Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranian Azerbaijanis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Azerbaijanis in Tehran was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 July 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Iranian Azerbaijanis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The lead says of Iranian origin, while it mentions below they consist of Ayrums, Bayats, Qarapapaqs etc. What's the deal here? Beshogur (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Askik Changiz.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, Olivier (2007). The new Central Asia. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. "The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateaux, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris."

This source says that Azeris are people who Turkified the Iranian population of the region. 46.2.201.91 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that. It says the Turkmen "Turkised" the Iranian population, with the people today known as Azeris being their descendants. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Roy ist only a political scientist and not a historian. The other sources are from non-neutral Iranians who are known to want to Iranize anything historical.--217.231.247.219 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to describe my changes in detail yet was accused of "my edit summaries [not matching] the edits [I] made." Clearly, there are many sources that aren't reflected accurately:

^[1] doesn't support the claim of "However the same multidimensional scaling plot shows that Azerbaijanis from the Caucasus, despite their supposed common origin with Iranian Azerbaijanis, cluster closer with other Iranians (e.g. Persians, etc.) than they do with Iranian Azerbaijanis," because the study itself doesn't include Azerbaijanis from Caucasus as far as I remember.

"Other studies support that present-day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one." doesn't represent ^[2]

First of all, who are the "eastern" people? On page 130-131, the Indo-Aryan component is found to be a minor one, and it argues against the theory of Indo-Aryan invasion. This bit is misleading.

"Despite the fact that Azeris do not share any of the most frequent extended haplotypes with Iranians, frequent HLA class II haplotypes in our sample are also common with Iranians from Yazd (Table 4) and relatedness analyses present these populations to be close (Fig 2 and Fig 3). Previous HLA studies show that modern Iranians are close to other Middle East-Mediterranean populations Macedonians, 131 Cretans and Turkish (Farjadian et al. 2009; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002). Thus, the genetic data support the hypothesis that present day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001c; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002)."

This whole part was reflected in my edit. On page 133, the study concludes that Azerbaijanis are close with Kurds and people from Gorgan. All were reflected.

"These results suggest that “turkification” process caused by Oghuz Turkic tribes could also contribute to the genetic background of Azeri people, as other genetic and historic data argue (Yarshater, 1988; Schonberg et al. 2011)."

Threre is also this bit on page 132.

I basically added bits from source. I added almost every section of the conclusion except those about health and Iranian Azerbaijanis' relation to Caucasians, which I probably should have. Nothing here is unsourced but from an already-existing source.

According to the scholar of historical geography, Xavier de Planhol: "Azerbaijani material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions…. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants".^[3]

This is a clear cherry-picking. A whole paragraph was cut with "..." And it doesn't refer to origins but culture and language. I moved that to the appropriate section.

The Iranian origins of the Azerbaijanis likely derive from ancient Iranian tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the 8th century BCE.^[4]

This is not supported by the source. The source mentions the demographics of the region during pre-Islamic times. There isn't such a suggestion.Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "because the study itself doesn't include Azerbaijanis from Caucasus as far as I remember."

It does. Quote:

• "Published population data on complete mtDNA variability in Azeris, Armenians and Georgians from Caucasus, Turks and Iranians from western Asia [40], Sardinians from eastern Sardinia [54] and Tatars from the Volga-Ural region [55] were included in our comparative analysis."

" It is worth pointing out the position of Azeris from the Caucasus region, who despite their supposed common origin with Iranian Azeris, cluster quite separately and occupy an intermediate position between the Azeris/Georgians and Turks/Iranians grouping (Figure 1). "

• ""Other studies support that present-day Iranian main genetic stock comes from the ancient autochthonous people and a genetic input from eastern people would be a minor one." doesn't represent [2]... This whole part was reflected in my edit. On page 133, the study concludes that Azerbaijanis are close with Kurds and people from Gorgan. All were reflected. "

Honestly, this source and the material its supposed to support can be removed IMO. The source is packed with grammar errors and stuff that's been debunked in modern-day WP:RS.

• "According to the scholar of historical geography, Xavier de Planhol... This is a clear cherry-picking. A whole paragraph was cut with "..." And it doesn't refer to origins but culture and language. I moved that to the appropriate section. "

The only thing that was manipulated in that quote, as far as I can see, is that the original text[1] uses "Azeri" and not "Azerbaijani" (I already know which user changed that), and it fails to make mention of this important excerpt from the same alinea: "The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages." I wonder why that part was omitted? There's also some more stuff about villages in the source but it doesn't seem to be important for this Wiki article.

• "The Iranian origins of the Azerbaijanis likely derive from ancient Iranian tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the 8th century BCE.[4] This is not supported by the source. The source mentions the demographics of the region during pre-Islamic times. There isn't such a suggestion"

Agreed, we can remove this as it fails WP:VER.

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so for the first, I was mistaken, but surely, it must be reflected clearly, because it says "intermediate position" and not that they cluster closer to Iranians than Iranian Azerbaijanis.

I would support the inclusion of the third source under Culture in its full form or paraphrased.

So, if you were to agree, my edit will include the removal of the second and last sources and claims, the inclusion of the third source under Culture, and the better reflection of the first source. Ayıntaplı (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayıntaplı: Looks good! Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This once again. This doesn't makes sense. First dna research says Iranian Azerbaijanis are more related to the people of Georgia, than they are to other Iranians then it talks about Turkification and "massive migration of Oghuz Turks" etc. @Golden: do you have comments? Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what else I can add. I would hope that most people realize that this kind of simplification in the lead is not accurate. Currently, we have Azerbaijanis article saying that Azeris are a Turkic ethnic group living mainly in northwestern Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan, while this article states that they are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin. These statements contradict each other. Either this kind of simplification should not be included in the first paragraph of the lead, or it should be consistent with the main 'Azerbaijanis' article. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think carry a mixed heritage of Caucasian, Turkic, and Iranian elements is problematic as well, it's synth. The problem here is, northern Azerbaijanis are Turkic (or partially) and southern are Iranian (fully Turkified), while those sources are combined with eachother. Beshogur (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking a sentence from the article about Azerbaijanis out of its context, please read the sentence in its entirety, it actually says :"In a comparative study (2013) on the complete mitochondrial DNA diversity in Iranians has indicated that Iranian Azeris are more related to the people of Georgia, than they are to other Iranians, as well as to Armenians". Mitochondrial DNA only comes to an individual from his/her mother, not the father. Besides, you seem to ignore what the rest of the section about genetics says, especially this part which is quite well-sourced : "Several genetic studies suggested that the Azerbaijanis originate from a native population long resident in the area who adopted a Turkic language through language replacement, including possibility of elite dominance scenario. However, the language replacement in Azerbaijan (and in Turkey) might not have been in accordance with the elite dominance model, with estimated Central Asian contribution to Azerbaijan being 18% for females and 32% for males. A subsequent study also suggested 33% Central Asian contribution to Azerbaijan." the second part is only about Turkey and Azerbaijan, not Iranian Azerbaijanis. Also, even the sources that support a quite high admixture from Central Asia never goes higher than 33% in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Sounds quite clear that Iranian Azerbaijanis' origins are local (Iranian, Caucasian, etc ...) but not Turkic.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking a sentence from the article about Azerbaijanis out of its context do you mean "massive migration of Oghuz Turks"? I don't think this is about Republic of Azerbaijan. It's talking about Iranian Azerbaijan. Sounds quite clear that Iranian Azerbaijanis' origins are local clear where? So if 67% of their origins are locals, this makes them "Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin"? Also mitochondrial DNA doesn't mean anything. It's thousands year old dna from your mother's mother's (100x). Beshogur (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about what you said about Iranian Azerbaijanis being closer to Georgians than to other Iranians. All the things you're saying are your own interpretation, but you know very well how wikipedia works, we go by what the reliable sources say. The sources say that the process of language replacement was probably achieved with elite dominance, this is cristal clear about the origins of the Iranian Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we go by what the reliable sources say nah, I can't accept this synth.

• Source [19] says: from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris Which indicated both Turkic and Iranian elements.
• Source [7] (Arakelova): I'm not sure what's the exact quote here.
• Source [20]: Fine, two neighboring ethnic groups have genetic similarities. Exists everywhere in the world.
• Source [21] (Frye): 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 says exact thing as source 19.

I don't see "Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin". This means "Iranic peoples" right? Otherwise genetic results show Persians are mostly descended from Iron age south Central Asians. Nobody calls them Iranian speaking Iron age locals. Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not mean that Azerbaijanis are "Iranic peoples", it means that they are a Turkish speaking people of Iranic origins.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I said, and it's technically incorrect. This Turkification isn't language shift only (cf. Urums, fully Turkophone Greek ethnic group) but intermixing as well. Still whole sentence is synth. Beshogur (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies that Iranian Azerbaijanis have some Central Asian gene pool admixture or that they are culturally turkified, but this is not enough to make their origins Turk. Also, you still seem to ignore the numerous sources that support an elite dominance model for the shift of language.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore? Do you think the only problem are those sources? So we should say Turkish people are Turkic speaking people with Anatolian origins or something? This sentence is synth, and should be removed. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about what we should say about Turks of Turkey, this is not our problem here. You quoted some sources above which clearly states what i'm saying.

• from the 13th century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris This says that the Turkish identity of Azerbaijanis is mainly based on their use of the turkish language and them being Shiites.
• The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. Being mainly descended from earlier Iranian populations literally means that they are of Iranian origins.

This has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I advice to read the whole texts. Frye: A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia and The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter was to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they. You clearly ignore these. So they Turkified and suddenly vaporized? Do you understand this from this sentence? And yes it is. Those 4 sources are combined and made up sentence was placed before them. Beshogur (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, i see nothing supporting what you're saying. The Oghuz indeed Turkified Azerbaijan, but this does not mean that Azerbaijanis' origins were changed, it only means, as the sources say, that a new ethnicity appeared, based on the use of the Turkish language and Shiism. Your remark is WP:OR. And again, the sources all say the same thing : Iranian Azerbaijanis are of Iranian origins; no WP:SYNTH here...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My remark is WP:OR? As if I am trying to add something to the article. I am trying to elaborate something. Those authors tell formation of Azerbaijani ethnogenesis, they do not say "Iranian Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin". That's your interpretation. Beshogur (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you just don't know what the word "origins" means, check what the dictionary says about "being descended from". Frye says that Iranian Azerbaijanis are mainly descended from earlier iranian populations, it literally means that they are of Iranian origins.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"mainly" Aintabli (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mainly, so what ? If you guys agree, we can change the lead and say that they are mainly of Iranian descent, which is exactly what the sources say.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani, I'm saying this considering you're I suppose Persian descent(?). Based on this genetic research, a possible sentence like "Persians are Iranian speaking Bronze Age individuals from Iran" on Persians article is correct? See source [2]. (quote: Interestingly, the ancestry pattern found in Indo-Iranian speakers from Central Asia is not found in other Indo-Iranian speaking populations, namely, the Iranians Persians69. This ethnic group displays a genetic continuity since the Bronze Age with ancient individuals from Iran, with limited gene flow from the steppes (either Central or Eastern)69. Just some empathy. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep diverting from the subject? Because you run out of arguments? We are talking about Azerbaijanis here, not Turks or Persians. Besides, what you quote has already been said by several scholars, so yes, it's probably true, but how is it interesting here ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm trying to show how silly it is to make such made up sentences. I don't know who added it at the first place. Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: It was added by Wikaviani in January 2020. [3] — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Qizilbash and Qashqai people, where sources mention that these groups mainly come from a certain stock, and it is reflected in the lead. Here, sources mention that they "mainly" descend from a certain stock, but the lead simply says they are of that origin. Aintabli (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because being of X descent literally means being of X origins, check the dictionary link i posted above.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point was about the correlation between the lead and the rest of the article. I wasn't scrutinizing the terms used in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied after you added If you guys agree, we can change the lead and say that they are mainly of Iranian descent, which is exactly what the sources say. I "mainly" agree, but there might be some more changes. Need a bit time. Aintabli (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what "descended from" means, in another dictionary :[4]. Again, any change must comply with what the sources say, not with what we, as editors, think.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything about Frye here. The problem is the sentence on lede. And you still ignore A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries gradually Turkified Azerbaijan as well as Anatolia that comes afterward. Mainly doesn't mean all. Beshogur (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I got such a comment twice, when I have not interpreted anything about the sources. I pointed out that much of the sources do not use a simplistic language, and that shall be reflected in the lead, which you have proposed just a few minutes ago. Aintabli (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure that we all agree about what "origins" means. @Beshogur : when did i ignore that sentence from Frye ? i said that indeed, Oghuz Turks Turkified to some extant, the Azerbaijanis, but this is not enough to change Azerbaijanis' origins, as the sources explicitly say.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main issue here is WP:WEIGHT. It's not about whether their Iranian origins are dominant enough to call them Iranian people, something that none of us here are qualified to research or determine. Instead, it's about the relevance of their genetic origins in the first paragraph of the lead. Most ethnic groups aren't defined by genetics. According to our article on Ethnicity, An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other based on shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. It's clear that these people identify themselves as Turks and their language as Turki. Thus, they identify with their Turkic elements. Calling them Turkic doesn't mean they have 100% pure Turkic DNA and I doubt most readers would misunderstand that. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whole quote of Frye:

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. The Azeri Turks are Shiʿites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty. They are settled, although there are pastoralists in the Moḡān steppe called Ilsevan (formerly Šāhsevan) numbering perhaps 100,000; they, as other tribes in Iran, were forced to adopt a settled life under Reza Shah. Other Turkic speakers—Turkmen, Qajars, Afšārs, etc.—are scattered in various regions of western Iran. The number of Turkic speakers in Iran today is estimated about 16 million. Most of the Azerbaijanis call themselves and are referred to as Turks but also insist on their Iranian identity, buttressed not only by the religious bond—being mostly Shiʿite in contrast to the Sunni Turks of Anatolia—but also by cultural, historical, and economic factors

Frye refers to other Turkic groups as "Turkic speakers" as well, thus Wikaviani's edit on Azerbaijanis is problematic as well, just based Frye's partial quote. Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that how is Yunusbayev's research relevant to this? He doesn't even mention such thing. Only thing about Iranian Azerbaijanis is: Indeed, Turkic peoples closer to the SSM area (those from the Volga-Ural region and Central Asia) showed younger dates compared to more distant populations like Anatolian Turks, Iranian Azeris, and the North Caucasus Balkars. (SSM: South Siberia and Mongolia for clarification).

Also changing it to mainly isn't ok for me, as this is synth. Similarly, carry a mixed heritage of Caucasian, Turkic, and Iranian elements on Azerbaijanis article. Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when Frye says "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region" this is WP:SYNTH according to you ? How exactly ? WP:SYNTH is about combining several sources in order to imply a conclusion not mentioned by any of the sources, i don't imply anything that is not explicitly supported by the cited sources. Besides, i would like to draw your attention to the fact that Aintabli also agreed with those edits of mines you're talking about.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani Cropping sources is not a good practice. I have added more to the quote from the source you have added. It's important to check that. Aintabli (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Why have you "fixed source" i.e. removed the quote I added? Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because populations do not "overlap" here, the sources cited are more precise for this matter, it's about the origins of the peoples living in that area. Also my fix was intended to fix the issue with source 71 in this version.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do not "overlap" here You may want to check the quote included in the reference (Yunusbayev) you have added, because it uses the term "share" which is close to "overlap". I'm not really concerned with the wording. Feel free to tweak as long as it doesn't simplify details and misrepresent the source. I also stand corrected that your second removal of the quote was unintended. Aintabli (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]