Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Subsections in the origins paragraph

I have fixed the subsection about the Turkic origin in the origins of the Azerbaijani people paragraph, since it was pretty much biased and inconsistent in comparison to the Caucasian and Iranian subsection. It misguided by reducing the matter to nothing but a linguistic "turkification". It is also backed by sources, so please refrain from simply deleting it and using false edit summaries such as POV. Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As far i can see, you have not added a single source with your edit, rather, you have removed some sources like Iranica for this claim : " The very name Azerbaijan is derived from the pre-Turkic name of the province, Azarbayjan or Adarbayjan, and illustrates a gradual language shift that took place as local place names survived Turkification, albeit in altered form.", this is just an example among others. This is POV editing and under WP:TENDENTIOUS.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a better version now, with an additional academic source this time. The reference to the name is also present at least once at other spots in the article and doesn't belong into that section. So it's not that I deleted that source in itself. Adding sourced content is not POV and tendentious. Akocsg (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Again you keep pushing your own POV, even though it does not support the goal of consistent standards within an article, additionally even stating that my own sources allegedly disprove my added content. I have added how Turkic migrations and settlements (numbered by tens of thousands of people) in the region have occured in the late antiquity and middle-ages, which proves the very point of Turkic origins! That's what the section is about, or at least should be. So stop changing that and stop your false accusation of "tendentiousness". Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You keep changing "Turkification" and replacing it with "Turkic origin" while none of the sources in the article support it. clearly, Azerbaijanis are not of Turkish origin, genetic tests are not supporting a Turkish origin, they adopted a Turkish language through an elite dominance process.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You keep twisting facts and the content of the sources. First of all, it's Turkic and not Turkish. The source I have added clearly supports the Turkic origin, without doubt. I have explained that above. The genetic results saying that the majority (not all of the population!) descend from indigenous peoples (ie. Caucasian Albanians etc.) doesn't mean that they aren't to some extent Turkic. So even the genetic research supports a partially Turkic origin. The academic sources are all there, so please stop falsifying the facts and the content basing on them. Akocsg (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We're speaking about tens of millions Azerbaijanis, the fact that some Azeris are descended from the Turkic settlers who came in that area one thousand years ago is not notable enough to change the title of the paragraph from "Turkification" to "Turkic origin" since the vast majority of the Azerbaijanis are not of Turkic origin. I quote from source number 118 : The genetic results thus suggest that both the Armenian and Azerbaijanian languages represent language replacements in the Caucasus. The origins of the Armenian language are obscure, but the Azerbaijanian language was probably introduced in the 11th century AD by central Asian nomads (Johanson 1998). A common mechanism of language replacement is elite dominance (Renfrew 1991), whereby the language of a small invading group is adopted by the larger resident population, either because it is imposed by force or because it is considered socially desirable to speak the language of the invaders. If the invading group is primarily male, then one might expect patterns of Y-chromosome variation to retain some trace of the invaders." Same statements are in the other sources, again, desist from misrepresenting what the sources say. Thanks.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's your POV, that it's "not notable enough". The modern Azerbaijanis are Turkic for a reason, and therefore have (at least partial) Turkic origins. That's a simple fact. It is backed by the provided sources. So stop pushing your odd POV and imposing of the word turkification all over, it's just one aspect of the Turkic nature of the Azerbaijanis anyway. It can't be used as the only headline of the section, simply because it doesn't cover it all. That one wave of settlement alone was made up of 40,000 families, which makes about 160,000 individuals if we assume only four individuals per family. And that's the year 1025 we're talking about, not 2018! Those sources with the genetic researches also confirm partial Turkic origin. The Turkic component was substantial enough to constitute the primary language, identity, and culture of the people. That alone is notable by itself. So again, stop pushing that term as the only aspect of the Turkic component. That's cherry-picking at its finest, your way of interpreting the sources. I have left the turkicisation in the headline as one of the main article links, so this should be a good consensus. Akocsg (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So you keep going on denying facts and sources huh ? i provided a source just above which clearly states that the language of a small invading group is adopted by the larger resident population, therefore your 160000 individuals (WP:OR by the way) are a small group compared to the resident population. this is not my "odd POV", this is what the sources say, so cool down and stay cool dude. To push it further, this source states that "present‐day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool." and also "Neighbor‐joining tree based on Nei's genetic distances and correspondence analysis according to DRB1, DQA1 and DQB1 allele frequencies showed a strong genetic tie between Kurds and Azeris of Iran. The results of AMOVA revealed no significant difference between these populations and other major ethnic groups of Iran." and again "No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians.". Therefore, while i provide reliable sources to back what i say, you only provide your POV. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:OR etc ... I would suggest you to drop the stick.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Not all genetic studies say Azerbaijanis are Turkified by 'Elites'. That's something you made up. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf this study says already debunks what you said. It says "In Azerbaijan this contribution was 18% in females and 32% in males" and 'this contribution refers to Central Asia. On top of that, Y-DNA is completely irrelevant since it represents only a small part of your overall heritage. Plus you completely ignore the Qizilbash migration into Azerbaijan/Iran from Anatolia who were predominantly of Anatolian Turkmen origin. Please refer from edit warring or pushing your POV. Also, I suggest you to google Autosomal DNA if you want to learn about genetics, instead of referring to ancient studies regarding haplogroups. I can help if you want. If it interests you, here's myheritage data on Azerbaijanis. https://www.myheritage.com/ethnicities/azerbaijan/country-ethnicity-distribution Tasase5 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: You better focus on content, not editors and desist from righting great wrongs. How are three sources from 2003 and 2011 "ancient studies" ? especially while you are quoting and giving an undue weight to a PhD from 2006 ? None of the 2 above "sources" are convincing me. And for your information, i don't need any help in order to understand genetic studies, the point is that i just cite what the sources say and try to refrain from Synthesis of published material.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: I believe I specifically said ancient studied regarding haplogroups I didn't say ancient studies. The latest study on Azerbaijanis also confirm that they're both close to Iranic populations (Kurds) and Turkmens (Gorgan).

In another study from 2017[41], Iranian Azerbaijani subjects from Tabriz were studied for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles, which were used to compare their relatedness with other Middle Eastern, Caucasian, Mediterranean and Central Asian populations. According to the study, "genetic distances, Neighbour Joining and Correspondence analyses showed that Azerbaijanis were close to Kurds, who have shown a closer Mediterranean/Caucasus HLA profile, and Gorgan (Turkmen) who have shown a closer Central Asia profile".

Also you not being convinced doesn't change the sources above. Azerbaijanis are of mixed origin. They are not Iranians that the Turks "forcibly brainwashed" into speaking Turkish (besides, if that's the case then why isn't entire Iran Turkish speaking?). They're rather a mix of Turks and native Caucasians. As autosomal studies and personal results say so Tasase5 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: Let me see if i got you straight :

So the study you're quoting above says that Azerbaijanis are firstly close to Kurds and secondly to people living in Gorgan and your conclusion is "They're rather a mix of Turks and native Caucasians. As autosomal studies and personal results say so" ? This is a blatant misrepresentation of what the source says ...

Also interesting, your above remark "They are not Iranians that the Turks "forcibly brainwashed" into speaking Turkish (besides, if that's the case then why isn't entire Iran Turkish speaking?)" only shows a blatant lack of historical knowledge, since Turks themselves used to speak Persian back then ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: The people who live in Gorgan who show closeness to "Central Asian profile" as the study says are Turkmen natives of the area who speak one of the Oghuz languages.

since Turks themselves used to speak Persian back then yes. I suppose you refer to Turco-Persian tradition. Which proves that the Turks were not hostile to Iranian culture and didn't have ambitions to assimilate it but rather preserve it since the Turks considered it as high culture. Tasase5 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: Again, the problem is your interpretation of what the sources say (see WP:SYNTH ...) and the undue weight you try to give to few sources over the others. Azerbaijanis are primarily close to Kurds (an Iranian people) and secondly to the people of Gorgan which is mainly comprised of Gilanis/Mazandaranis (Iranian peoples too ...) and Turkmens and then you conclude that Azerbaijanis are a mix of Turks and Caucasians ! quite a strange conclusion ... This is a blatant misrepresentation of what the sources say. Also, you cannot find a dodgy source that pleases your POV and then rewrite all articles accordingly, ignoring what the mainstream of sources say. I also reverted your edits at "Origin aof the Azerbaijanis" for these very same reasons. Lastly, i agree with you when you say that Turks were not hostile to Persian language, and i would add that Persians were not hostile to Turks either, this gave birth to Turco-Persian tradition.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

::::::::@Wikaviani: Let me quote the study. The study clearly mentions "Neighbour Joining and Correspondence analyses also showed that Azeris were close to Kurds, who have shown a closer Mediterranean/Caucasus HLA profile, and Gorgan (Turkmen) who have shown a closer Central Asia profile, as expected". There are no "Mazandaranis" or "Gilanis". Only Turkmens are mentioned. Specifically, Turkmen samples from Gorgan. And they have shown a closer Central Asia profile. Which proves that Gorgan Turkmens are Central Asian, ie Turkic, and not of Iranic origin. So no need to accuse me of "misrepresentation".

::::::::regarding the "dodgy source", well it's a legit 200+ pages long study. I wouldn't call it dodgy. Plus AUdna studies regarding Azerbaijanis are rare and you're removing a legit study regarding it. Studies regarding Azerbaijani heritage are mostly about Y-DNA studies, and some of those studies also do show Turkmen-like heritage influencing Azerbaijan. Also the "dodgy study" I posted is actually quoted by various a peer-reviwed study on NCBI (references table) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904778/. If it were dodgy as you claim, it wouldn't be taken seriously by a peer-reviewed article on NCBI. Tasase5 (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: You really need to get the point : Wikipedia works with consensus and what the mainstream of sources say not what one or two selected sources say, you cannot edit all Azerbaijanis related articles according to that single source just because it supports your POV. Also, your source primarily deals with the admixture of Central Asian genes to Anatolian peoples.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Again I added only 1 source. The latest study from 2017 was not added by me. Secondly, "mainstream sources" don't uniformly claim the same thing. Another study for example says There is evidence of genetic admixture derived from Central Asians (specifically Haplogroup H12), notably the Turkmen, that is higher than that of their neighbors, the Georgians and Armenians.[8]. Which implies a Turkmen-like heritage in Azerbaijanis. Then the 2017 study I quoted, which is the latest study, says that Azerbaijanis are close to Gorgan Turkmens after Kurds. Which indicates a Turkmen-like heritage in Azerbaijanis. Now that 2 other studies before I added one more claim a Turkmen-like heritage in Azerbaijanis (amount can be discussed), it means mainstream sources don't really go against the study I posted. There is indeed Turkic heritage in Azerbaijan along with native elements. Plus the very page of "Origins of Azerbaijanis" say The Azerbaijani people are of mixed ethnic origins. So don't understand the point here. The amount of studies doesn't really matter but what matters is findings. Therefore every relevant study must be added.

while it's true that the study I posted primarily deals with Anatolian Turks, not Anatolian peoples, it also deals with Central Asian contribution to nearby populations as well to some extent. Plus it's one of the few autosomal dna studies that's about Azerbaijanis. So can't see why the study shouldn't be added there (which by the way was there for almost a month)Tasase5 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tasase5: All the peoples on Earth are of mixed ancestry, and so are, indeed, the Azerbaijanis, Turks, Persians, Etc ... that's not the problem. Azerbaijanis have, indeed, some Central Asian admixture, nobody denies that and as you said, other sources say that they have higher Central Asian admixture than Armenians and Georgians, my point is that we are not allowed to interpret the sources and pick few of them to support a POV or give an undue weight to some sources over the others. First, the study you're talking about is mainly dealing with Central Asian admixture to Anatolia, and aside, with the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It clearly says that Azerbaijanis (of the Republic, i presume) are firstly close to Kurds, who are an Iranian people and secondly to the people of Gorgan ( only the Turkmens of Gorgan ?). Then it says that since the author found over 20% ( arround 25% ) genes from Central Asia, this might indicate that there was no elite dominance. I do not agree with you when you say that the mainstream of sources "don't uniformly claim the same thing" since the mainstream of sources indeed support an elite dominance process, but few of them, strangely all from Turkey or Azerbaijan Republic, support the opposite, thus, if inclusion there is, it should be made with extra care to preserve WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I have not been able to find reliable sources from great western universities that are denying the elite dominance process ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

::@Wikaviani: Yeah all nations are mixed. And to be clear, I wasn't interpreting anything. I only added one source and the part I added was directly taken from the study word to word. The study said The presence of a 20% or more admixture proportion in the RLR, and the presence of even higher contributions around the region, suggested that language might not be replaced inaccordance with “elite dominance model” as you can check from the study here: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf. What I was doing was definitely not interpreting but rather quoting.

:: Regarding origins, the 2017 study was conducted by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena which doesn't sound like a Turkish or Azeri name to me. To be frank I find the origin discussion rather irrelevant. Some Azerbaijani guy can also come here and claim the elite domination theory comes from Iran/Armenia sources. If it's a legit study then it should be there, who cares about the nationality of the person who conducted it? I personally don't. That's just nationalist stuff. Science is universal.

:: And yes only Gorgan Turkmens were included according to the study. Study specifically mentions "Turkmens" and they are of "Central Asian profile". Tasase5 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As i said, quoting is ok, and inclusion has to follow WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I'm gonna ping some other experienced and neutral editors who are familiar with this topic in order to have some more insight. @Wario-Man, Kansas Bear, and HistoryofIran: Gentlemen, your insight is welcome in order to determine if the above source (http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf) is reliable and can be added with a relevant quote.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about these kind of genetic sources, although it does looks kinda dodgy to me. Perhaps a low quality source? Surely there must be better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't follow the conversation above, but I doubt Middle East Technical University is considered "low quality source". It's not a random university in Turkey. Of course the thing is. It's a thesis. I don't know if thesis's can be used as sources. Beshogur (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said that that university is low quality, but a thesis that is supporting a minority view cannot be cited per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. For more informations, you can take a look at this thread.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that there was a discussion about this months ago. Not sure if people are still following this, but I fixed the way the PhD thesis was represented. It was cited as if it was supporting elite dominance suggestion, but it's actually saying the opposite. PhD thesis is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. But it's a primary source. It can be considered UNDUE if you can find secondary sources showing overwhelming agreement. However, before I added a secondary source, all other sources were also primary. I made some changes but the section is still a mess and needs more work. Bogazicili (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Maziar Ashrafian Bonab

Regarding the below part in Genetics section:

"Research conducted by Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, et al. of the Department of Genetics at University of Cambridge showed that Azeris living in Iran are connected to the Persian (Iranian) people of Iran in terms of their FST (fixation index) value, their MRCA (most recent common ancestor), and their mtDNA genetic types, and that Azeris are distant from Anatolian Turks and European Turks"

The source is a website source (khazaria.com). This person doesn't seem to have anything relevant published [1]. The closest thing is this I think: [2]. It has nothing about Turks or Turkish people or Turkic people. So I'm removing the part above. Bogazicili (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Sweetkind5 took out "Turkic" from the background part in the lead, reverting to: "....are a Turkic ethnic group with mixed Caucasian and Iranian background.[48][49][50]". I reverted this, because it seems to imply they are a Turkic speaking ethnic group with Caucasian and Iranian background only. This misrepresents sources. Eg: "The Azeris are a Turkic people, the descendants of early Caucasian peoples with later Persian and Turkic admixtures" [3] Bogazicili (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Massive revert

Wikaviani made a massive revert [4], saying "Reverted to older version. Please follow WP:BRD and take your concerns to the talk, as most of the sources of the genetics section are secondary sources and many of your your edits seem to go against WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Thanks" I undid this revert.

First of all, all sources in genetics section were primary, as they were not review articles (ie: secondary sources). Second, I did not delete anything (besides the part about Maziar Ashrafian Bonab). I fixed misrepresentation of sources, and added information from a secondary source (a review article). This information [5] is from a secondary source. Sources like these [6] are primary sources, as they are not review articles. This study [7] was misrepresented, that was fixed here: [8]. These two sources [9] [10] are not saying the same thing, which was also fixed here [11]. Results of same study were repeated twice, which was also fixed [12].

I think reverting these changes meets the definition of disruptive editing, or the person reverting did not read the edit summaries. However making a false claim that sources in the genetics section were secondary sources is really questionable, as it should have been easy to check they are primary sources. Not to mention, Wikaviani re-added information from an unreliable source (about the research of Maziar Ashrafian Bonab), even though I had created a talk section above (Talk:Azerbaijanis#Maziar_Ashrafian_Bonab). Bogazicili (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article

Çakır Ceyhan Suvari, Elif Kanca. (2012). "Turkey and Azerbaijan: On the Myth of Sharing the same Origin and Culture." Iran and the Caucasus (16: 2). pp. 247-256[13]
Some passages and excerpts:

• "Various competing concepts have been developed in accordance with the varying policies to classify and define other societies that speak Turkic languages and practice Islam. The “Captive Turks” concept was first used by some Turkish politicians and academics to describe the peoples of the former Soviet republics, such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, where Turkic languages are spoken (see Ayan 2011; Polat 2008). The “Soviet invasion” has been shown as the primary reason for the significant cultural, economic, and political distance between these states and Turkey, as well as the main excuse for any unjust event that the states in question may have experienced."

• "Outside Turks” live outside the boundaries of the Turkish Republic. This conceptualisation refers to a homogeneous Turkish identity that stems from the same roots, shares a common culture, and speaks the same language. As a result of such an understanding, it is suggested that Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks and Kazaks are all Turkish peoples, ignoring all differences regarding culture, religion, and language. Turkey is the centre of this perception of “Turkishness”, the model of the super-ordinate identity presented to other Turkic societies. For this reason, some Turkish politicians and academics argue that "Outside Turks" are in need of Turkey’s protection, and only Turkey can provide a model for them (Gömeç 2007: 120)."

• "The criteria of “common origin” and “common language/culture” maintain their centrality in the definition of nation-state identity. Considering this, Turkish researchers who study the origin of Turks have stated that they, as one of the oldest societies of the world, have established large states and formed great civilisations throughout history. According to them, Russians are the first people responsible for the dividedness of “Turks” who currently live in different countries and form separate Asian states."

• "Regarding these “common origin”, or the so-called common social memory and culture, can it be said that Turks and Azerbaijanis represent a single homogeneous group? Historically, the population of Aran and Shirvan (present-day Azerbaijan Republic) and the Turkic-speaking inhabitants of the northwestern provinces of Iran, Aturpatakan, who are, infact, the real “Azebaijanis”, during many centuries, especially in the Safavid period, have been in permanent inimical relations with the Ottoman Turks. These groups, i.e. the peoples of Azerbaijan (Aturpatakan), the south-eastern Caucasus (Aran and Shirvan) and the Ottoman Turks not only competed but also represented two separate ideologies, respectively espousing Shi‘ite and Sunni Islam. The only common social memory of these communities is that of the mutual war and massacres. For instance, the Ottoman Sultan Selim Yavuz who is the first Sunni sultan to hold the title of caliph, in Azerbaijan Republic, in Iran and among Shi‘ites of Turkey is remembered as a butcher."

• "The people of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic has never been loyal to Turks and Turkishness., For instance, just in the beginning of the 20th century, the members of the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti) sought alliances under a Pan-Turkist ideology in the South Caucasus, but was not reciprocated by the people. there. Instead the latter allied with their co-religionists in Iran (Atabaki 2005: 33-42). This reveals that the identities of Azerbaijanis (or, to be more precise, the Turkic-speakers of Aran) and Turks have been formed upon different historical, ethnic and cultural substrates. Among these, the factor of religion plays here a very important role. The fact that most of the Azerbaijanis are Shi‘ites, whereas Turks are Sunnis, has caused significant distance between these two turkophone communities. Azerbaijanis have preferred Iranians, who belong to the same religious ideology, instead of their “linguistic relatives”, the Turks."

• "The national ideology of Turkish Republic, which considers itself the leader of the Turkic communities, views the others as “brothers” in a “single nation” with Turkey, of course, as the “big brother” and “protector”. Turkey considers itself the most advanced nation in terms of civilisation and culture and sees its role in teaching its “advanced” culture to these “Outside Turks” who barely survived from Russian “captivity”."

• "Although the “Single Nation, Two States” slogan and accompanying emphasis on “brotherhood” imply the sharing of a homogenous culture, simultaneously they have an implicit sense of “otherisation”. The concept of “outside” makes a reference to a “Turkishness” that is separate from “us”. The myth of sharing the same origin and the widely circulated term of “bortherhood” actually serve no significant purpose other than building a “me(us)/others” dichotomy. In terms of the “Turkishness” ideology in Turkey, which places its own national identity at the centre, "Outside Turks" are viewed as passive societies."

• "Although the mode of relations between the Turks in Turkey and the Turkophone Muslims of the South Caucasus (Azerbaijan Repubic) has radically shifted from antagonism and enmity to an expression of “brotherhood” after the emergence of the independent republic of Azerbaijan, still their relationship remains fragile and inconsistent, especially since Heydar Aliev came to power in 2002. In fact, the real relations between these two Turkic-speaking groups of the region begin upon the disintegration of the USSR. The previous history of their mutual ties, as we mentioned above, was nothing else than a constant chain of bloody events and atrocities."

• "Despite the intensity of the “single nation” cliché in daily and political life of Azerbaijan, it does not occupy as significant a place in Turkish political and popular discourse, which is reflected also in the textbooks. At different stages of Turkish primary and secondary education and in various spheres, including social sciences, history and geography, Azerbaijan, sui generis has not been considered a unique country. Instead, it is mentioned as part of the identity of the Turkish Republic (Erdoğdu 1996)."

• "Turkey locates its national identity, as the criterion, at the centre of the “Turkish (i.e. Turkic) World”. Turkish language is also central; Azerbaijani is reduced to a dialect of Turkish, degraded by that to a source of humour. In contrast to the expression of “brotherhood” and the idea of “single nation” repeated within political and academic environments, Turkish textbooks have not portrayed Azerbaijan in the same light. They do not describe this country as an independent state but place it on a low rung within the hierarchal order with regard to Turkey. The “brotherhood” emphasis that we see in the discursive level actually functions to cover the hegemony and “otherisation” process, which the ideology of the Turkish nation-state promotes."

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)~

OK. So what do these articles have to do with the subject? There are also a lot wrong with the Republic of Turkey. Many of these so-called "articles" seem to have been written by people who are not trained in the subject. BörteçineKhagan (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)BörteçineKhagan

Infobox image

How correct is it to use an image of few Azerbaijanis to represent the whole ethnic group? Most other ethnic group articles don't have images like this. Should we remove it? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Most others may not have them because there may not be an appropriate image to use. There are also many others that do carry such images. I personally prefer for the image to stay as I think that it has what it takes to be an infobox image: it is colourful, positive and representative of the traditional culture. It is by no means there to make any racial generalisations. Parishan (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

For some background, me and Parishan discussed this here a bit. About this discussion, I don't think a lot of people have this talk page on their watchlist, so they might not see this. Should we perhaps open an RfC to have more people comment on the issue? Also, I think if absolutely were to use an image, it would be better to use a more historic photo like it's done in Hungarians and Mongols. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If a historical photo is acceptable "to represent the whole ethnic group", why would this modern photo not be? Parishan (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Because they're images the ancestors of those people, rather than the modern mixed-ethnicity ones. Also, the current image seems to have some filter on. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The image on Mongols features one single person and is from 1913. Could he possibly be the ancestor of the entire people? I doubt it. The image on Hungarians is an artistic and not factual representation of the early Hungarians. Hence, I still fail to see a problem with the photograph in this article. Parishan (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, we can't use an image or several images of a member of ethnic groups in an article about ethnic groups, simply to show how they look like. This has been established through 2 different RfCs, so I don't think this is an opinion-matter anymore. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What you are referring to has nothing to do with the kind of image we are discussing here. An "ethnic gallery" refers to collages of visuals depicting renowned people of a given ethnicity placed in the infobox, which was a common practice on Wikipedia some years ago. This practice was voted down because it created too much controversy as to whether or not one or multiple famous persons depicted in the collage really did represent the ethnic group in question (e.g. was Tesla Serb or Croat?) or identify with it (e.g. can Nizami or Ismail I be considered Azeri?). The picture in this article is not a gallery and does not depict anyone whose identity can be legitimately questioned. Parishan (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Parishan, it still has the same idea though. It was disallowed because it tried to represent the ethnic group in question with image of few people. And in this case, we're representing 30+ million people with an image of 7 girls. You can have the image somewhere in the article body, but having it in the infobox is not appropriate in my opinion. If you don't agree, then we can invite a WP:3O which can give a more uninvolved opinion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Both discussions specify that the kind of visuals that are not admissible is portrait galleries. Therefore, it is nowhere near the same idea because after said practice was abolished, most galleries (including the Azeri one) were replaced by pictures of ordinary folk, such as this one, and no one at the time found this in violation of the RfC you are referring to. Before inviting a third party, I would really like to understand what I am arguing against here because the argument of "seven girls representing 30 million people" seems a rather strange and awkward starting point: no one claims or has ever claimed that the photo was there to "represent 30 million people" and no one can possibly find a photo that would depict all 30 million people, and that is not what infoboxes are for. This is simply a photo of Azeri girls in ethnic clothes in an article dedicated to ethnic Azeris. What exactly is the trouble with this photo? Parishan (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes are usually the thing most people view first, which is why it includes the most important information from the article (e.g. the number of members of ethnicity, where they live, their language and etc.). By including an image of 7 girls in the infobox as the first thing readers see, we'd be implying that these 7 girls are a good example of how all ethnic Azerbaijanis look. Thus, they'd be representing the whole ethnicity. This is one of the reasons that most ethnicity articles don't have images of their ethnic members. The problem isn't with the specific photo, but the fact that we're using few people to represent the many. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt that anyone in the right mind would look at a picture of seven persons and imagine that the other 30 million look exactly like that. Perhaps there is something in your argument that I am still missing but based on my current interpretation, I truly fail to see how this can even remotely be a problem. Parishan (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No one would imagine that 30 million people look exactly like that, but the image of the girls would give them the idea that Azerbaijanis generally look like that. I'll be inviting the 3O now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would you assume that "the image of the girls would give them the idea that Azerbaijanis generally look like that"? And if it does (which I doubt), why is that a problem? And why, in that case, would you be more accepting of a vintage photo, as you suggested earlier? By that logic, it should be considered even more controversial as "30 million people" today certainly do not look like a farmer or a seamstress from a nineteenth-century portrait. Parishan (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why I would assume that? What other idea is an image of 7 girls as the first thing in the article about an ethnic group is supposed to give? I'm quite surprised that you're asking me how that assumption is a problem. It's a problem because we're representing 30-35 million people with a filtered image of 7 random girls. By "vintage photo", I meant that a more iconic, historic photo (e.g. some very famous artwork depicting that ethnicity). I'd rather not include them either, but if we absolutely had to include an image, I'd prefer that over the current image of random girls. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the image is not filtered. The filter tag has been there from a previous lower-quality upload but since Mr. Litvin sent me a higher-resolution version, I just uploaded it over the older one. Second of all, this picture is also a work of art: it is not a random shot made by a tourist passing by but one produced by a professional photographer and featured in an American-published periodical. Thirdly, I do believe that this photo is iconic enough for an infobox since it depicts a symbolic and culturally significant context. Lastly, I am still puzzled as to why one should perceive this image as an accurate representation of 30 million people and why one would even have such an expectation of a Wikipedia infobox image, considering how widespread this practice is on this and other encyclopedias. Parishan (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the colours of the image have been filtered. By "iconic" I didn't mean "symbolic", I meant very famous works of art. Regardless, not sure why we're discussing this as it's not related to the inclusion/removal of the current image. I hope the 3O will help us clear out any confusions, including yours about why someone would assume that, as it seems I can't. — CuriousGolden (T·

C) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The "No ethnic galleries" policy states verbatim that "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this and this thread for the most recent consensus discussion on the topic." CuriousGolden is correct. Ardenter (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The image in question is not a photomontage nor a gallery of images. The policy is not applicable here. Parishan (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter could you address Parishan's concern above as a 3O, so we can reach a consensus? Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussions referred to above were very specifically about galleries, not individual images - I seem to recall that one ethnic group had over 48 images in the infobox, with more being added daily, and repeated additions/deletions/rearrangements by people including their favourites, and moving them to the top/deleting people they didn't like, or moving them to the bottom. Such galleries also looked a mess even on a desktop, goodness knows what it was like on a phone. Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

While the policy refers only to a number of images, the point of the policy is to avoid having an image "represent" an ethnic group. Parishan CuriousGolden

Agree per Curious Golden. ChillManChill (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the current infobox image and it hasn't been an issue for some time. Showing ethnic groups in traditional dresses is very much encyclopedic and standard for such articles. Per Arjayay above, what was actually deprecated in ethnic infoboxes are galleries of various notable persons which is not the case here. Brandmeister^talk 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If none of you agree with the third opinion provided by Ardenter, then I believe best step would be to take this to WP:DR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This part of the sentence is so blatantly false and wrong

"have revived Azerbaijani nationalism."

How can something be revived if it never existed? The word "created" should replace "revived". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickofthisbs (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

enyclopedia iranica

I want this page to be rewritten. I do not think these articles are impartial. the page is mostly equipped with iranica encyclopedia and propaganda, instead i suggest writing an article with reliable sources such as britannica encyclopedia

Iranica is reliable per WP:RSP, Britannica is not per [14]. Take this somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Azeri language.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality and Original Research

Regarding the below part in the Origins of the Azerbaijanis section:

"Most academics view the linguistic Turkicisation of predominantly non-Turkic-speaking indigenous peoples and assimilation of small populations of Turkic tribes as the most likely origin for the people of Azerbaijan.[66]:6–7"

I have the full pdf of "The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule", and there is no such thing in those pages to justify that sentence. It says Azeri Turks pay special attention to Caucasian Albania and Atropatene, and consider modern Azerbaijan as heir to Caucasian Albania. But there is no such thing to justify the quoted sentence. On the contrary:

The History of Azerbaijan noted incursions by Turkic speaking groups from “the beginning of our era,” which increased in the 5th to the 7th and the 9th to the 11th centuries.28 Ashurbeyli stated that “from antiquity” the Shirvan region had been a place where Caucasian-, Iranian-, and Turkish-speaking tribes mingled and argued that “in the 6th century intensive migrations of Turks into Aran, Shirvan, and Mughan occurred”29 p. 5

So I will be deleting that sentence and adding an Original Research tag, until other sources can be verified, because this is not the first time I've seen misrepresentation of sources (see above section).

Also we have giant quotes from Russian, Arab historians, as well as from Encyclopaedia Iranica, but there seems to be no viewpoints from Azeri historians in this section. As such I'm also putting a neutrality tag. The source I quoted has bunch of information from Azeri historians, none of this is in this Wiki article. Bogazicili (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Azeri historians" are pretty un-notable and notorious for their radical ethnic bias (like most former Soviet republics). See Historical negationism and Caucasian Albania, both articles provide countless sources on the unreliability of azeri "historians", and their revisionist campaigns to turkify the entire history of the region. That's why Western and Russian sources, as well as primary historical sources are used. For example that claim by that azeri that there were mass influxes of turkics in the 6th century is not found in any non-turkic source at all, neither primary nor secondary. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If you read the source "The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity under Russian Rule" by Audrey L. Altstadt [15], Azeri historians opinions are still mentioned. Everything should be presented in a balanced manner per sources. Bogazicili (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If they've been deemed notable enough by a RS, they're notable for Wikipedia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence: "Modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian[115][116] and Iranian peoples[117][118][119][120] who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and north of Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification." Lets go over source by source:

• [16] "Caucasus Albanians, the ancestors of the Azerbaidjanians of Shirvans" Seems to be ok.
• [17] "The Albanians in the eastern plain leading down to the Caspian Sea mixed with the Turkish population and eventually became Muslims.....while the eastern Transcaucasian countryside was home to a very large Turkic-speaking Muslim population. The Russians referred to them as Tartars, but we now consider them Azerbaijanis, a distinct people with their own language and culture." Does not support "primarily the descendants of the Caucasian" claim. On the contrary, supports mixed claim. This is another example of original research. The above quote comes from a very reliable source by the way Ronald G. Suny
• [18] this is ok too
• [19] primary source, not ok
• [20] and [21] are tertiary sources. Wikipedia should use secondary sources whenever possible. However, lets also accept these sources too. Only [22] supports mainly Iranian claim: "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 gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia."

What other sources say:

• "The ethnic origins of the Azeris are unclear. The prevailing view is that Azeris are a Turkic people, but there is also a claim that Azeris are Turkicized Caucasians or, as the Iranian official history claims, Turkicized Aryans." p. 6
• "If native Caucasian, Iranian, and Turkic populations - among others - dominated Azerbaijan from the fourth century CE onwards, the Turkic element would grow increasingly dominant in linguistic terms,5 while the Persian element retained strong cultural and religious influence.....Following the Seljuk great power period, the Turkic element in Azerbaijan was further strengthened by migrations during the Mongol onslaught of the thirteenth century and the subsequent domination by the Turkmen Qaraqoyunlu and Aq-qoyunlu dynasties." p. 5-6
• "The Azeris are a Turkic people, the descendants of early Caucasian peoples with later Persian and Turkic admixtures." p. 1766 (also a tertiary source)

Based on the sources above, it's clear that the current sentence does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Here's my suggestion:

The origin of Azerbaijanis has been described as "unclear" p. 6, mixed Caucasian and Turkish [23], mixed with Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic elements,p. 5-6p. 1766 mainly Caucasian[24], and mainly Iranian[25][26]

Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more preferable. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with Original Research in Genetics section

There are still lots of problems with this article, including genetics section. Some examples:

1) Current text: "Genetic studies demonstrate that northern Azerbaijanis are more closely related to other Caucasian people like Georgians and Armenians than they are to Iranians or Turks". Source: [27]

2) Current text: "No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool". Source [28].

These are primary sources. You can't synthesize and interpret primary sources in this manner per Wikipedia:No original research ("Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself"). You need to find a secondary source that says something like "Most genetic studies support the view...". Also a 2007 source is not a current result, it's dated. There are lots of similar issues that I will look into over the next several weeks. Bogazicili (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you might want to take a look at WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Besides, the sources you're talking about are, in my opinion, primary and secondary. Not sure why you are quoting that WP:OR, there is no original research here, only inline cites directly taken from the sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The source says this "A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in theCaucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armeniansand Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups". The page says this "Genetic studies demonstrate that northern Azerbaijanis are more closely related to other Caucasian people like Georgians and Armenians than they are to Iranians or Turks". Those two are not the same. Comparing Azerbaijanis with all Turkic speakers (aggregate) is not same with one on one comparison (Azerbaijanis and Turks/Turkish). Bogazicili (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You only read the beginning of the source, you might want to read the page 259 :

"Thus, in agreement with previous studies of mtDNA

diversity and Alu insertion polymorphisms (Nasidze and

Stoneking 2001; Nasidze et al. 2001), Y-chromosome haplogroups

indicate that Indo-European-speaking Armenians

and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians are genetically more

closely related to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus

than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere.". ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As to the other source, it says, at the end of the summary section : "No close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians. According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool.".

I don't see what WP:OR you are talking about.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Those parts are the results of current studies the articles were reporting. As such they are primary sources. I said why that is OR above. I suggest the below wording:

"A 2002 study which looked 11 Y-chromosome markers suggested that Azerbaijanis 'are more closely-related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere'. A 2007 study which looked into class two Human leukocyte antigen suggested that there were 'no close genetic relationship was observed between Azeris of Iran and the people of Turkey or Central Asians'." Bogazicili (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, you might want to read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and i still don't see what WP:OR you're talking about. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and it supports what I say. So you are against simple edits suggested above? If not I'll make the edits soon. If yes, it'll have to go to dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with your above wording, but i don't see which WP:OR you were talking about.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

number in the world

Beshogur, https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/wd/106995 – it does not say here that the 2001 article. Cancellation of useful edits, including and spelling[29]. 2001 this is an article in "Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine". That source that is now it is 2002. According to 2015 article in Iran 6-6.5 million, see infobox. Secondly, it is well known that Azerbaijanis in Iran is very integrated and assimilated and practically no ethnic consciousness. That is, over the years, the number of Azerbaijanis becomes less, and not more. Two different sources say there are only 17 million Azerbaijanis. Why not give such an opinion. V.N.Ali; 15:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@V.N.Ali:, Larousse doesn't seem like a WP:RS, barely providing an information. The Ukrainian website says "Статтю оновлено: 2001". So, no reason to use a 20 years old source. According to 2015 article in Iran 6-6.5 million that's unrelated to your sources. Secondly, it is well known that Azerbaijanis in Iran is very integrated and assimilated and practically no ethnic consciousness. That is, over the years, the number of Azerbaijanis becomes less, and not more. your source? Beshogur (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1689/7365a6feaf7d29715c82f6ecf0ca56071e24.pdf?_ga=2.176533285.126436276.1641659183-1611719093.1641659183 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481719/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Principal-coordinates-plot-based-on-RST-values_fig2_232742809
Sources and tables in scientific sources speak of kinship with the Eastern Turks, and in the file added to the section of this article, wrote "Kurds". That is, the Wikipedia file does not correspond to scientific data. V.N.Ali. 16:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on these sources, I remove the fake drawing from all articles in the English Wikipedia. V.N.Ali. 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging Azerbaijani population by country

I suggest merging Azerbaijani population by country into this article as it does not pass the criteria of being a separate article but will be useful as a part of this article.--Armatura (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with merging data from Azerbaijani population by country. For example, the cited material for the diaspora in America only takes into account Azerbaijanis from the Republic of Azerbaijan. It excludes the Azerbaijani diaspora community from Iran, where most Azerbaijanis come from. WikiNutt (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Religion

@Golden:, Justify the cancellation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijanis&diff=1087246606&oldid=1087245262) of the edit in the article. Do you agree that the bulk of the sources in the article card (except Arakelova) believe that the majority of Azerbaijanis live in Iran [Islamic Republic of Iran], and not in the Republic of Azerbaijan? That is, even if the entire Republic of Azerbaijan is filled with staunch materialists, without sources with data on Azerbaijanis in Iran, we cannot make such statements.

Secondly, even the indicated source on the Republic of Azerbaijan writes:

percentages for actual practicing adherents are probably much lower

And in general, by this cancellation, you returned a non-consensual (WP:Consensus) edit that you added a few days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijanis&diff=1086813860&oldid=1086811976).

V.N.Ali (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@V.N.Ali: I didn't realise the source only refers to Azerbaijanis living in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Your edit was correct, and I've now reverted myself.

On the second point, the source states that "religious affiliation for the majority of Azerbaijanis is largely nominal", so "mostly non-practising" is correct for Azerbaijanis in the Republic of Azerbaijan. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not a sock account.

I am rarely using Wikipedia and I want to say that this is my first and only account. Blaxoul (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Author bias: Arakelova Victoria

@LouisAragon: I was trying to find more info about Arakelova and found her Facebook page. She does seem have personal bias against Azerbaijan. Like putting hashtags "#ArmeniaAgainstTerrorism" during the Second Karabakh War. calling another state "terrorists", etc.. Considering the 6–6.5 million figure seem a bit off, that doesn't match with other sources, which most sources says about Iran's +-15% pop. are Azerbaijanis. Do you think it's logical to use her works about Azerbaijanis as a source? Beshogur (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• "'She does seem have personal bias against Azerbaijan."

Since when does posting the hashtag "#ArmeniaAgainstTerrorism" equal publishing biased statistics about the number of Iranian Azeris?

• "calling another state "terrorists", etc."

She didn't call another state "terrorists", I checked the Facebook page.

• "Considering the 6–6.5 million figure seem a bit off, that doesn't match with other sources, which most sources says about Iran's +-15% pop. are Azerbaijanis. Do you think it's logical to use her works about Azerbaijanis as a source?"

Actually, she's not the only one questioning the total number of Iran's Turkic/Turkic-speaking population:

• "There were no national censuses indicating the population types, geographical distribution, political, socio-economic, and linguistic situations in various ethnic environments in Iran. The lack of relevant information on the ethnic groups has led to incorrect assumptions about the nature of ethnicity and ethnic composition in Iran. For instance, while the total number of the Turkic-speaking groups in Iran, according to our estimations, does not exceed 9 millions, almost half of the population of the country (30 millions) are usually considered to be Turk." -- Sekandar Amanolahi. (2005). "A Note on Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in Iran". Vol. 9, No. 1. Iran & the Caucasus. p. 37

Unless there's some sort of bigger scheme amongst accredited academics in this peer-reviewed journal, I see no reason to exclude mention of such statistics. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Since when does posting the hashtag "#ArmeniaAgainstTerrorism" equal publishing biased statistics about the number of Iranian Azeris? She didn't call another state "terrorists", I checked the Facebook page. I? Plus she has an entire post about Ottoman serials calling it "безбашенного турка" ("reckless Turks"), posting picture Monte Melkonian, who assassinated Turkish diplomats, etc. She definitely seem to have some anti Azerbaijani and Turkish bias. Actually, she's not the only one questioning the total number of Iran's Turkic-speaking population: I agree the 30 million figures are fantasy, but 6–6.5 million figure isn't convincing either. Your last source is from 2005, where Iran's population was 70 million back then, which seems logical to me. My concern is, beside her personal bias, the number doesn't match other estimates. Beshogur (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest taking any concerns to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I doubt this will make any difference. She may have reliable work, but wanted to put my concern. Beshogur (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard endorses that source as reliable (and it will probably do so if we submit the source there), then i don't get well why you have concerns about those figures.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It's cute how this source is being pushed forward. Victoria Arakelova is an associate professor at Yerevan State University (according to her Linkedin, other sources claiming she's a professor with the Russian-Armenian University), she's an individual who many academics in the west would scratch their heads going, "who?". I can't find her specific academic credentials and her work has been cited by literally nobody worthy in this field relating to Iranian census keeping, Azerbaijanis, etc. In addition, she's worked with Garnik Asatrian (professor at Yerevan State University) in estimating the population of Azerbaijanis in Iran from pure speculation as detailed in the last link. Garnik Asatrian being an Armenian nationalist, originally from Iran, who's implored the Armenian government to suppress Kurdish linguistic rights to native Yazidis (Kurdish subgroup).

Cool backwater source bro!

https://www.academia.edu/34541190/ETHNIC_COMPOSITION_OF_IRAN_by_GARNIK_ASATRIAN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnik_Asatrian

https://www.kavehfarrokh.com/news/updates-and-photos-from-yerevan-state-university-conference-november-2013/

https://volnacaspiya.com/2020/11/02/%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%B5/ WikiNutt (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur I remember reading Arakelova to verify the information included in the page. Just her tone came off as biased and condescending. I couldn't find an entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for this source. Did anything come out of this issue? If it is the only choice, I would support this source to be discussed for its reliability whatever the outcome may be. Otherwise, this issue will stay as a deadlock. Ayıntaplı (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple problems

I am surprised to see that almost no editor to this day cared enough to better this page and no tags for problems were placed despite a whole bunch of them. The page definitely overuses quotes, regurgitates content, and even directly takes sentences without any quotation marks, which also causes undue attention to the ideas of certain authors and details that can even be irrelevant for certain sections. I noticed quite a bit more issues like original research and bias, but the former should have been easier to notice. Ayıntaplı (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

We are all surprised by the blatant Pan-Turkish and Pan-Turanism that certain Turkish (not even Azeri) members of Wikipedia are peddling here. Their bad faith also has a chilling and determinantal effect on the improvement of this page. --Arad (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood the intention of this message, which was meant to be separate from the ongoing dispute. There are obvious flaws within this page regardless of point of view, such as the (past) overuse of quotes and direct inclusion of the words of the author without quotes, although I also mentioned bias at the end. So, this is the wrong section for WP:PA. Thank you. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Related People and HLA Study

@Golden: @Beshogur: Why is the fact that Azerbaijanis are ethnically related to Iranian peoples controversial? If it isn't then the change to add this detail should not be reverted. In fact, the closest ethnic group to Azeris are Kurds, and confirmed by various studies and papers cited in this article.

The Origin Section should not open with a sentence that "in many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language." The classification of Azerbaijanis as a Turkic people is fine, and is discussed elsewhere, but is unrelated to the actual origin of Azerbaijanis, which the section delves into after that opening section by highlighting the diverse background of them.

The 2022 study should be kept in the article, unless valid objections exist. Copied below for reference:

"A 2022 study of HLA alleles and haplotypes showed that the population with closest genetic link to Azeri people of Tabriz is Kurdish, followed by Iranian Gorgan and Southern Russia/North Caucasus Chuvash; probably because these latter groups and Azeris were populating North Mesopotamia and Caucasus Mountains since prehistoric times. Kurds (in Iraq and Iran) do not speak a Turkic language (they speak Kurdish, an Iranian language), while Azeris do. Kurds and Azeris are both genetically close, but they are not genetically close to present day Anatolia (Turkey) Turks who also speak a Turkic language but show a typical Mediterranean HLA profile. In summary, the authors conclude that Azeri population studies show examples that genes and languages do not correlate, as Azeris of Iran are genetically closer to the wider Iranian peoples than they are to Turkish people, contradicting the postulate asserted by others."

Thank you. --Arad (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In my revert, among other problems like WP:CIRCULAR (which I would expect you to be aware of as a returning editor), the research you quoted didn't appear to be correctly reflected. But when I scrutinize it in-depth now, it is surprising to see such a study got to be published in a journal. First of all, the paper cites Wikipedia as source! But I will continue this non-exhaustive list of problems: The paper starts with a biased and perhaps irrelevant introduction of history. This is the first sentence of the Introduction:

"Persia was founded by Cyrus the Great by 6th century BCE. It comprised territories from Libya, Egypt, Balkan Peninsula (Macedonia) and Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Middle East, Anatolia, and Caucasus Mts. area up to Indus Valley, including Iran mesa"

Is it believable that Persia included territories in Ukraine in general? It can be debatable at best. And more importantly, is this relevant? In addition:

"The most frequent haplotype found, HLA-A*24:02-B*35:01-DRB1*11:01-DQB1*03:01 (3.09%), is shared with Central Asians and Mediterraneans; the second one, HLAA*01:02-B*08:01-DRB1*03:01-DQB1*02:01 (2.06%), is also found in Caucasus Mts. and Mediterranean populations. The third most frequent haplotype found in our Azeri sample, HLA-A*03:01-B*07:02-DRB1*15:01-DQB1*06:02 (1.55%), has a North Eurasian origin."

I don't think these were reflected in the paper with any weight, despite this being the main finding of the research. The paper draws conclusive arguments despite only presenting less than ten percent of the extended haplotypes. Thus, not WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This is just a subset of the problems of the reverted edits. However, thank you for your effort to better this page.Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd second this. Also the fact that Arad's removing "Turkic people", claiming Azerbaijanis are not is POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it also contested that Azerbaijanis are related to Iranian peoples and Caucasian peoples? The body of article already states this. Once we have cleared your position, we can discuss the details. Thanks. --Arad (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Ethnogenese is different think than modern ethnicities. No they are not an Iranian people even if their ethnogenese have that. Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether they are an Iranian or Turkic people is matter of much debate. What is clear is that the origin of the Azeri people is partly (if not mostly) from people of Iran and Caucus, with whom they share a lot of their culture and history. You seem to recognize that even their ethnogenese is Iranian/Caucasian. Hence. they are clearly related to Iranian and Caucasian peoples. It's simply blatant POV pushing to say they are related to Turks and Turkmen not to Iranians and Caucasians. Other languages in Wikipedia recognize that. If you cannot recognize it, then there is a clear bias and we need to escalate this matter before engaging in an edit war. --Arad (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Back to your criticism of the research article, a simple research on Achaemenid Empire shows that under Darius I, Persia controlled the shores of Black Sea, including parts of southern Ukraine. As a layman, your interpretation of their genetic findings (which is fully consistent with many prior studies cited in this Wikipedia page) is irrelevant, as you are not an expert in their field. The amount of one specific shared haplotype doesn't correlate directly with how closely related people are. The ultimate calculation is more complex than that, which the article shows in its appendices and through neighbor joining method. --Arad (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't interpret anything. I (along with one or two more editors) believe that this source is not reliable. The existence of the Achaemenid Empire in Ukraine is quite brief, and thus "debatable." But this was not my main point, because the first sentence is analogical to starting a paper on the greatest extent of Spain with all its territories overseas, when the paper actually focuses on the genetics of the Catalans or other minority groups. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This shallow criticism of the paper does not invalidate it, as it is written by reputable authors from diverse backgrounds specialized in the topic. Again I restate my question/concern above, which goes to the heart of all these discussions: Whether they are an Iranian or Turkic people is matter of much debate. What is clear is that the origin of the Azeri people is partly (if not mostly) from people of Iran and Caucus, with whom they share a lot of their culture and history. You seem to recognize that even their ethnogenese is Iranian/Caucasian. Hence. they are clearly related to Iranian and Caucasian peoples. It's simply blatant POV pushing to say they are related to Turks and Turkmen not to Iranians and Caucasians. Other languages in Wikipedia recognize that. If you cannot recognize it, then there is a clear bias and we need to escalate this matter before engaging in an edit war. --Arad (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Arad, I don't feel comfortable discussing this issue with your tone. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Statement about the people in the Republic of Azerbaijan used to describe the entire ethnic Azeri population

"They are the second-most numerous ethnic group among the Turkic-speaking peoples after Turkish people and are predominantly nominal Shia Muslims."

This would be true if it was only about ethnic Azerbaijanis in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Since most Azeris live in Iran, this statement is not true. Salazar the terrible (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate please? Beshogur (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I believe user:Salazar the terrible is trying to say that the ref only deals with the Republic of Azerbaijan, not Iran. It does not cover the statement it is trying to support (that is, all Azeris being supposedly nominal Shia Muslims). The sentence should either be adjusted, or the ref/statement should be removed. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Salazar the terrible and LouisAragon: If my memory serves me correctly, I added this a month or so ago without realising that the source does not refer to *all* ethnic Azerbaijanis. I've removed "nominal" now to correct this. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golden: Great, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golden Ah, Great. Salazar the terrible (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Population numbers in Infobox

The infobox's population estimates for Iranian Azerbaijanis have a number of problems that need to be addressed:

The "10.9-15 million" part is entirely superfluous. The CIA Factbook, Knüppel, Ethnologue, and Swietochowski are the four sources cited for it. According to Ethnologue and Swietochowski, there are 15,900,000 and at least 15 million Azeris living in Iran, respectively. Although Ethnologue source mentions 10,900,000, it actually refers to the number of Azerbaijani speakers, not the number of people with Azeri ancestry (the source reads: (Wider communication). 10,900,000 in Iran (2016). Ethnic population: 15,900,000 (2014 J. Leclerc)). It appears that Ethnologue was used incorrectly as a source for the 10.9 million figure. We can move both of these to the "15 million" section. I'd be grateful if someone could direct me to the CIA factbook's purported quote, 16% of 77,891,220, since I can't locate it anywhere in the source (including in the archived version). Regardless, if the quote is accurate, the source can be added to the infobox's "12–18.5 million" section. Regarding the Knüppel/Iranica source, I don't believe it's appropriate to use it as a source for numbers on the infobox because it makes no mention of any statistics for the Azerbaijanis of Iran and instead discusses the entire Turkic population in Iran.

Finally, the "15 million" portion of all three sources uses language indicating or implying that the number is higher than 15 million, not 15,000,000:

• Brittanica: more than 15 million in Iran
• Ethnologue: 15,900,000 [≈16,000,000]
• Swietochowski: at least 15 million

Thus, in my opinion, "15 million" should be changed to "15+ million". I'm ready to implement these changes, but I first want to hear any feedback. Thanks. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I'm responding to your comment in this section so as not to complicate the discussion topic in the section below. I agree with the removal of Britannica. Meanwhile, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the 20 million number since it appears so commonly among academic works. One such example is Helena Bani-Shoraka's 2009 paper "Cross-generational bilingual strategies among Azerbaijanis in Tehran" which gives the estimate of between 15 and 20 million Azerbaijanis in Iran.

Regarding the organisation of the number headings, I continue to find the disposition odd. The fact that "12-18 million" and "15+ million" are separate headings despite the fact that one is mathematically included in the other is strange. I propose combining the two headings into a single "12-20 million" section, with the addition of the new sources for the 20 million number. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Golden: seems like CIA doesn't use population % for Iran anymore. So we should remove that. Beshogur (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was unable to locate it either. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes because, as I said, it's updated regularly, probably they just removed the figures. Beshogur (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Arakelova

I've now implemented the proposals above. While we are working to improve the infobox, I believe that the Arakelova source, which presents an extraordinarily small number for the population and is not supported by the majority of RS, should not be used. The recent entry about it at RSN by Ayıntaplı appears to support removing the source as a source for these numbers. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There should be a conclusion made on Arakelova. The participation in my earlier entry was lower than I expected, ultimately getting ghosted. The percentage should be removed at the very least, because that is a clear contradiction with basic arithmetics, which we can call pseudomathematics and mathematical fallacy, thus pseudoscience, even if we took the source as completely reliable, because putting a statement like 1+1=11 would undermine Wikipedia's reputation. It is important to note that various non-RS published in peer-reviewed journals exist. In this case, the journal and Arakelova's relationship is also questionable. Thank you to anyone who states their opinion.Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

While Arakelova's "maximum less than 5 % of the population" is obviously a bit off, her 6-6,5 million estimate isn't (strictly mathematical speaking). Do we have proof that the latter is a fringe view? Because there are other sources with similar numbers, such as 5-5,6 million (based on a 2006 census, Asatrian, G. (2012), Étničeskaya kompozlclya Iran, page 60) and 9 million (Amanolahi, S. (2005), "A Note on Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in Iran", Iran and the Caucasus, page 37. This is already kinda pointed out in the RSN, including the fact that there isn't really a scholarly consensus regarding these numbers. While we're at this, why is a often unreliable source such as Britannica still being used? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a bit off, but off by more 50 percent of the actual percentage for her estimate and the “maximum less than” also worsens the situation, which clearly resembles an informal rant. She cites Asatrian, her mentor and colleague, so their estimates aren't independent from each other. As per what I explained earlier, Amanolahi's is also a decade older and still a significantly higher estimate. On a different note: I am repeating myself, but regardless of this source’s reliability, what are we going to do about the percentage? That has been an unanswered question of mine since the abandoned discussion on the noticeboard. Is it okay to put a huge mathematical absurdity in the page, which readers can easily notice, just because it is what the scholar says? Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is a huge exaggeration. 6-6,5 million of 2011 population census was like what, around 7-8%? She said 5% was the maximum at best? She cites the numbers put by Asatrian, just like he she did Amanolahi. It's no different. What do you mean by your percentage question? The latter isn't listed in the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It was not around 7-8 %, but exactly from 7.98 % to 8.67 %. Both 5 % (let's not forget "maximum less than") and the aforementioned numbers are small, but percent error is relative to these two values not 100 %. The deflation is 59.6-73.4% even for her own estimation, and even middle schoolers can easily know that 6 million will not make 5% from a population of less than 100 million people, which is not justifiable for a supposedly peer-reviewed paper from an associate professor, with the exception of WP:BIASED. Peer-reviewed does not mean unbiased. That's why I am overemphasizing this, because it is impossible to see this as a simple mistake for an article that is checked through for multiple times and written by a professor. By the way, the percentage is listed on the body text in Azerbaijanis as well as on other pages, such as Ethnicities in Iran. Ayıntaplı (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is in a rather awkward stage now, being discussed simultaneously in two different places, here and (still) at my talk page [30]. Let's not continue on my talk page. Anyways, I don't think I need to explain the prominence of Iran and the Caucasus and Brill Publishers. As others have said (both in my talk page and the RSN), if there isn't any proper amount of literature that disputes the neutrality of Arakelova, I don't see a reason to dispute it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to bloat your talk page and was planning to carry the discussion to his own talk page if LouisAragon responded. By the way, I am again repeating myself, but should the percentage be removed or stay? Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The percentage should be removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much for this clear answer. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems not only the percentages were removed, but also the 6-6,5 million number [31]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice. I'm correcting it now. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, we can remove Britannica, if everyone agrees of course. See no problem with it. I've created another sub-section for other sources. Ayıntaplı (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As a final note, I am now completely abandoning the discussion on Arakelova, hopefully forever, not because I believe all points were addressed or full decisions were made by independent editors, but the amount of tension elicited just from the suggestion of a discussion is very disturbing to me, and I don't want to be a lonely "rookie" (as the person taking actions), although this issue started before I was aware of it with many other concerned users. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Other sources to be removed

The source for the total population is two decades old and deviates from the sum of the sources at hand. I think we can remove it. We can replace the removed sources with new ones from this decade or late 2010s. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Later, I'll try to find newer sources on the total number of Azerbaijanis. By the way, the #In Iran section needs to be rewritten to reflect the new estimates. Currently, nearly two paragraphs of text rely solely on Arakelova and do not mention any of the other estimates mentioned in the infobox. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:UNDUE for a source that is faulty at best. Ayıntaplı (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Swietochowski is from 1999. It is old, so it should be removed or kept as a historical number. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

Caucasian-speaking Albanian tribes are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of the region in the north of Aras river, where the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan is located.

Please remove modern-day. The use of "is" shows that the present republic is indicated; if a past republic were indicated, the verb would be "was". 192.180.91.15 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@192.180.91.15:  Done — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Population of Azerbaijanis in the Republic of Azerbaijan

Hello. I think there is a mistake in the numbers of Azerbaijanis living in Republic of Azerbaijan. There are more than 9 million Azerbaijani population written (91.6% in cia.gov and stat.gov.az) in the sources, but on the wikipedia page, it is written as around 8 million. Vusal1771 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vusal1771: In both sources, the ethnic percentage numbers are given for 2009, when the total population of the country was 8,922,447. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Thanks for answering. Vusal1771 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)