Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Requested move 14 February 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is clear consensus favoring all moves as proposed. bd2412 T 03:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

– And many similar articles which, on the same president, I would like moved - as would apply to all demonym based population describing articles in those cases those cases in which the plural form of the demonym differs from the singular form of the word.

As per: Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, List of Bahranis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Lists of Cameroonians and Canadians, ...
As per WP:UCRN as demonstrated in searches in books in that:

Designations that seemingly should remain as "... people" as the demonym retains the same form when indicating either singulars or plurals: Bhutanese people, British people and Chinese people,

I don't currently know what to do with the Bamar people and Khmer people articles but think that the articles mentioned are straightforward cases.

I would also like authorisation for moves of all relevant categories on the basis of similar justification as presented above. I think that the Encyclopaedia should have a common presentation of subject titles between article and category references. GregKaye 14:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Question – are you saying there is a precedent that establishes this as the preferred way to title articles on peoples? Is there a naming conventions page that says so? I don't think WP:UCN is enough on its own to decide these. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I mean, if you want to look at WP:AT, conciseness is good... Red Slash 00:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's not what I asked. Conciseness is often overrated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you want to discuss move on Bangladeshi people, do it on that article's page. Same for all other related articles. One discussion won't cover all. For example, the word Americans sounds perfectly fine as a title but Bangladeshis don't. Wikipedia article titles are often less commonly used but more suitable terms while more commonly used terms redirect to them. – nafSadh did say 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
nafSadh with multiple moves a notification is automatically given on other pages in the listing.
Dicklyon I am saying that the most natural description of peoples such as Colombians is Colombians. This is the designation that is most regularly used in, as far as I have seen, all cases. GregKaye 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that we don't have plural words in Bangla: Bengali grammar#Measure_words. We have words more like: "5-persons", in Bangla pronunciation: "putch-ta manush" (lit. "5-times people", therefore not even "person", but "people") As thus... translations are a bit of a mishmash. I would note to you that it depends on who you trust whether you accept "Bangladeshis" and foriegn journalists might just give up and use "...deshis". The Daily Star news website doesn't have seem to have a single use of it, but Dhaka Tribune and bdnews24.com do. In my experience, I haven't heard "Bangladeshis" used by a Bangla person (when talking in English), most certainly because it's awkward to hear and use. 103.7.250.251 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I see Bangladeshis being used widely in The Daily Star. It's perfectly ok to use the plural term in English. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support – Ethnic groups that have a singular non-gendered unambiguous name are usually labelled as such. See Hungarians, Swedes, Germans, Americans. Only in cases where such a form doesn't exist, as with French people or Japanese people, is the form "x people" used. Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE, this article should be moved. See others in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, for example. The proposed titles are simply better. The only change I'd suggest is "Azeris" rather than "Azerbaijanis", as "Azeris" is both more traditional, more common, and more WP:CONCISE. However, if others disagree with that, do not let it hold up this very useful request. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note of credit to RGloucester , This RM was inspired by content of his earlier RM at Talk:Basques#Requested move 07 October 2014 which I had originally and I now think erroneously opposed. GregKaye 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Support but only as Azerbaijanis, Azeri and not a lot of things can be called anywhere but officially course I should be Azerbaijanis. Nicat49 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that if a later request is made to move Azerbaijanis to Azeri then perhaps this can be made separately. Search results indicate possible relevance as follows:
  • "Azeris" got "About 25,000 results" in Books - so less than for "Azerbaijanis".
GregKaye 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Red Slash 00:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per request. I believe that the mandatory "X people" formula should only be applied to ethnic groups whose names do not form nominalized adjectives that would have plural forms, like the French, the Khmer or the Portuguese. For the groups listed by GregKaye, this is not the case. Parishan (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all per R Gloucester, including for the Azeri ethnic group.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all except for Azeris as Azerbaijanis is more official and common. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Azeris" is more common than this new word "Azerbaijanis" in English. It's not important that they like it or not, the only important factor is the usage in English language. Also, in Iran, Turkey, and even Azerbaijan itself, most people use "Azeri" instead of "Azerbaijani". Iranians call them Azeri, Turks call them Azeri, Azeris call themselves Azeri. If this is not enough, just do a search in different medias (web, books, videos and etc.). Azeris is more popular than Azerbaijani in English language. --89.165.96.162 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Really? Bunch of unsourced claims. First you need to prove your claims. Before saying Azeri is more popular than Azerbaijani do research. See this. It doesn't matter what people in Turkey, Iran call them, it can not be a criteria to name people by that name. How you can claim that Azerbaijanis call themselves Azeri? Have you ever been there? How many Azerbaijanis have you met and what type of research have you done? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Another false claim. This is a Google Book search: [1]. Important books with wide usage of Azeri instead of Azerbaijani. Those Azerbaijani term just raised in 1990-1995 due to make and create a new identity for the people of a new country. Also, you ignored common usage of Azeri in English. And finally, It's not important you like or don't like Persian or Turkish or Arabic version. The words "Azerbaijan", "Azeri", and "Azerbaijani" are Persian words/names. So you should use the common and historical names (both in the main language and En language). Also, Azerbaijani is a demonym too (just like American) not just a ethnic-specific name, but Azeri is a specific ethnic name. The current revision is good and if there should be a change, it should be Azeris, because "Azerbaijani people" is a ethnic group, but "Azerbaijanis" is a demonym/nationality. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only Azerbaijanis, Azeris is more popular than Azerbaijani in persian language not english.--SaməkTalk 03:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense claim. Do a little search in English. Azeri is a common name in English and it has nothing to do with Persian version of this name. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
While we are talking about research - every use should do it before accusing others in "nonsense". Compare Azerbaijanis vs Azeris. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment for page mover/admin. Per WP policies, we can't use a name which has several meaning for just one specific article. According to referenced texts on Azerbaijan article, Azerbaijani is a demonym/nationality for the all people of that country. That country is a multi-ethnicy country . All non-Azeri groups call themselves Azerbaijani in that country. But this move request suggests to use that name for a specific ethnic group. It's wrong. The current name "Azerbaijani people" is here to solve/disambiguate that issue. If you move this to "Azerbaijanis", then it will cause a chaos on many articles and we should fight a bunch of nationalists and ethno-centrist users. Keep this article at this this state (good and accepted revision) or move it to Azeris (a name without issue). Another point: Azerbaijani is used for all inhabitants of Azerbaijan region (in Iran and Caucasus) not just a specific ethnic group. --85.234.51.230 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support all per WP:CONCISE/WP:PRECISION. The Azeri/Azerbaijani issue can be dealt with separately later. —  AjaxSmack  14:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, needs to be consistent and concise, as others have already said. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; and I have some more proposed moves:
Charles Essie (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I support these by the same token as above. As far as the Azeri issue, that can be dealt with at a later date, as I said above. Let's get on with this. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This infobox' gallery needs a change

As of currently, there are 23 people listed in the infobox who were either born in the modern day Republic of Azerbaijan, Soviet Azerbaijan, or Azerbaijan when it was controlled by the Russian Empire (and dont have Iranian Azeri roots). On the other hand, only 8 persons from the infobox are Iranian Azerbaijanis or have direct roots from there. This even though the utter vast majority of Azeris live in Iran. I understand there is a favour towards Azeris from Azerbaijan, which comes naturally because it's the nation which has the ethnicity it's name, but definetely some more Azeris from Iran need to be added. Or even better, Azeris from Azerbaijan that have roots in Iranian Azerbaijan, or vice versa (people like Akhundov etc are perfect examples)

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Population estimates need an update badly for Azerbaijan and Iran

The population estimates for the Azeris both for Iran and Azerbaijan (as well as on the Iranian Azerbaijanis page) need an update. Most estimations are from 2002-2009. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you ask?! Do you really want to know other opinions? You make big changes and then ask us? You've ignored all previous related sections and consensus on talk page archives. Flooding with some random sources/google books, ignoring reliable ones. The final results; 16–35% range (13–28 million) is really interesting and accurate. 15 million gap! It will happen when you ignore WP:WEIGHT and you add everything you find to infobox. Good to confuse readers, and finally will lead to edit warring and disruptive edits in future. It's not a "NPOV" contribution or representing different reliable sources, it's just some kind of blog-like posts. You ignored the weight of sources. For example, The weight of CIA estimate is not equal to personal opinions of some authors who just guess it (some of them are just based on claims by ethno-centrists and ethnic nationalists). If you find some ridiculous claims on google books, will you add them just because they're on google books?! I guess it's not strange if we see 10–50% or 10–60% range next time, cause of your pov. Well, I think this 14% estimate will complete your work. Also, do not forget to update Turkic peoples. Because it's the only related article that you missed. Why I waste my time on talk pages when some editors are only interested to create their own version and ignore everything else? No need to reply, because I wrote my opinions before. If you're interested, browse archives. --Zyma (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical reverting by DeCausa ?

In this reversion , DeCausa reverted back my edit , but anybody can kindly tell me what is " Iranian region of Azerbaijan in the Caucasus " ?! As I know Iran does not have any portion of land in Caucasus ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to delete Caucusus but "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is clearer in context than "Iranian Azerbaijan". You introduced 2 errors and 1 correct change in your edit. 2 to 1 is not a good ratio. DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the original text was different . The Azeris mainly live in country of Azerbaijan and Iranian region of Azerbaijan ( Iranian Azerbaijan ) . The wording have to show this . About being Turkic language or Turkic we can have conversation and the change is not urgent.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And about the choosing between "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" vs "Iranian Azerbaijan " , I think that's clear the title that exists is better than a new wording . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I mean better by WP:NCPLACE.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of NCPLACE. Because we have "the country of Azerbaijan" in the same sentence, I think, to an uninformed reader "Irananian Azerbaijan" is not very clear. I think it's better to use a term that makes it clear it's a region of a different country. In fact "country of Azerbaijan" is a slightly clunky and ambiguous phrase in English (It doesn't necessariky mean an independent state, see Country). I've changed it to "Republic of Azerbaijan". To make you happy, I've taken Caucusus out, in the same edit. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Caucasus is a region, not an entity. It includes parts of contemporary NE turkey and NW Iran, though when people speak about the "Caucasus" they usually mean those states (Georgia, etc) and the Russian republics of the area (Chechnya, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, etc). That said, "Iranian region of Azerbaijan" is indeed more appropriate in this case in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkic vs. Turkic-speaking

DeCausa, the term 'Turkic' is problematic because there is no clear definition as to what that term entails. Every scientific source would give you its own definition of the term 'Turkic people'. If it means 'speaking a Turkic language', then the best way to disambiguate that would be specifying Azeris as a 'Turkic-speaking people' in the lead. In what exactly is my reasoning defective? Parishan (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We should just follow how they are predominantly described in reliable sources - we should not be attempting to come up with our own definition. The vast majority of sources simply describe them as a "Turkic people" and do not try to specify that they are only linguistically Turkic. For example:
  1. Svante E. Cornell (20 May 2015). Azerbaijan Since Independence. Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-317-47621-4.
  2. Barbara A. West (1 January 2009). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4381-1913-7.
  3. James Minahan (1 January 2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 1766. ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3.
  4. Marshall Cavendish (1 September 2006). World and Its Peoples. Marshall Cavendish. p. 760. ISBN 978-0-7614-7571-2.
  5. Cyril Glassé; Huston Smith (January 2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-7591-0190-6.
  6. Stephen K. Batalden; Sandra L. Batalden (1997). The Newly Independent States of Eurasia: Handbook of Former Soviet Republics. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-89774-940-4.
  7. John McGarry; Brendan O'Leary (17 June 2013). The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts. Routledge. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-136-14652-7.
  8. Anna Matveeva; Minority Rights Group, Great Britain (2002). The South Caucasus: nationalism, conflict and minorities. Minority Rights Group International.
  9. Tahir Abbas (1 January 2007). Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective. Edinburgh University Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7486-3086-8.
  10. Dilip Hiro (25 May 2013). A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East. Interlink Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 155. ISBN 978-1-62371-033-0.
  11. Ebru Erdem (1 September 2010). Modern Muslim Societies. Marshall Cavendish. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-7614-7927-7.
  12. Nicu Popescu (10 December 2010). EU Foreign Policy and Post-Soviet Conflicts: Stealth Intervention. Taylor & Francis. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-136-85188-9.
  13. Stuart J. Kaufman (26 May 2015). Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Cornell University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-5017-0199-3.</ref>
  14. Manuel Castells (20 September 2011). The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. John Wiley & Sons. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-4443-5629-8.
  15. George J. Neimanis (1 January 1997). The Collapse of the Soviet Empire: A View from Riga. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-275-95713-1.
  16. Brenda Shaffer. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. MIT Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-262-26468-6.
  17. Barry Rubin (17 March 2015). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. Routledge. p. 524. ISBN 978-1-317-45578-3.

DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No one questions the reliability of the sources, but the problem is that none of them gives a definition of what Turkic is. The definition of the term is highly ambiguous even in the respective Wikipedia article (does it have to do with language? origin? identity?). I can find as many sources stating that Azeris are rather Turkic-speaking, given the diverse origin of this ethnic group which would render the application of the term 'Turkic' problematic.
  1. Babak Rezvani (15 March 2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan. Amsterdam University Press. p. 359. ISBN 9048519284.
  2. Youssef Courbage, Emmanuel Todd (7 October 2014). A Convergence of Civilizations: The Transformation of Muslim Societies Around the World. Columbia University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0231150032.
  3. Stephen Shennan (2009). Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution. University of California Press. p. 108. ISBN 0520255992.
  4. John W. Parker (1 September 2011). Persian Dreams: Moscow and Tehran Since the Fall of the Shah. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 91. ISBN 1597976466.
  5. M. Wesley Shoemaker (7 August 2014). Russia and The Commonwealth of Independent States 2014. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 219. ISBN 1475812264.
  6. Soviet Geography. Scripta Publishing Company. 1980. p. 478.
etc. Parishan (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No one's denying that they speak a Turkic language so you'll undoubtedly have some sources describing them that way, particularly when the focus of the source is linguistic rather than ethnic, as some if the above are. And 6 sources is no where near 17. The fact is the vast majority of sources, when they are defining Azeris ethnicity define them as simply Turkic. Take for example Britannica here. And you'll notice that source no. 8 discusss the issue of how they are described and says that the "prevailing view is that they are a Turkic people". It would therefore fail WP:NPOV to not describe them as simply "Turkic". We don't have to worry about what Turkic actually means, all we need to know is that is how they arebpredomjnantly described. In fact, in Wikipedia , it's genrrally accepted that ethnicity isn't about any one thing. There are a whole range of potential characteristics, but mianly it's about self-identification. Your argument would suggest that no "people" article should state an ethnicity. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The correct section where the discussion is taking place is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Everybody is invited to comment thereDkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ramorue: gallery per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES.--SaməkTalk 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Population Problem

There's a numbing problem with the total # of Azerbaijanis throughout the world, and the # of Azerbaijanis located in Iran. The numbers are bloated and inflated, and do not match the sources provided for Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuormak (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group

First line, Turkic ethnic group. It doesn't say they are a Turkic and Persian (Iranian) group nor does it say they are a hybrid resulting from prolonged mixing. Assimilation by individuals into a community doesn't generate common ancestry, it just means that some community members have intermarried and had children, or adopted the other's identity. The fact is that Iranians and Azeris are two ethnicities independent of one another. --OJ (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't wanna get involved in this, but Azerbaijanis are basically Turkic-speaking Iranians. They're closer in both culture and ethnicity to the Iranians than Turks of Turkey, which I am quite sure is even stated (and supported by reliable sources) in this article and several others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some form of response. I've been busy of late so I haven't had time to log in and edit. You say they are Turkic-speaking Iranians, in other words, they are Iranians (according to description). What one is culturally has no relevance to what he is ethnically, and how he is ethnically neither makes him a close or a distant relation of another ethnicity. Other factors come into play here. If indeed your statement of Azeris being Turkic language Iranians is correct then one is right to restore Iranians as an ethnic affiliate. However, it would be wrong in such a scenario to link them ethnically with Turks since these would be Iranic people who happen to speak a Turkic tongue and nothing more. As such, the opening line is wrong, calling them a Turkic people and nothing more. Now if I take a common sense approach - and one has to differentiate between common sense and original research - then it is clear that such a claim is not plausible. Here is why: without me claiming to be an expert, I assume the name Azeri is Iranian in origin and that the proto-Azeri people (unaffected by Turkic contact) would have been an Iranian nation. Linguistic assimilation is a process that can either be voluntary (where a pressured nation realises it is better to belong to the other more powerful group than to face discrimination) or by force (when the more powerful nation imposes its will). Either way, what follows is identity change and suddenly within a generation two once distinct nations are no longer distinguishable without one person divulging his background. What we have with Azerbaijan resembles what we have with Bulgarians and Macedonians who are Slavic people but do not bear Slavic demonyms. Mixing occurred causing the people of a region to adopt the Turkic identity and language over the option consistent with the demonym. As such, the Azerbaijani vs Turkish question today depends largely on the region - particularly as the two languages are part of a dialect continuum. Rather bizarrely, it appears that Azeris are claimed to be Iranians speaking a Turkic language but somehow the less populous local Kurds and Talysh people who are both Iranic somehow escaped the fate of the Azeris. They remain Iranic and totally surrounded by supposedly Iranic Azeris but the bigger group lost its language. We need to remember that the article is about the modern-day people to declare Azerbaijani ethnicity and not about the proto-namesakes. Azeris live in Turkey just as some declare Turkish in Azerbaijan. Where these two are concerned, it is just a question of how one chooses to identify, even if it is different from his parents or siblings. If known mixed marriage makes two unrelated nations suddenly "related" then Turks would also be related to (and indeed partly descended from) Iranians since Turks and Azeris are a single people within a specific area. There is no such thing as a "hybrid nation" and to imply that there can only suggest that someone believes two nations are pure and a third one has come to exist purely on account of the subjects being definitely mixed. In fact, when considering Iranic languages have long been spoken on Azerbaijani territory while the majority Azeris use their own form of a Turkish language (separate from Turkish) while going by a name separate from Iranians, there is no guarantee whatsoever that an orindary Azerbaijani person must defintitely have Iranian heritage. It is possible that he found himself Azerbaijani with nothing other than Turkic ancestry. However, had there still been Azeris purely of Iranic descent then the language would not have been lost - which is why Talysh remains spoken. So yes these people are Shia, and yes there is a stong Iranic seed in production across Azerbaijan but the opening line is correct that they are Turkic, and Turkic and Iranian people are not related as ethnic groups. As for the Iranic ancestry, this is just just as likely to be found in the Lezgins but they are no said to be related. --OJ (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the clear WP:FORUM-like, self-interpreted word salad posted above by user "Oranges Juicy", without providing any sources obviously, there's clearly more going on. Just take a look at how many times he has tried to remove this sourced info by ungrounded means;

That's four removals right there. After this "first spree", he waited a few weeks, and then just went at it again. Why? Because why not!;

Ostensibly, this guy is wasting our time here. He's apparently unable to post a single counter source that'd back up his claims (against the material at Origin of the Azerbaijanis, f.e.), yet is able to WP:WAR over and over, and remove warnings in the blink of an eye from his talk page as well. Textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS, and clearly walking a very thin rope. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No self-interpretation, just read ethnic group and familiarise yourself with the definition. Asides this, I am unable to find a single thing in your post to prove incorrect my statements or anything that addresses the issue, such as the fantasy that Turks and Iranians have a common ancestor. --OJ (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. With regards Origin of the Azerbaijanis and other related articles, these simply point to a shady genetic study which show that there is likely to be Iranian ancestry among the samples they have taken. No source shows that every Azerbaijani has Iranian ancestry and no source shows that non-Azerbaijanis within the environment are "Caucaisan- or Iranian-free". Even so, making out that this makes two unrelated people suddenly "related" is 100% WP:SYNTH. --OJ (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article

Currently, here is what the article says and I have not made a single edit to influence this display:

  • Modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian[115][116] and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification.

"Believed to be" is not the same as "are". --OJ (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "I don't recognise the "warning". First, you don't template regulars."
Actually, you can template "regulars" when said "regular" reinitiates an edit war.
  • "Second, you forgot to warn your own self given your involvement and continued refusal to step aside as I have done."
Which is why you arrived, after Sebebineydiki was blocked for edit warring, and continued the same edit war???
Have you read the article, Azerbaijanis?
Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."
Even something more interesting is stated on the Origin of the Azerbaijanis article.
  • "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".
So, do you have source(s) that refute these academic sources??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Those points attack the straw man, therefore the assertion is 100% WP:SYNTH. I have known for 40 years everything listed (since childhood in Yugoslavia), which predates those sources. Now if you want sources for what I am about to tell you, just say. Until then, let's just apply some common sense. The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity. It is not a question of whether his parents were Azerbaijani, and in any case, it would only have meant that they identified as such. A person does not have to trace his roots before deciding whether he is Azerbaijani or not, it is his decision. Now going back in time, let's look at what your own source says (pasted):

  • from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan

Did you think this means that Turks forced a group of people to speak Turkish while that same group of people otherwise retained their roots by adopting a new name Azeri to distinguish from Turk? If so you're wrong. A population cannot change language and then maintain its identity indefinitely whilst living among its true ethnic affiliates who have maintained their language (e.g. Azeris living among Iranians in Iran) and nowhere in history has this happened. Either this type of Turkification would have affected all members of the Iranian nations within the region (as well as all non-Iranians, i.e. everybody), or it wouldn't have happened at all. As it happens, the Turkification of local Iranians is no different to the Slavicisation of Bulgarians, and the Romanisation of Franks (i.e. French). For language assimilation to occur in the first place, the nation to give up its identity needs to be living among members of the new language - otherwise it is not going to happen. Then, if identity is to remain after this has happened, this will be noticeable by the parallel long-term continuity of two nations living cheek by jowl in the same lands (e.g. Albanian-speaking Ashkali in Kosovo, this Roma community only speaks Albanian and as such is shrinking and will in time be extinct in that future generations will become Albanian as has been the recorded case these past decades/centuries). So Azerbaijanis today are no longer a split community of people aware that they are Turkic Azerbaijani or Iranian Azerbaijani and by the same token, you don't have people identifying as "Turk" across the entire lands where Azeris live (which might have accounted for the population not to be Turkified, for being Turkish in the first place). But we don't have this. Apart from the usual gray area on both sides of the Azerbaijani (Nahcivan)-Turkish border where people may be one of either from within the same family, Azeris are for the large part one nation. Now given Iranic people assimilated, they gave up their identity to become a Turkic group whilst Turks did not depend on assimilated Iranians for the existence of the Azeri ethnicity. Other interesting factors are that a certain percentage of Azeris are Sunni, and some Turks are also Shia. Knowing this, you cannot apply Iranians to be related to Azeris. Given what we know about Azeris and Turks in the borderland means we cannot remove Turks from the picture, whilst Turks were known to marry outside during the centuries of Ottoman rule (as well as more recently imposing Turkish identity on Iranic Kurds). On balance, I'd be surprised if a single pure race in this world existed even in remote parts of Africa, Australia or South America. As for the other statement (pasted) "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region.". Yes we know about these, but they are not Azerbaijanis, they are Iranian. Even the Azerbaijanis inside Iran speak the Turkic tongue, so those people are no more to the neighbouring Azerbaijanis than Albanians are to Serbs in Kosovo. --OJ (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Both sources state Azerbaijani origins include Iranian populations and these populations were Turkised. No WP:Synth involved. However;
  • "The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity. It is not a question of whether his parents were Azerbaijani, and in any case, it would only have meant that they identified as such. A person does not have to trace his roots before deciding whether he is Azerbaijani or not, it is his decision."
This is a straw man fallacy.
  • "let's look at what your own source says.."
Actually these are not my sources, these are sources already used in the articles, you have just decided to ignore what they say.
I still see no sources to support your opinion.
Oh, and FYI, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, is an essay not a policy, so you can quit beating that dead horse. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
With regards the "essay" of not templating regulars, the page clearly states that it can be construed as uncivil. You're welcome to try it but prepare for rollback on every occasion, and of course if they persist, you'll get an opportunity to test your opinion.
OK, looks like you don't know what attacking the straw man is. So, let me use simpler language this time. Your sources demonstrate that "Azerbaijani origins include Iranian populations and these populations were Turkised". Sorry but when did I deny this? Read the following line and repeat it to yourself until it sinks: Yes there are Azerbaijani people in 2017 who have Iranian ancestry. Got that? There are also a vast Turkish population with Kurdish, Albanian, Bosnian and Pomak ancestry; it doesn't mean that Turks and the four listed are related, it means that members of the four listed (and more) ethnicities assimilated, and I can find you scores of reliable sources to demonstrate this. By your definition, this makes the listed nations related. Interestingly, no source confines the Turkification to just local Azerbaijanis, and nor does any source confirm that Turkification of Iranians happened throughout the entire lands of modern Azerbiajnai citizen. On the other hand, Turkic people stretch from Europe to the far east. Azeris form part of both an ethnic and dialect continuum with Turkic populations directly east, and there is no way you can create a chain from Turkish to Khalaj on the basis of an intermediate population being non-Turkic (and before you start throwing your toys out the pram, I am not accusing you of saying Azeris are not Turkic). The simple point is the Azerbaijani race is not dependent on having had Iranian members, they could have flourished (albeit in smaller numbers) without them. With this, the Iranians to assimilate are only as relevant to Azerbaijani identity as Swedes are to Ukrainians (historically Swedes settled in Ukraine and eventually became absorbed into the Ukrainian identity). So citing a historical truth of a nation's history and using it to claim that today's members are related to nations whose members did not assimilate is totally fallacious. Those Iranians surrendered their identity as Kurds have been doing in Turkey since at least the 1920s, get over it. As for my description of ethnicity being a "straw man fallacy", not so. When we write about Azerbaijanis we are specifically writing an article about the modern-day populace to identify as Azerbaijani. We are not writing an article about non-Azerjbaijanis whose ancestors might have succumbed to the "Iranian assimilated by Turk" experience many centuries ago. This means that when we write about Azerbaijanis in Belarus, we refer strictly to the people who have declared Azeri as an ethnicity irrespective of whether some of these people speak Azeri, or really have any links to West Asia. So, the attack is on the dreamer's theory and not the straw man. As for still seeing no sources, I did say I wouldn't add any at this point. You just tell me which part of my "opinion" you wish to see a source for, and I will provide them. And given I am for the time being keeping off the article and refuting every single point you have made, whilst you are hiding behind a "you haven't provided sources" whimper, I can safely say that you are the one that didn't hear. --OJ (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You have removed Iranian, et.al. from the infobox of this article.<--This is the issue.
I have provided sources that clearly state the Azerbaijanis are descended from Iranian, Turkic, et.al elements.
You continue to ignore these sources, oddly whining about, "The question of what constitutes a modern-day Azerbaijani is how he declares his ethnicity.", which is not the issue. That makes your so-called argument a straw man fallacy.
Your removal of Iranian, et.al, from the infobox[2], which you label as a "factual error", is in fact, incorrect. When the part labeled "related=" has Turkic & Oghuz Turks, how are the Azerbaijanis not related to , "Iranian peoples (specifically Persians and Tats), Caucasian peoples", when two sources presented state exactly that?
  • Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."
  • "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia." -- Frye R.N.,Encyclopædia Iranica,"IRAN v. PEOPLES OF IRAN (1) A General Survey".
  • "So, the attack is on the dreamer's theory and not the straw man."
Facts stated in published sources by academics. Compared to your personal opinion(s)? What every you say Alice.
  • "And given I am for the time being keeping off the article and refusing every single point you have made.."
There is only one point, and you have ignored it and the academic sources that support it.
  • "whilst you are hiding behind a "you haven't provided sources" whimper, I can safely say that you are the one that didn't hear."
Since you are a "regular", you should know that Wikipedia is written using published reliable sources, not your personal opinion(s) or your ignoring academic sources. Guess you did not read that either. AND, since you still have failed to provide sources to support your opinion(s), we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you're done definitely, I mean your arguments are a non-starter in the first place.

  • Ethnicity is how people identify, end of. That is not a straw man fallacy, it is the only issue and nothing else dictates a person's national group.
  • Backgrounds of assimilating individuals do not count, period.
  • The criterion for an Azerbaijani from Iran, Azerbaijan itself or Belarus to meet the definition of Azerbaijani is that he declare himself that nation regardless of whether his ancestors came from China, Scotland or South America, he will still be recorded as an Azerbaijani, period.
  • The Tat language is spoken by the ethnic Tats who are citizens of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia (less diaspora), NOT the Azerbaijanis. Azerbaijanis live across a handful of countries and speak a Turkic tongue, whether you like it or not.
  • Ethnic Tats are Iranic and are NOT a subgroup of Azerbaijanis, Period.
  • Azerbainjanis and the article states in the infobox that their only language is the one Turkic tongue.
  • "from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan" - Turkification has happened to dozens of national groups this past millennium but that neither makes Turks related to those ethnicities, nor the ethnicities in question related to Turks. Furthermore, Turkification means precisely that the victim population became Turkic to the point that you could no longer distinguish two separate national groups. That's what the sources on the article say, and what is meant by your source which you refuse to accept. If all these Iranian people did was adopt Turkic properties such as language then they wouldn't be a Turkic group as the opening line says, they would be an Iranic nation that happened to speak Turkish. So it appears you are arguing with your own self since you cannot make up your mind what these people are.

So on this note, it is easy to see how shallow and fallacious your arguing is: you have conveniently ignored the universally accepted definition of ethnicity (as sourced throughout the article) to apply your own narrative, and you have extended this narrative to include Tats within your own fantasy vision of "Azerbaijani" which is no different to claiming that Basques are ethnically Spanish because they live in Spain. Additionally, you conveniently "misinterpret" a batch of reliable sources to pretend you don't know the difference between a population that is assimilated by another and a population that keeps its identity while adopting the properties of another. If I were to assume good faith on your part, I can only suggest you go and read WP:CIR because you are evidently lacking here. --OJ (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ancient Azerbaijani tribes

This article is quite short on sources. I do not see what benefit having a separate article has considering Azerbaijanis exists, is a well-written and detailed article with history sections going back to the ancient periods. Any missing info not currently in that article should be added there in my opinion. Pinging User:AimlessGenius, creator of the article for their opinion too. Rayman60 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support merge. Poorly cited, stub article, could easily be merged into this one. The fact that almost half a year has gone by with not a single comment on this proposal shows how little that standalone article is used. Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Azerbaijanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

This source [3], referring to the Azerbaijan Congress, calls fantastic population: Brazil - 1 million azerbaijanis, France - 600 thousand, Egypt - 900 thousand, etc. The obvious fake. Divot (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Germany - 700,000. Really? Explicit Fake, according German Statistic Bureau, they must be less than 94000 [4]. Divot (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Turkic speaking group vs Tukic ethnic group

I reworded the lead according to what the 3 cited sources say : source number 50 does not mention any ethnicity. Source number 51 states : "They probably originated as a Caucasian people who were assimilated by numerous conquerors and adopted many foreign customs : in the case of Turkic invaders, their language." Source number 52 does not mention an ethnic group.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue with that line of thought is that "Turkic" is not an identity based on genetics, rather it is based on language. It's as wrong as calling Syrians or Algerians "Arabic speaking" instead of Arab, on the basis that most of their genetics stem from pre-Arabian natives. In reality nobody cares about genetics when it comes to one's identity, so as a result Azerbaijanis should be considered Turkic the same way Syrians are considered Arabs. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You cannot summarize people’s indentity to language only, do you mean that you consider, for example, Afghan Tajiks as a part of the Persian people ? Also, genetics is only one of the differences between Azerbaijanis and other Turkic peoples, there are many other significant ones like religion, culture, etc... Actually, one could say that the only thing Azerbaijanis have in common with other Turks is the language, which is not enough to list them as a Turkic ethnic group (and none of the sources cited is supporting this « ethnic group » claim). As to your remark about Syrians or Algerians being Arabs, you must keep in mind that Algerians have many things in common with, for example Saudis : language, religion, many cultural elements, etc ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Language is by far the largest contributor to ethnic identity, the vast majority of ethnicities out there base their "community" on who speaks their native language. And yes, I would say Tajiks should also be considered Persian, on the basis that they speak a dialect of Persian as their native language. I'll use a better example to prove my point: Ossetians. Despite being totally isolated from Iranians, not sharing a religion or any cultural elements with Iranians, Ossetians are still considered an Iranic people on the basis that their language is Iranic. In the same line, Azerbaijanis (who in Iran are referred to as "Tork" by the vast majority of people) should therefore be considered Turkic. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly POV pushing by Wikaviani, in line with the Iranian nationalist view that Azerbaijanis are "assimilated Iranians" and not a distinct ethnic group. The sources are all clear about this, just because you want them that way doesn't mean that you can simply impose your POV in the article. Azerbaijanis also have many things in common with Anatolian Turks and Turkmens for example, all of them Turkic peoples. Reverted this arbitrary change. Akocsg (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Akocsg: First of all please use indentations for better readability. Second, go ahead and show me where the cited sources say that « Azerbaijanis are a Turkic ethnic group ». The best you can expect is to write in the lead « Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people » i.e. , like Qahramani44 said above, a Turkish speaking people, in other words, what i wrote when i edited the article. Also, the quote from Britannica is misleading, there is no such thing like « Azeris are a single ethnic group » in Britannica. Finally, since you blindly reverted my edits, you removed the source that supports significant differences between northern and southern Azerbaijani language. To make it short, your reverts are all but legit.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The quote from Britannica:
"Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran."[1]
What's the difference between Turkic people and Turkic ethnic group? In this case it's the same thing. If you are taking the word "ethnic" solely on a genetic base, then you would have to change and adjust practically every other ethnic group on Wiki and their definition. Such major changes can't be simply done on a whim. If you are against the word "ethnic group" that much, then replacing it by "Turkic people" could be a solution. Akocsg (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Akocsg: That's what i proposed above, replacing ethnic group with people. Also, your Britannica quote does not support this sentence of the lead : "Despite living on two sides of an international border, the Azeris form a single ethnic group", this will be removed because unsourced. And, will add back the source underlining major differences between northern and southern azerbaijani languages that you removed with no legit reason.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That is okay I guess. Turkic-speaking would reduce it to the language only which is false. Akocsg (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Britannica is not a reliable source. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Azerbaijani". Britannica.

Bias of article

The article is very biased in the terms that it is written from the perspective of Azerbaijanis and not Iranians of Azeri ethnicity (People of Iranian Azerbaijan). It could be said that the two have different identities (across all areas, not just national identity), perspectives on history as well as different culture. The culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan is a mix of Caucasian, Turkic and Iranian but the culture of Iranian Azerbaijan is mostly Iranian with some elements of Caucasian culture such as the traditional clothing of men, some dances and the music incorporates Caucasian elements. I can back this up with numerous sources and I am also an Iranian of Azeri ethnicity. Is there anything that can be done about this, for example making this article separate for Azerbaijanis, as Iranian Azeris already have their own Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Azerbaijanis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any bias - the article contains info both about northern and southern (Iranian) Azerbaijanis in relatively equal proportions. Exactly because there's an article Iranian Azerbaijanis, this article should not be written "from the perspective of Iranians of Azeri ethnicity". It's intended to be a general overview. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete of this bit of "information"

"There are signs of civil unrest due to the policies of the Iranian government in Iranian Azerbaijan and increased interaction with fellow Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan and satellite broadcasts from Turkey and other Turkic countries have revived Azerbaijani nationalism." This claim is supported by an unreliable and biased source, just from reading the geographic terms, the naming of the ethnic groups and just the general tone one can understand that it is not a neutral article. Not only is the article wrong, but the way that it is representing Azeris is wrong. It represents them as an oppressed minority which have been crushed by the Persians and they need freedom. Which isn't at all true. Tell me what you all think. Migboy123 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation about amount of Azerbaijanis living in Sweden

The citation about amount of Azerbaijanis living in Sweden does not lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.28.135 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

selfname

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-vi Encyclopedia Iranica


The reason for deleting information from the article? V.N.Ali (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Just stop pov-pushing, really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Arabic script

Arabic script is not using by Azerbaijanish people they use latin (northern) and persian (southern). Seymur06 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Persian-İranian Seymur06 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive_11&oldid=1090473005"