[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Azerbaijanis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAzerbaijanis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 6, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 23, 2012Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 4, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Azerbaijanis live in Iran, Georgia, Turkey, Iraq and the United States, as well as Azerbaijan?
Current status: Former featured article


Lead

[edit]

In order to be consistent with the article about Iranian Azerbaijanis, i edited the lead accordingly. All constructive remarks are welcome.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with this article, but with the Iranian Azerbaijanis article. I could provide numerous scholarly sources that describe Azeris as a Turkic ethnic group. To question this is unreasonable. The fact that their origins have mixed with Iranians and Caucasians does not negate their Turkic identity. — Golden call me maybe? 10:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our best sources describe this group's identity as being Turkish speaking and Shiite, take a look at what Frye says. A solution could be to write Turkish speaking group in the lead, but the current lead is in contradiction with what is said at Iranian Azerbaijanis since this ethnic group includes the Iranian Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're trying here. Frye is not only source and Frye doesn't even say such thing. Beshogur (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I agree with @Dêrsimî62:'s edit on the lead. Mention of "mixed heritage" is WP:SYNTH. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm trying to do ? unlike you, i just try to go by what reliable sources say. By the way, just stop labeling every content you don't like on Wikipedia as being "SYNTH", you seem to ignore what WP:SYNTH says, because you don't read the sentences until the end, so i quote it for you : "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." Thus, combining sources is not a problem, but implying conclusions not supported by either of the sources is. If we are not able to find a common ground then i'll open a RfC.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements are not explicitly stated in the sources. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion This is exactly what it is about "mixed heritage". Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think about this when reverting, since it wasn't pointed out by Dêrsimî62. Feel free to change the article if others agree. Aintabli (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again you ignore what Frye says : "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers", Thus, they have mixed heritage while being mainly of Iranian descent.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Here is the full quote. Plus the problem is combining various sources and adding as one sentence. Beshogur (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, combining sources is not a problem, as i quoted just before. Please read the guideline yourself if you want.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you don't read the sentences untill the end ... it says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.", but Frye explicitly says that Azerbaijanis are mainly of Iranian descent.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are you wrong by mentioning Azerbaijanis have a supposed Iranian origin you’re also stupid to be mentioning 1 source as the only indisputable one. Frye has been criticised numerous of times for that claim. The only ones that actually believe it are Iranians like yourself and the ones that are editing most of these pages. coming and spreading Iranian propaganda and trying to paint Azerbaijanis as an Iranian people when they clearly are not has got to delusional and childish on your part. Altynordu (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also here are some other opinions of professors on the matter of the origins of Azerbaijanis.
Professor Karl Kaser wrote,
“Turkish and Azeri people today are considered the descendants of these arriving Turkish-speaking populations. Turkic presence in the Caucasus dates back at least to the seventh century and became stronger with the arrival of Oghuz Turks who appeared in present day Azerbaijan around the ninth century and are probably the ancestors of the modern day Azeri population.”
Historian Grigorii Filippovich Chursin said that,
“Azerbaijani Tiurks are the descendants of Turkish tribes that at different times penetrated the Caucasus and settled there: a large part of them settled in Transcaucasia in the 13th century, after the great Mongol Turkish invasion. In 1258 Hulagu-Khan sent to Transcaucasia more than 150,000 families of Turkish narodnosti from Asia. The name Azerbaijani Turks refers to the fact that most of the Turks in Transcaucasia passed through the neighboring Persian province of Azerbaijan, where they even now comprise the bulk of the population”
if we go by your logic then it wouldn’t be right to call the modern day Persians Iranians, considering the original inhabitants of those lands were Elamites and other aincent groups until iranic steppe pastoralists came and iranified the area. Altynordu (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say to somebody like you, who is only here to attack fellow Wikipedians that disagree with them and distort what reliable sources say. Done with you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the distortion? Instead I accusingly say that with no backup I find it that it’s you who are attacking me. Altynordu (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources, Kaser (specialized in southern European history) or Chursin (over 100 years old) are expert sources for this topic, they cannot challenge prominent expert sources like Frye or de Panhol, both specialized in Persian history, but of course, since Kaser and Chursin fit with your panTurk agenda, you are trying to use them. As i said above, i have nothing else to say to an editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and keeps insulting other users here (i was not the one who said you are stupid, which is clearly a personal attack). Good bye and good luck.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again here you are wrong kaser specialized in Balkan and south Caucasian history. And again you have edited away something that doesn’t fit your narrative it’s embarrassing. And both these sources are new both being from 2021 why are you removing sourced material. Chursins research was republished with modern evidence backing it or else the university wouldn’t have published it.[27] Don’t do this again or you’ll be reported. Altynordu (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Altynordu has been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Aintabli (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic word choices

[edit]

I suggest to change all occurrencies of garble(d), corrupt(ed) when referring to linguistic changes. Words don’t rot or corrupt, they just change with time and/or when adapted by another language Torzsmokus (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about what the academic sources say, if they say that words corrupt, then that's it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azeri (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oghuz Turkic ethnic groups category should be added to the categories

[edit]

As you know, Azerbaijanis are an Oghuz Turkic ethnic group with Ancient Caucasian, Iranian and Kipchak Turkic influences. That's why I think the Category:Oghuz Turkic ethnic groups category should be added to the category section of this article. Squeaks 41 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a change on history category.

[edit]

I’m suggesting a change and almost a total rewrite of the history category. When you read the history category you quickly realise this isn’t talking about the history of the Azerbaijanis but the history of the land of modern day Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan already has its own Wikipedia page where the history of the land is mentioned so also mentioning it in this page which is talking about the Azerbaijani ethnicity is wrong because the Turks of Azerbaijan didn’t enter the area until the 700-1000s. For example example mentioning the atabegs of Azerbaijan, Seljuks, the qizilbash and the role of Azerbaijanis in the Safavid, afsharid, and qajar empires would make much more sense then mentioning what people lived in the lands before, this is after all a Wikipedia page about the Azerbaijanis. Altynordu (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Altynordu has been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Aintabli (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and WP:UNDUE?

[edit]

I believe @Beshogur and @Wikaviani can discuss the matter here. I guess the main argument of Beshogur is that the infobox can give undue weight to minority opinions, when separately mentioned. A middleway I can come up with is to revise how the sources are presented there so that there is no undue attention given. Aintabli (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "undue weight" here, please read the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT carefully, i quote from it :
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."
here we have a viewpoint held by not only a significant minority but also by prominent experts of this topic.
In addition to Arakelova, let me quote Rasmus Christian Elling (another prominent expert of this topic) : "The number of Azeris in Iran is heavily disputed. In 2005, Amanolahi estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million. CIA and Library of congress estimates range from 16 to 24 percent—that is, 12–18 million people if we employ the latest total figure for Iran's population (77.8 million). Azeri ethnicsts, on the other hand, argue that overall number is much higher, even as much as 50 percent or more of the total population. Such inflated estimates may have influenced some Western scholars who suggest that up to 30 percent (that is, some 23 million today) Iranians are Azeris" thus, this viewpoint is all but held by an extremely small minority (like people supporting flat Earth for example, as said in our guideline). Content is well-sourced and should be restored as per WP:NPOV. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to dive into the discussion, but I have restored the figure in the infobox as I did not realize it was removed several months ago. Aintabli (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005, Iran's population was 70 million, and 82 million in 2015. Claiming they're 6 million in 2020 is a fringe view, and does not match other views, thus it is undue. I'd rather take CIA world factbook than Yerevan state university professor. Beshogur (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your sole argument ? seriously ? Iran had a population of 70 million in 2005 and 84 million in 2020, an increase of 20%, so there are 7,2 millions Azeris in Iran in 2020, so what ? that makes sources like Arakelova or Elling "fringe view" ? come on. As to the CIA, the Elling source is from it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those listed sources are more than decade old and they give a number above 10 million. Which makes Arakelova's numbers fringe. Beshogur (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arakelova is not the only reliable source that gives lower figures, Elling gives comparable figures too, anyway, it's a reliable source and it has to remain in the article as per WP:NPOV.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing the other sources giving lower figures? Beshogur (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As i said above, Elling gives a figure lower than 9 million (in 2005) for all Turkic speakers of Iran so Azerbaijanis alone would be lesser than 8 million in 2005, with a 20% increase, that would mean that there are about 9,5 million (maximum) today.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 million is over 11% in 2005. Arakelova's 2020 numbers equals to 7% of 2020 Iranian population, which is mathematically impossible. Beshogur (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Arakelova's estimate represents between 7 and 8% of the current Iranian population, while Elling's 9,5 millions estimate is around 11%, wow, what a big deal, both are well below the other fanciful estimates (some Azerbaijanis ethnicists claim over 50% of Iranian population ...).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you're showing the lowest estimates. Even Elling's 9,5 millions estimate is around 11% is 3-4% further from Arakelova. While most sources claim +- 20%. Beshogur (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what you're talking about, you asked me the other source with comparable figures with that of Arakelova, that source is Elling and 3 - 4 % difference is not a big deal, given that there is no official census for the ethnic groups of Iran. In Addition to that, Arakelova is the most recent source of the list, many of the others are at least 10 years old, they should probably be removed as they are almost oudated for such a topic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying Elling's 3-4% difference is closest what we have to Arakelova. That's now even remotely close, plus that's the lowest we have. many of the others are at least 10 years old, they should probably be removed as they are almost oudated for such a topic Just because Yerevan State University professor says so, we should not remove a source because it is 10 years old. These sources are 10 years old, yet mentions double the Yerevan State University professor's numbers. Beshogur (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Arakelova is Yerevan state University professor that source should be removed ? I'm sorry, but i'm not enclined to accept that. As i said, there are no official census for ethnic groups living in Iran, thus, sources give many estimates, they should be cited in order to keep a neutral point od view. Yet, Arakelova's estimate is not so far away that of Elling.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion does not appear to be getting anywhere as both parties are not nearing any consensus. But I believe Wikaviani makes a good point about sources' age. In order to solve the disagreement, we can instead use sources from the last 5 years in the infobox, so that the question isn't about Arakelova and older sources. Arakelova is already cited throughout the article, so the infobox is not the only place it is found in, and its total removal is a completely different issue that should be separately discussed. Several sources from the last 5 years I found, about 15 million (2021), 16 million (2021), 18 million (2022), over 18 million (2020), almost 20 million (2020), about 20 million (2022), over 20 million (2021). What are both of your opinions on this? Aintabli (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, I mentioned my concerns about her bias. You can check her personal vk.com account. But I want this being removed because it does not match other numbers, I don't care about Yerevan State University, whatsoever. Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Aintabili's proposal, old sources removed, Arakelova's figure kept in, more recent sources added instead of the old ones. I don't read Russian and i don't trust Russian sites either, thus, i don't care about vk.com.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal involves the removal of Arakelova's figure (which is from 2015) from the infobox as only sources from the last 5 years will be used (hence, partially solving the disagreement), but the figure and her opinions will stay within the article. Would you still agree? Aintabli (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get well why we should chose that threshold of "5 years", i mentioned above the 10+ years old sources. Also, Arakelova is cited in the Iranian Azerbaijanis article.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a compromise I thought could be acceptable to both of you. Beshogur wants Arakelova to be wholly removed, but it merits an independent discussion, and the particular locus of the dispute was the infobox. And you've pointed out the age of the other sources. The purpose here is to address both of your points. (I'm underlining that this doesn't involve the total removal of Arakelova.) Choosing sources from the last 5 years isn't particularly different from using 10 years as the threshold. Aintabli (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Arakelova's numbers to be compelling. And the range of 6 to 23 million is impossible. Most sources provide the numbers of around 15-20 million. For example, Britannica provides the figure of 15 million for Iranian Azerbaijanis at the turn of 21st century, and that number is dated. [2] It should certainly rise in the last 20 years. You can see even from the infobox how many sources provide higher estimates against a single low estimate by Arakelova. It is better to stick to the range that the majority of sources provide. Grandmaster 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is not a reliable source, you should know that better than me since you have been editing here for about 18 years. A far better source than Britannica (Elling/Amanolahi) estimated all Turkic-speaking communities in Iran to number no more than 9 million (in 2005) that would mean that the number of Azerbaijanis in Iran was barely half of what Britannica says while that figure was given 5 years after the turn of 21st century ... I'm sorry, but the fact that Beshogur doesn't want Arakelova's source is not enough for me, that source is one of the best sources we have for this topic and should be cited, just like in the Iranian Azerbaijanis' article for the figures of that ethnic group in Iran. You guys are only making some original research based on weaker sources, like Britannica or others.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address my comment above? Aintabli (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what i said, i addressed it : " I'm sorry, but the fact that Beshogur doesn't want Arakelova's source is not enough for me, that source is one of the best sources we have for this topic and should be cited, just like in the Iranian Azerbaijanis' article for the figures of that ethnic group in Iran." The purpose here is not to address both of our points, rather, it is to improve the article. I find it rather deterring to have to discuss for days and days an edit as basic as adding a reliable source just because some editors don't like it. The article is more neutral and well-balanced with this source than without it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should also read each editors' comments carefully, because I have not raised the same points as Beshogur. I have not even participated in this discussion until a few days ago and instead came up with a suggestion to solve the dispute, but you're now grouping people together, which is not ideal. Aintabli (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Beshogur and Grandmaster, not you. I know you and i know that you were not editing here in the same way than the 2 others. This discussion is going nowhere, maybe a RfC could help us to solve this issue.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijanis&oldid=1233663256"