a Persian from Herat in Afghanistan is not an Iranian-American. Other X-American article might be ethnic (this seems to be the case with Armenian-American but if it is not, it should be clarified as it is not clear if a Kurd from Armenia or it is an Armenian-American).
• I'll await for Golbelz's 3rd perspective. I don't like edit-warring (which would waste the July-4th weekend and Happy July 4th to all Americans and XYZ-Americans) for such topics and edit-warring simply puts more sanctions by admins. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear all users involved (Mr. Golbez, Mr. Alborz, Mr. Sayig1, Mr. Kurdo777...), Okay that was a bad job on summarizing, let me try again:

• a) Whatever the definition of Azerbaijani American is (ethnic or geographic) I'll let Golbelz and other users decide. I take that Iranian-American article or Indian-American or Afghan-American is geographic (people from the area, and people who had citizenship from there and then moved to America from there, all related to the geography of these countries), but some other articles like Armenian-American is ethnic (and if that is not clear, that should be cleared up in that article as well, for example I am not clear if a Kurd from Armenia is an Armenian-American or not?. Perhaps Golbez will answer).
• b) My only other issue is that the sources quoted should be attributed and also the "research by US government" be definitely backedup by a source. Just like we do not state the opinion of say al-Zahiri as that of VOA (this is a hypothetical example to illustrate a point but for example if he calls country X as decadent, we do not say that VOA researchers have called that country dacadent), we should state the opinion of various regionally affiliated people/organizations by attribution. I don't have a problem with a source claiming 200,000 or whatever, as long as the organization or person that makes such a claim is mentioned. This should also the case for any other article which has non-official US numbers, the non-official US number should be attributed. Even if Albright makes a claim of 1 or 2 million, that should be attributed to her since it differs widely from the official number. I am going to enjoy my weekend and that is why I have not reverted anyone. But from these discussions I did learn there could be more Iranian-Americans than some organizations claim, which was a interesting fact (Thanks to Mr. Sayig1).
• It is not my problem if others edit-war and if this article becomes an edit-war issue, I am not even going to comment here anymore as I do not particularly like modern-political topics, as I was never understood political issues, and do not plan too.. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sayig1, your edits clearly violate WP:Synth. You can't add a bunch of questionable sources together, to make new conclusions. You do not have WP:Con for these edits either, you're simply trying to force your version with edit-warring. This is unacceptable behavior. You've made 5 reverts, against three different editors in a couple of days, this is disruptive behavior. Get consensus before reverting again. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Also, I see an ongoing dispute here, not a "compromise" , and in any case, a compromise cannot violate core Wikipedia polices like WP:OR, which is what your version does. I suggest you start a RFC , asking the wider community for input. And untill there is a conclusive verdict on this issue, you shouldn't force your version by reverting. My own problem with the your proposed version, is not the national/ethnic definition of who an Azerbaijani-American is, but rather this exaggerated fringe population numbers which mostly come from unreliable partisan/lobby sources which you've put together in clear violation of WP:Synth and WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Okay, this is my last message as I do not like articles with modern political issues that are not a concern (and please note [45], the comment about "popping" out is incorrect as Alborz, Kurdo, and myself had previous edits before Mr. Sayig created an account).

• These sort of modern political articles are exactly the ones that waste time and I have no desire to engange it. I am upset of the several hours I wasted here except I did learn that there are different statistics for Iranian-Americans but I could have done a two minuted google search. I don't think the article should be edit-warred and thats why I have not done any reverts (incase admins look at the issue). Simply I think there is two issues.
• 1) If the article is about ethnic Azerbaijani-Americans, then the flag of the republic of Azerbaijan should be removed and it should be made explicit that Azerbaijani-Americans can also be Iranian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Georgian-Americans, Turkish-Americans,..etc.. If it is about geographical territory of the republic of Azerbaijan, then the flag should stay and it should be mentioned that it covers anyone from that territory including Armenian-Americans , etc.. Thats all. I now agree that there could be people that identify as ethnic "Azerbaijani-Americans" and "Iranian-Americans", "Muslim-American" etc.. Fine that is a good point. However, then, the flag of the republic of Azerbaijan should either be removed or the flag of other countries also should be in the article. If it is about both (which seems sort of uncoventional but lets say it is accepted by other users), then it cannot have only the flag of the republic of Azerbaijan.
• 2) On the issue of numbers, even though I also believe 300,000 and etc. is an exaggeration (I seriously do think the number of Iranian Azeris is about 15-20% of Iran's population (and Iranian government has done several census one in 1986 which asks the primary language and secondary language, and also provincial statistics can give fairly tight bounds even with exaggerations, and the provincial population statistics are very accurate and each major province has done its own study, but the fact are all these studies are in Persian and no one has looked at them except some people like Mehrdad Izady), and I also think 2 million Iranian-Americans is a major exaggeration (even if it is mentioned by US officials), but I simply just say lets attribute it to the source. "The VOA has quoted Mr. Suleymonov that the number is X, Y, Z..". In an editorial to St. Louis, Mr. XYZ has commented that there are 400,000 Azerbaijani-Americans. In addition to making the article neautral, this would be to Mr. Sayig's benefit actually, since people might click on some of those links and once they see that it is a quote from that said person rather than VOA reporter, then they realize the article is inaccurate or written with pov..
• 3) Finally the US government has not done other research, so lets be honest for the sake of an accurate Encyclopaedia. If the US government has done research, and I am wrong on this issue, then please source it. Thats my last message in this discussion as it has wasted enough time for me.. If there is ever a vote or something I vote for geographical definition (like India, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraqi and etc... that is I do not consider an Ossetian or Persian from Afghanistan as "Iranian"-American because they speak Iranian languages). But if multiple definitions are used, the points 1 above holds as well. I am removing this article from my watchlist and I don't want to reinvolved in this article, as I have no time to waste with modern political articles (personal dislike of such articles). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)