Talk:Azerbaijanis

Armenian Authors and Sources

Please, remove all references to armenian sources on the genetics of Azerbaijanis. Armenians are at war with Azerbaijanis, invaded 20% of Azerbaijanis and as such can't be impartial or objective in their research. Therefore, pls, remove these two sources and all references to these armenians sources (Yepiskoposian and Andonian - Armenian authors)in the genetics study of Azerbaijanis.

Yepiskoposian, L. et al. (2011). "The Location of Azaris on the Patrilineal Genetic Landscape of the Middle East (A Preliminary Report)". Iran and the Caucasus 15 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1163/157338411X12870596615395. Andonian l. et al. (2011). "Iranian Azeri's Y-Chromosomal Diversity in the Context of Turkish-Speaking Populations of the Middle East" (PDF). Iranian J Publ Health 40 (1): 119–123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Atropates not Persian

Atropates was not a Persian man. Medes and Persians quite different. Please remove the Atropat in the article on the Azerbaijanis.

Remove from close ethnic Iranian peoples and the peoples of the Caucasus. Azerbaijani language has nothing to do with Iranian and Caucasian languages. Azerbaijanis are Turkic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I was also against to show Atropates as a Persian, but the other side submitted a reference where it was proved. If you have another source saying the opposite, please provide it and we will be glad to enrich the article with different scientific point-of-views.
2. No one says that Azerbaijani language has to do smth with Iranian or Caucasian languages; related people means these people are related to each other by historical, cultural, geographical, ethnogenesis and in some cases, religious ties.
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I do not know much English. Many sources. The sources do not say that he was Persian. Medes Atropatena was not Atropatena Persia.

2) Why in the article about the Iranian people or the Persians did not write what the Turks they are related geographically and culturally religious?...

Atropates satrap of the Medes Medes not Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Chamoux, Francois (2003). Hellenistic Civilization. Blackwell Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 0-631-22241-3: This became evident when Alexander appointed as satrap of the important province of Media the Persian Atropates, who had held the same office under Darius.

2. Not Turkic people related to Persians, but only some sub-groups, e.g. Azerbaijani people, Qashqai, etc, in whose ethnogenesis they took part and with whom they are neighbors. In the case with those articles, they were claiming that Azerbaijani people are not related to the Iranian people, but are on of the Iranian peoples (the claim which deleted by me, based on the references). Please, see the corresponding articles, their talk pages and their edit histories to be sure about that. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Write nonsense. Where is it said that Atropates was ethnic Persian? I gave a source where it says that Atropates not Persian.

Azerbaijanis Turkic origin. This scientific biological fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-507 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, use less aggressive tone and sign your comments. Just for politeness. I just provided a source, saying that he is Persian. Azerbaijani people are Turkic not by biology, but linguistically. Please, at least read the article fully. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot define people just under linguistic categories. I have told this before. Many people similar in language, might be much more different in culture, genetics, etc. Turkic people is a case. Think about it. That is confirmed in this and other articles by many sources.-Raayen (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case I agree with the user Az-507: Azerbaijani people are Turkic (OK, with quite complex ethnogenesis, but who is in the World pure Turkic or Iranian nowadays, everyone has a couple of different ethnic groups/tribes in their ancestry), because this classification in Wikipedia is BASED on linguistics. The problem was different case. Now it is solved, not without the help of the administrators. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this need a discussion at all ?! Azerbaijani people are a contemporary nation that didn't exist before (This is not to slight you. you have a great history that dates back to many centuries before this. Of course! if you accept it). Look at the image template above the article. There is no famous person older than Nasimi and Nader Shah. As much as you try to make it older, you reach to nearly like to Ismail I, who was an Iranian/Azerbaijani, because, his mother tongue (your racist/linguistic criteria!) was both Persian and Azerbaijani. I repeat! Ismail I mother tongue was Persian too. This fact is not in your racial mind set, because the lessons they have taught your forefathers and fathers at the time of Soviet Union were contrary to this fact. That was because of Russian nationalism and Turkism enforced by Stalin and alike to have republics of one nation-one language in Soviet Union and specially in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and now because of the false lessons continuing in Azerbaijan Republic taught to Azeri children, undermining minorities or maybe majorities who the real connection; the central Asians like Uzbeks, Tajik people and Caucasian lands had and have with Iran. Please try to come into terms with it. Ethnically, the origin of you, Ismail I, was from Firuz-Shah Zarrin-Kolah a Kurd and before that of a significant Sufi order in Gilan, Iran in the first place. The Turkic element is minor, just a language, a tool. That is confirmed by souses. Azerbaijanis are Persian people, Iranian and Caucasian peoples and last but not least a Turkish people, Deal with it. The world has had enough of the mind set you are into taught in Soviet times. We are seeing that again and again like in Euromaidan. Stop it! Your heritage of soviet union doesn't help the world.-Raayen (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask you to speak more polite (WP:NPA). You can call me whatever you want, but not racist!!! (Please, at least, have a look at my edit history.) Firstly, Stalinism was against any Turkism and it was a crime then. Secondly, no one refuses about the multicultural past. But the fact is that the Turkic people assimilated the other ethnic groups/tribes and we are a Turkic nation now. It is a scientific fact. If you have another respected and trusted source claiming something different about CONTEMPORARY Azerbaijani people, submit it, please, and we will learn a new scientific approach.

Azerbaijani people are a Turkic ethnic group in whose ethnogenesis Indo-European, Caucasian and Turkic elements took part. But now due to the definition given in the articles they can be neither Iranian, nor Caucasian by means of language. OK, we assimilated Caucasian elements - Lezgins, Tsakurs, Avars, Albanians, muslim Georgians and some other groups that doesn't exist anymore, Indo-European people - different Tat groups (Tat is a name given by ethnic Turks to the other groups living beside them which were linguistically different, but culturally alike), Talyshs people, and a bunch of Turkic tribes.

But if we will have a look in the history of any other nation in World history, we will see the same thing. Turks of Turkey assimilated 2-3 dozens of ethnic groups from various backgrounds and continue to do so; but it doesn't make them non-Turkic people. No one denies the Iranian and Caucasian background/history of the Azeri people. But the keyword here is history. Open any authoritative/prestigious encyclopedia and read about the current classification of the Azerbaijani people. I am not saying that Azerbaijani people are pure Turks, and I am clearly against this unscientific and nationalistic crap.

But making Azerbaijani people part of Iranian people which is defined as an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of Iranian languages? You can not be serious. By culture they are related and that's why Iranian people are in the related group (what I support and you will be sure if you will have a look at my edit history). I am against all type of nationalism (in case, with my compatriots) and/or imperialism (in case, with some Iranian users, which try to include all people who are culturally-impacted by Iranians or have them in their ancestry to some degree).

And yes, the linguistics is not a minor tool, on the contrary, together with the people's self-designation it is the major. Although in Azerbaijan Republic people consider themselves as Azeri, very close related nation to Turks, brothers of them, in Iran they call themselves clearly, Turk and the language Turki, as far I know. So language can not be called a minor issue.

So my offer is if you have a source saying so please, provide it and we will discuss it here. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

All Azeris all kurds all persians all lurs all Baluch all Mazandranian all gilakies and etc are Iranian I'm iranain from azeri descent even my family name has ardebily on it we have relatives from all of this group and if you read history and genetic studies u will find that this is true we are one nation one divers nation with same roots even meds and persians in ancient times had same roots they are now part of all of us.my father speak azeri till he was 5 but he is pro iranian my mother mother speak very rich delicate farsi from hamedan (the capital of meds) my other grandfather speak 5 iranian languages azeri,kurdi,farsi,luri,mazani.

i believe in one nation of Iran as we all should be , Azerbaijan is now a independent country because Russians take it from our mother land kurds are now decided because ottoman empire take iranian lands and after the WW1 western power never gave our land back , pakistani baluchestan is not part of Iran its because british empire take it .Afghanestan was part of iran but because of british involvement they gain independent but they are part of us even Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ,the place today called uzbekistan was made after Stallin move persian language natives from there to further into ussr territory cause he didn't want them to be near persian speaking nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabiz (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Terekemes

Could the users interested in Turkish and Azerbaijani people show some interest in Terekeme people also? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

More emphasize on the vast understatement of the amount of Azeris in Iran per the CIA

There needs to be put even more emphasize on the fact that the CIA's estimation for the amount of Azeris in Iran are an utter underestimation. The amount ranges from 16/18% till 40%.

Perhaps adding even more sources that support the 20-30% amount of Azeris in Iran would help. Also Irans population has grown since the time the census has been made, so sincerely asking to update the amounts (27 million needs to get higher etc as the population has also increased)

94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move 14 February 2015

• Azerbaijani people → Azerbaijanis
• Bahamian people → Bahamians
• Bangladeshi people → Bangladeshis
• Barbadian people → Barbadians
• Bolivian people → Bolivians
• Chilean people → Chileans
• Colombian people → Colombians

– 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:

• "Azerbaijanis" got "About 27,900 results"
  • "Azerbaijani people" got "About 2,790 results"
• "Bahamians" got "About 25,700 results"
  • "Bahamian people" got "About 3,270 results"
• "Bangladeshi people" got "About 48,900 results"
  • "Bangladeshi people" got "About 2,450 results"
• "Barbadians" got "About 36,100 results"
  • "Barbadian people" got "About 588 results"
• "Bolivians" got "About 69,900 results"
  • "Bolivian people" got "About 7,710 results"
• "Colombians" got "About 164,000 results"
  • "Colombian people" got "About 11,500 results"

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)

Kommentar 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.--Samək^Talk 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)