Talk:Azerbaijanis/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Azerbaijanis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Picture collage was changed into Ali Khamenei. I know nothing of his supposed Azeri roots, I am sure someone can prove it to me. Fine. Anyone can tell me what he has done for the Azeris or on behalf of Azeri people. By the same token Turgut Ozal can be included into Kurdish people section. SO the question is - what relation he has to Azerbaijanis. ?abdulnr 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Khamenei is of a iranian azerbaijani backround if that is what your asking, but if you are asking if he feels iranian or azerbaijani, he feels iranian, like the majority of iranian azerbaijani's. khamenei, as well as mossadegh, kasravi, and others, would go under famous iranians or iranians, not azeri's.Iranian Patriot 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Khameni is originally from Khameneh, a small city in Azerbaijan. I guess you are under influence of propaganda of some bias media that are trying to shows Azaris experience discrimination in Iran. In Iran when Iranians want to choose their leaders or high rank managers nobody ask if he is Azeri or Fars. Look at history of Iran and find other Azeris Leader and politicians in history of modern Iran. Do not ignore this fact they were Azeri Safavids who re-established Iran and they prouded to be Kings of Iran and be successors of Ancient Iranian dynasties like Sassanid. Did you know, when Qajar dynasty wanted to stablish the first modern Army in Iran (Qazaqs). They hired Azeris first, because they believed that Azeris are more loyal to their country and because of their patriotism.

Yes my friend, i know this and you know this, but foreigners only want to create divisions between us to make us weak! that is why we have to keep things safe for iran over here.Iranian Patriot 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at least have one female in this picture, males are not the dominant and thats why I think we should keep the first picture with Mehriban Aliyeva or something even better add Googoosh instead her as Googoosh is South Azeri, female and pretty important. Baku87 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Here I even found apretty good picture of Googoosh, see here. What do you guys think? Baku87 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Although picture of Googoosh is a nice idea, I think Supreme leader of Iran is a more iconic figure and should stay in the collage. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kashk, As an Iranian should know better that Khamenei' was borne in Mashhad east of Iran. His father was the an Ayatollah in Mashhad and even his grand father was in Najaf (Iraq). The only reason that one can claim he has some Azeri background is because of his family name that indicates somewhere down the line one of his ancestors may have originated from Azerbaijan. Please refer to his official website and have a look at his biography.[1] or our Iranian friends can have look at Persian Wikipedia fa:سیدعلی حسینی خامنه‌ای . It is in fact quite misleading to suggest him being a typical Azeri.

I strongly agree with Baku87 and believe that inclusion of Gogoosh in th collage is much more appropriate. Mehrdad 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect for Googoosh. But, I do not agree with selection of pop stars or celebrities as representative of a race. Their beauties or looks are usually exceptional and also sometimes fake(by unusual make-ups or beauty surgeries). Do you think, all Americans are handsome like Tom Cruz, or all Turks are handsome like Tarkan or Iranians like Golzaror or Chinese like Michelle Yeoh or all Iranian Azeris are as beautiful as Googoosh --Behmod 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

not all azeris have beards like khamenei does or are mullahs either, so khamenei does nto really represent azeri people in general. i didnt even know khamenei was azeri? and it looks like there is a small dispute about his ethinicy here so i agree with baku87 we should add a female azeri and googoosh is a perfect suggestion. she is populair and azeri and everybody knows googoosh her ethnicy is azeri but we dont know the ethnicy of khamenei for 100% sure Karabakh 12:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting about the beards, to me it looks Khamenei is not the only bearded guy in that picture. You have to remember that not all Azeris are as beautiful as Googoosh neither, I am sure. Looks have nothing to do with this. We know Khamenei is Azeri by ethnicity and thats all that matters here. Azeris live all around Iran not just in Iranian Azarbaijan, and Khamenei is by far the most famous Azeri in Iran. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everybody agrees with you on the ethnicy of Khamenei, I personaly never heard of it before but I think we definitely need a Azeri female between them, you cant give a picture of a nation without adding any females. At the Georgian people article a musician has been added, so why not here? Or a alternative is that we could do like the Irish people picture, we could add 4 more spaces expanding it to 8? And perhaps we can put the pictures in the right timeline, I think then it will look more smoother and more logical? Baku87 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Don't make this personal. I did not claim his ethnicity from my knowledge, but from his own article Khamenei --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Baku87 suggestion. We could add 4 more spaces expanding it to 8. And perhaps we can put the pictures in the right timeline, I think then it will look more smoother and more logical. As an example of Azeri woman from Iran, we can add image of Parvin Etesami, famous poet. What is your idea about the picture of her? --Behmod 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, yeah. I just wish we also had a picture of Samad Behrangi.. my favourite Azari author. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm well Parvin Etesami is a good suggestion but I was not able to find a good picture of her. What do you guys think about Shirin Ebadi the nobel prize winner? Baku87 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Selection of Gogoosh is the most apropriate as she is well known both in Iran and Azerbaijan. Our friend Behmod is mixing this selection with some "race" issue! . Please note we are dealing with ethnic identity of the person rather than race, if there is such a thing. Dear Behmod are you saying that Gogoosh is too beutiful to be represented as an Azeri? Mehrdad 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No Mehrdad, I think there is a misunderstanding here! I disagree with selection of pop stars and celebrities in general. No matter who he/she is, Golzar(Iranian actor), Tarkan, Tom Cruz or Googoosh! Where Azeris have such a great leaders, politicians, poets and scientists. We do not need to select a pop star or celebrities. We have many options and many successful people like Shahriar, Parvin Etesami, Kasravi, Seyed Hosein Mosavi(prime minister), Samad Behrangi, Ali Javan, Baghcheban, ....--Behmod 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Behmod, I respect your point of view, even so I have no problem with pop stars being there. She is a live, current, and represnts a modern personality. Mehrdad 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also thinking about Shirin Ebady (Nobel Prize winner). Is she Azeri or not? As far as I know, she is from Hamedan and Hamedan is a multi cultral city where Azeris, Kurds, Fars and Lurs are living together. If she is Azeri, she could be a good Candidate--Behmod 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have heard on tv that Shirin Ebadi was ethnicly Azeri, but I think we need a redirect to a reliable site for that. Also another important person is Sattar Khan, I dont think I need to explain anything about him as we all know him. I think we need Sattar Khan in this picture aswell only problem is we need a female aswell, any suggestions? Baku87 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Whatever the discussion - and am still not convinced about ethnicities (these things are hard to prove in Iran, since there is no reliable data on ethnicitiy)- sometimes it looks like almost everyone who is of any importance in Iran is Azeri :) - we need a woman on the picture. be it Googosh or Shirin Ebadi. As far as I know Googosh is famous across the border . Best combination is obviously Iranian Azeri woman rather than a bearded leader of revolution with uncertain ethnic origin.abdulnr 13:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So guys whats it going to be Shirin Ebadi or Googoosh? I personaly think Googoosh is more populair but I think Shirin is a better candidate?Baku87 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Here is a pretty good picture of Shirin which we could use. Baku87 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

First find a source that says she is an Azeri --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion of Gogoosh in the pictures for these reasons: - Need to inlude an Azeri from Iran - Most of us prefer a female figure for the balance - She is well known - There is no real objection to her picture being there, except the dislike of Behmod to include pop starts. Which is a POV.

The picture of Khamenei needs to be removed. As previously discussed, there is no proof of him being Azeri. And I quote myself as " Khamenei' was borne in Mashhad east of Iran. His father was the an Ayatollah in Mashhad and even his grand father was in Najaf (Iraq). The only reason that one can claim he has some Azeri background is because of his family name that indicates somewhere down the line one of his ancestors may have originated from Azerbaijan. Please refer to his official website and have a look at his biography.[2] or our Iranian friends can have look at Persian Wikipedia fa:سیدعلی حسینی خامنه‌ای . It is in fact quite misleading to suggest him being a typical Azeri. " Mehrdad 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You know that Azeris and other Iranians looks like each other, there is no way to distinguish between an Azeri or other Iranians except by his/her languages and where he is originaly from. If somebody was born in Azerbaijan or his ancestors were born in there, he/she is called Azeri. Also if his/her language was Azeri he/she is called Azeri.

Well, Khamenei is originally from Khameneh in Azerbaijan and he speak Azeri. Every Azeri in Iran remembers when he has a visit from Azerbaijan his speeches are in Azeri. --behmod talk 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, about Azeri female everybody agrees with Parvin Etesami but there is no complete agreement about Googoosh and Ebadi. Therfore, our first choice is Etesami.

Bye the way, I checked some sources but they do not say about her ethnicity. They just say, she is from Hamedan, which does not help. Maybe she is not Azeri? --behmod talk 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey All,

Today I was reading the last issue of "The Economist" (June 3rd-9th 2006). In the page 42 of current issue, it was an indication to ethnicity of Khamenei(Azeri).--behmod talk 00:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS!

I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179

The pictures were unfairly unrepresentative in the past. The pictures of Iranians were deleted due to unrational reasons. I even read the illogical remark about how someone with beards is not representative of Azaris, when the other males had beards but one. Khamenei is the most famous Azari by far out of everyone else. HE STAYS!

I think we should add Shirin Ebadi and keep Ali Khamenei too, just get rid of the chess player no one knows. There should obviously be more Iranians that Azari Republicans due to the ratio of 8:2. 72.57.230.179

I think we should just have a vote between Googoosh and Parvin, if we could have proof about the ethnicy of Shirin that would be great Baku87 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

There is alot of false claims in this article.. I have already dealt with the so called quote of Mu'awiyah and I will bring it here again to show its invalidity.

he quote from the book of Al-tijan is indeed one of the biggest lies made up by Pan-turkist historians. Indeed the quote is about an ancient Yemenese mythical warrior named Ra’esh. In the book Tajarob al-Umam by ibn Maskawayah, Ra’esh helps the legendary king Manuchehr defeat the legendary Turanian king Afrasiyaab. Indeed the quote has nothing to do with Turkish settlements and the quote refers to the Turanians occupying Azerbaijan and then the mythical Ra’esh the Yemenese king coming to the aid of the Iranian king and repelling Afrasiyab. Weired stories like these were made up by Shu'abiyyah movements. Some claimed that Zoroaster was Abraham and claimed Zoroastrianism was practiced from Sudan to China. Such stories and myths are not taken seriously in light of the fact that all geographers and travellers to Azerbaijan and Arran have mentioned the languages of the area before the Seljuqids. BTW, today (within the last 20 years) the Turanians are not considered Turkic by the majority of scholars. Also as you can see the quote is totally mythical a Indeed this is what happens when people do not read the whole page and just cut out one line out! In that book al-tijan it says Azerbaijan was in the “hand” of Turks (legendary mythical Afrasiyab) and this shows that they were occupying it(and not aboriginals) until Ra’esh the mythical Yemenese king came and forced them out with the help of Manuchehr! Here is the Persian translation of the whole story from Tabari.

Some of the yemenese myths go as far as saying that the yemenese king took over India, Rome, Persia.. All these have to do with the counter Persian nationalism (Sh'uabbiya) and are part of Arab myths some which were mixed with Persian myths (Manuchehr and Afrasiyab mixed in with Ra'esh). Kitab al-tijan fi muluk Himyar (The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar) is taken as a mythology book and the stories there about Ra'esh and his battles with various people are part of Arab folklore and not history. What is clear is that are many stories in Ctesias,Herodotus, Tabari and etc. which are not take seriously by all scholars. For example Tabari attributes Zoroastrianism to the mythical figure of Jamshid. Another time another Arab author considers Abraham a descendant of Zoroaster. Many stories convluted by the Shu'abbiyah were made up and it is up to modern historians to examine their veracity.

I have available a more detailed article in Persian on this manner of convulted history. Sufficient to say that any geographer and historian that has described the language of the area, has never mentioned Turkic until the Seljuqids. (with the exception of Khazaras who were mainly held off at Darband). Also the Turkic slaves taken from Central Asia and used in the caliphs army does not mean Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan. Neither does the Turkic commander under Arab Caliphs (Bugha, Ashnaas, ..) who were sent from Iraq to quell the Babak Khorramdin (Iranian) Mazdakite revolt. And all scholars agree Azarbaijan was part of Iranian Mede, Achaemenid, then Parthian, then Sassanid and Turks never had this area on their hand and the mythical characters of Ra'esh and Afrasiyaab and Manuchehr.. are folklore and myth. Much like the pre-Sassanid portion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, where Rustam is a mythical character. In that time myths and history were convoluted.

Also the Khazars were kept at bay at darband and the few incursions were beaten back by the Sassanids and later on Ummayyads and Arabs, until they were destroyed by Russians and so they were not part of the ethnic component. As per Huns, they did not have a presence in the caucus except for some minor incursion that has been dealt with in the Cambridge history of Iran. Also any group of nomadic people in history would be called huns. The fact of the matter is that the current language of the republic of Azerbaijan is Oghuz Turkic which was brought with the Seljuqid invasion. To show tha Turks are new to the area, the best proof is that there isn't a single manuscript in Turkish from the area prior to the Ilkhanid era. The name Azerbaijan does not occur once in any old manuscript. All the ancient cities have non-Turkic names. Herodotus and none of the ancient historians mentioned Turks in the area. Again the Attila Hun empire and the huns (who by the way were not Oghuz speakers) did major damage to the Roman empire and perhaps for a small interval invaded parts of Iran (although probably not Iranian Azarbaijan), but this exursion did not change the demographics of the region. And all the quotes we have from the begining of Islam to the Seljuqids (about 4-5 travellers+) mention the language of the area as Arranian, Armenian, Persian and Arabic.

--Ali doostzadeh 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it needs major rewrite --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.57.230.179 has inserted some arbitrary changes on the ground that a consensus had been reached. Reading the talk page, and judging by the reactions, it remains a mistery when this consensus. I'm not middle-eastern and hardly ever edit in this area, but I must here say that since no real consensus appears to have been reached, that the situation must be brought backed to the previous edits. I invite all editors to give their best to search a solution to the present difficulties this article is having; but what is clear the solution does not consists in attempting to force past one version without previous consensus, in the hope of forcing it in.--Aldux 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section that was inserted into the intro was copied from the article Iranian peoples. That article had problems similar to the ones this one has. Some Iranian users insisted that Azerbaijani people are not Turkic people as all major academic sources say, but that they are Iranian people, even though they don’t speak an Iranian language. That paragraph was included into that article in an attempt to please those users, and it was not a good solution, as it turns out. But since there’s no effective system to stop POV edits in Wikipedia, the compromise with factual accuracy had to be made. Such position of certain users is a reflection of the official Iranian propaganda, which tries to make Azerbaijani people of Iran believe that they are not Turkic and are Iranians to prevent separatism in Iranian Azerbaijan and eventually assimilate them with Persian people. But Wikipedia is about reflecting the facts and not state sponsored propaganda. Tombseye made a good attempt to incorporate that statement into the relevant section of this article as well, but his edit was reverted without any valid explanation by the anonymous user, who’s been making unsubstantiated edits to this article for quite a while. Grandmaster 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you have several things wrong. we believe that azari's were turkified iranics, that is all, we do not claim that they dont speak an azari langauge and we do not claim that they arent linguistically turkic today, they are. and there is no such movement in iran to make the azari's think that they are iranic and not turkic. iranian azari's refer to themselves as torks, i have azari family members, i know how they think and feel. they believe that they are iranian and part of irans history, and many iranian azari's have come to accept the fact that they were turkified.Iranian Patriot 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an encyclopedia in which we have to present information that can be proven and not what we 'believe'. It's irrelevant as to what you or I believe, while what is important is what we can prove. Being Iranian by nationality and culture doesn't erase the linguistic affiliation of the Azeris, which, objectively needs to be raised along with the possibility that the Azeris have other origins, such as either a partial Turkic one and a Caucasian one. Simply focusing on one theory and claiming it to be absolute truth is simply contrary to how wikipedia works since you can't prove that all or most Azeris are simply former Iranians, which is itself simply a reference to the many Iranian peoples who aren't necessarily Persians or formerly Persian speaking I should say. What's more there is a historic cultural fluidity between Turkic and Iranic peoples as they have lived in the same region and historically overlapped quite often. All of that aside however, subsuming a group makes zero sense in terms of an informative encyclopedia. I have Encyclopedia Americana which describes the Azeris myriad origins as does Encyclopedia Britannica and several others. They nearly all relate to the varied origins of the Azeris, so what's the problem with presenting that here? We have a responsibility to be fair and at least try to be objective. If you feel that you can't be objective or compromise, then perhaps you should take a break and let those of us who can work out some compromise move forward. Tombseye 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the propagation of the Turkic language which started around the Seljuqid era, the history below the Aras river and above the Aras river are very different with two different people. Indeed Iranian Azarbaijan was Iranian speaking where as the caucasian one, had some Iranian elements , but it had a large number of caucasian speakers (Armenians, Albanians..) as well. When it comes to talking about origins, these two regions have had a different history and this should be mentioned. Another fact that should be mentioned is that the name Azarbaijan is clearly Iranian and such a name does not exist in any ancient Turkic documents. Indeed it has a clear Avestani root. This is agreed upon by scholars. Indeed the Pahlavi version of the name Atoorpaatekaan still exists in some of the languages of the area. --Ali doostzadeh 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree although saying very different is a bit of an overstatement as neighboring groups, even divided by a river aren't necessarily without some fluidity. And what mean is Median speaking as at that point we can be more specific than Iranian speaking. As for the name of Azerbaijan, sure we can mention that briefly, but it's not really relevant all that much if the name is Iranian or not as we're talking about the people. I didn't go into the origins of the name Afghan other than what was relevant in Pashtun people for example. We should start with the Median ruler Atropates as the most common theory links him to the name of the province followed by other more hypothetical theories that can't be proven. This is also the case with Origins of the name Afghanistan for example as there are multiple theories, but really only the verifiable ones are generally stated, while the etymology is discussed in either a history article, an article on the name itself or on the country page. You also have to ask yourself (not just you, but everyone) what the point is to this bickering as the real point should be to write a good article. All this energy wasted on debating could be spent turning this article into a feature article instead of arguing about Iranian the Azeris are since we may never really know to what extent the Azeris are of Iranian stock as that in and of itself is difficult to ascertain given the many new theories emerging about the Kurds, Persians, Pashtuns etc. We need to work on the Azeri article in terms of their culture and social conditions and flesh out the article, which is something I'll set upon doing tomorrow. Tombseye 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This book is at most 500 years old since the name Istanbul shows up. It has about 150 Persian words and 300 Arabic words and Turks were not Muslims 1300 years ago.. It is fact that the area was Iranian speaking in Iranian Azarbaijan and a mix of Irano-Caucasian in the Caucus before the Turkic languages was spread there. The Turkic viewpoint background has no solid academic basis and no major reference or Encyclopedia has mentioned it. So it should be deleted. [3]

--Ali doostzadeh 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. See Iranica about Dada Qorgut:

The language spoken today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 5th/11th and 6th/12th centuries and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form. For two centuries after their appearance in Iran, the Oghuz Turks seem to have had only an oral literature. The origins of the stories, attributed to Dada Qorgut, which are about the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks, probably lie back in this period. The accepted text, however, was complied only in the 9th/15th century. [4]

The fact that it was written down in 15th century does not mean that it did not exist earlier as an oral literary tradition. So Dada Qorgud epos formed in 11th century at the latest. The Turkic background section needs to be expanded and referenced. It is known that Turks first appeared in the area in the 3rd century. Huns, savirs, khazars and others frequently attacked the area and some of the local rulers hired Turkic tribes to protect their state from other invaders. Many of them settled, specifically in Arran and Shirvan, which bordered with Northern Caucasus. This all should be reflected with reference to the sources. Grandmaster 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct the accepted text is from the 15th century A.D. or the 9th Islamic century. Thats my point and the Oral traditions are from 12th-13 centuries probably although they mention some cities like Istanbul that are from the 15th-16th century. . As per Khazars, they were kept at bay in Darband. The Huns and Savir incursions must have metled in the original population as Islamic sources do not mention them. Indeed the Armenian/Caucasian Albanian and Iranian population at that time must have been much larger, so these few scattered tribes can not be considered as the origin of Azarbaijans. Also the references I have on huns say they were a alliance of many different groups. On Savirs if you have any reliable reference that they were Turks and their extent of settlement (not nomadism), please provide it for my own studies. Thanks --Ali doostzadeh 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely imprecise -- the first manuscripts are from 15-16th century, but most scholars were in agreement about it being told orally since at least 9-10th centuries. The word "Istanbul" is a latter addition by scribers -- of the three manuscripts that remain (one in Turkmenistan, the biggest and least known outside ex-USSR, one in Vatican (discovered only in 1950) and one in Dresden used by most), they are different, including by absence of certain whole chapters, etc. This is extremely typical for 1) not being written down immediately or not having the earliest manuscripts as they were lost (we do not have the earliest Koran or Bible, all are from secondary manuscripts); and 2) as such, many new words are inserted during copying by scribers. Thus, "Istanbul" mention in one of the manuscripts is irrelevant -- the Oghuz in Central Asia probably didn't even know of Constantinople in 7-10th centuries, and it was added later in history. Similarly, there are no 300/150 Arabic/Persian words in the early manuscript -- and all Arabic words, for example, are of RELIGIOUS nature, as by then Turks were mostly Muslim. I have examples of those words, all are Koranic (kaadir, dunya (originally from Persian), vakit, kabul, dua, ahir dunya, didar/dizar, gunah, bahist). Hence, there was no way around it. But most of the book is Turkic, most of the verses are 100% Turkic, and I have a bunch to show if needed.

Here from the Address by Mr Koichiro Matsuura, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the occasion of the information meeting with the Permanent Delegations on the project "Proclamation of masterpieces of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity", UNESCO, 5 May 2000:

"Epics - and I have in mind in particular that of the Turkish-speaking peoples attributed to Dede Korkut, perpetuated by oral tradition up to the fifteenth century before being written down, or the heroic epic of the Dzungar of Mongolia... Spiritual, literary and historical masterpieces such as the Bible, the Iliad and the Odyssey were handed down by word of mouth long before they were set down in writing, and we have lost forever the music of their utterance. The same is true of the Kojiki, the first book of Japanese history, compiled and written down in 712, which is a landmark for the Japanese people." --AdilBaguirov 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have not seen anything about the Turkmenistan manuscrip in any books and have only seen the Vatican and Darsen mansucripts, but for example the Shahnameh epics are very old , but Ferdowsi compiled them in the 9th/10th century. Has anyone published the Turkemenistan manuscript? The current version of Dede-qorqud published in Iran based on the two manuscripts has many stories related to Rome, Georgians, Eastern Anatolia and Istanbul which makes it seem like the story is from the Ottoman era. Although the actual folk stories could perhaps be older and be readopted to an Ottoman theme. The words Didaar, Gonaah, and Behesht are not Arabic, but of Persian origin and are religious terms related to Islam. From Ibn-Fadhlan's travels to Central Asia, the Oghuz Turks were not Muslims yet up to the 10th century. So I think the statement of Iranica is precise. The language spoken today in Azerbaijan is one of the branches of Oghuz Turkic. It was introduced into Iran by Turks entering the area in the 5th/11th and 6th/12th centuries and underwent a gradual development before assuming its present form. For two centuries after their appearance in Iran, the Oghuz Turks seem to have had only an oral literature. The origins of the stories, attributed to Dada Qorgut, which are about the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks, probably lie back in this period. The accepted text, however, was complied only in the 9th/15th century. [5] --Ali doostzadeh 15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No one argues about the date of the *manuscript*, but claiming that the *story* itself, orally, or even in earlier written form, appeared only in 16, 15, or even 11-12 centuries is not the view of most scholars of this epic. I realize that for Iranica's writers Turkic history begins with Seljuks in 11th century, but it isn't so, Turkic people had massive empires and resided on huge swaths of territory, including Caucasus and Middle East, long before Seljuks. Indeed, by 11-12th century, that Iranica wants to conceed, some Oghuz Turks already long left Central Asia and were in Azerbaijan, such as Chols and Salars (even Bartold mentions that). Hence claiming that 1) since manuscripts are from 15-16 century, and 2) they have certain modern words, and therefore, it must be only only from after 11th century (when "Istanbul", your favorite example, did not even exist as a toponym and thus confusing completely the position of even Iranica, since then, just because of this word, we have to think Dede Korkut even orally appeared only in 14 century), is of course incorrect. Manuscripts were often re-written, made mistakes in, written by scribers of various nationalities, etc., and thus minor and major errors crept in. Serious scholars of Dede Korkut can definitely spot all the different "layers", as they call them. The Turkmenistan edition was published for the first time only in 1992 (they didn't really welcome Turkology in USSR, and Dede Korkut was always either out of print, or when printed, only in small, laughable numbers, and Turkmens claim they could not print before 1992, they were not allowed), under the editorship of Gariyev, and major input from Ata Rakhmanov, both Turkmen scholars. Since then there is a lot of research, but I never followed it, maybe will pick up some books next time will be in that region. It has 16 chapters -- whereas Drezden has 12 and Vatican only 6 chapters (chapters 1-12 coincide in all manuscripts for greater part). Meanwhile, Iranica is certainly off the mark -- prof. V.Bartold, who first published a work on Dede Korkut already in 1890s, maintained, along with such Dede Korkut specialists/editors as Dr. A.Kononov and Dr. V.Zhirmunsky, that the oral tradition dates to at least IX-XI centuries. However, modern research in Turkic countries pushed the oral tradition further to VII century - this was done jointly by Turkic countries of ex-USSR. Indeed, Bartold showed he was indeed the titan of Oriental studies by his vision and modesty in his preface to the books: "Current [his] translation, of couse, cannot be considered final; the progress of Turkology [Turkic studies], as in discovery of new materials, as well as greater and fuller study of older [materials], will undoubtedly give reason [impetus] to the scholars to return many more times to the monument [work] of such exceptional importance as "Korkut"; one shall hope, that even this translation in its entirety will be deemed outdated and replaced by another one in less than one hundred years." (В.В. Бартольд. Введение к переводу «Книги Коркуда», л.49.). The response from above mentioned Kononov and Zhirmunsky, written in 1960s, was as follows: "Replacing the translation of V.V.Bartold with another one is without merit [there is no reason] (even if because researchers have, just as in the times of V.V.Bartold, only one full manuscript [list] of the monument [work]), but bring in some corrections, which can now be made, based on achievements of Turkology and results, gathered by a multitude of researchers of this great monument [work], is of course necessary." Hopefully, one day all the massive archives of China, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Egypt, India, not to mention other coutries, etc., will be digitized and available to everyone. In Azerbaijan they just started this process. --AdilBaguirov 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ware of manuscripts being edited and changed and etc. But usually information and research is updated and for example if Prof. Doefer and Prof. Sumer of Turkey says something and Prof. Bartold says another, usually one has to go with the most recent materials. For example Javayd Heyat mentions 11th-12th century. The reason I do not accept the VII century is simple and based on many facts. It mentions "Persians doing 'Azzaan'", whereas Iran was not Islamic by 7th century. There is references to Shi'ism and Prophets family, while Shi'ism was not prevalent amongst the Oguz tribes. Unlike what you are claiming, I have been consistent. My first statement was: This book is at most 500 years old since the name Istanbul shows up. I did not claim any date on the actual folk stories. There are two facts here: 1) when was the story written down, probably between 14-16th century. 2) How old is the origin of the folk stories and their different layers? This question can not be answered definitevly.

So for example if I say the book of Shahnameh is from the 10th century, then that is correct. But since the book mentions Zoroaster and Avesta and etc., then the actual traditions go back before Christ. So the main point is to be clear in the article and not to confuse when the book was written down with how old is the antiquity of the folk stories (which there is not an agreement). I also hope all the massive archives are digitized, but for now I do not think almost anyone in Iran is aware of the Turkeministan edition. --Ali doostzadeh 22:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali, Shahnameh mentiones both Avesta, from BCs, and more recent and contemporary events from ADs, and is dedicated to a contemporary, sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi. Meanwhile, Dede Korkut is not dedicated to anyone, yet like Shahname mentions very ancient (mythical) figures. This is not a contest of who is more ancient here - since you lose anyways, it's Shumerians and Chinese, et al ;-) Hence, the analogy is not the best. Obviously, UNESCO and its director sided with opinion supported by most Dede Korkut scholars, that it is older than 11th century, and even older than 9th century (although it is inconsenquential to me - whether it is 9th or 7th century - in both cases it pretty ancient to me). Also, I do not know how old is the Turkmenistan edition, or latest research on it, since didn't follow it. I am very sure in Iran they know about it - it's your neighbor and major trader, there is no way they don't know about it, especially the ethnic Turkmen scholars in Iran. Thus, there is still a lot of work to do in this regard, it is not definitive yet, but undoubtedly with every year as we find out more and rediscover history, Turkic history becomes older, not younger. --AdilBaguirov 23:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am not having a contest on ancientness, as I do not see everything as a competition. Usually what I measure antiquity by is simply the oldest example of a language that is presently available. And as you said Summerian, Akkadians, Elamites, Chinese.. wins, if there is such a contest. But all these groups are extict, with the exception of Chinese and perhaps we can argue for akkadians since they are semitic. Of course Avesta and Sanskrit are not too far behind these groups and of course you get your usual nationalist who claims for example that the Vedas to be 6000 years old. But I think the Orkhon inscription of the 8th century A.D. is more ancient than Dada Qorqod simply because Turks are not Muslims in the Orkhon inscription whereas in dede qorqod they are Muslims and constantly Allah, 'Azzan, Muhammad (PBUH&HP) and etc. are mentioned. Also if we take Ibn Fazlan's memoir, than Oghuz turks were not Muslims by the 10th century. UNESCO is UN organization and not serious university or scholarship and I think I will be my opinion on the antiquity of this book by the statements of Farooq Sumer, simply because he translated it and also have done exhaustive research on it. I don't think UNESCO cares about the age and they just want to promote whatever the host countries offer. Also Farooq Sumer is from Turkey and has written a major book on Oghuz Turks, which has been translated to Persian as well. Neither is this page whose author is Azarbaijani: [6] and whose statement about dede qorqud I agree with. Also the celebtrate was called: 1300th Anniversary of Kitab-i Dede Qorqud and Kitab means book. Whereas the book itself as mentioned was compiled around 500 years ago. To tell you the truth, I think Turkish history(and this does not mean Azarbaijani history which has strong pre-Turkic elements) will be relatively obscure compared to other regional cultures until the discovery of the time machine. Simply because almost all the materials available have been studied the last century or so (Chinese, Arab,Persian,Armenian, Greek, Latin, Indian..). Also the Turks original area like Altai was not a place to create major cities and sedentary cultures and it is indeed sedentary culture that leaves behind traces. Perhaps the only thing that will clear up history of the people in the region is genetics. Well I don't want to go back and forth on the antiquity of dede qorqud, but if you see any serious Western Scholar from a major university in the last 10-20 years mention that Dede-Qorqod is very antique, either in text or story development, let me know. Also if you have any information on the Turkmen edition (catalogue number for example) it would be very helpful. I was not able to locate anything on the internet. --Ali doostzadeh 04:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article says: Other noted historians include Tabari, who describes in detail various incursions into Azerbaijan by Ural-Altaic tribes (Huns and Khazars) in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. Tabari also states that by the mid-6th century, there was a significant Turkish presence in Azerbaijan and other adjacent regions.[citation needed]

Kalankatly also states that in the year 629, the army of the Gokturks as well as a series Khazar Turkic tribes entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks

Firstly the theory of Ural-Altaic is not mainstream anymore and Uralic and Altaic are now considered two different language groups. The second point is that. Secondly the Khazars and Huns did not make any incursions in Iranian Azerbaijan and despite some minor incursions during the Sassanid times in the caucus, they did not have political control over the Caucus. The third point has no reference. Also the Caucasian Albania (who were not Turks) has a different history than Iranian Azarbaijani which at least from the time of Medes to the Seljuqid era was solidly Iranian. This difference needs to be taken into account. These two areas had different histories and despite some authors mixing Armenia, Azarbaijan and Arran, (due to political control of one on the other), they have had historicaly different names. I can tell you that virtually any geographer and writer who has visited the area from the demise of the Sassanids to the rise of the Seljuqids has not mentioned the language of Azarbaijan or Arran as being Turkic. Indeed there is not a trace of any Turkic languages in manuscript or rocks or plates or anything prior to the Ilkhanid era. At most there was some renegade Khazars and Huns used as mercenaries, but these were not the main inhabitants nor the natives of the region. --Ali doostzadeh 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever next, he's gonna say they speak the language of Chenghiz just like the number one Persian Racist Chauvanist the toppled Shah.

There were Turks in the region prior to the Seljucks, people don't just pick and choose who they are and their language.

Your anti-Turkism is why events like this are happening in Iran

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1503/1902/1600/3.3.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1503/1902/1600/1.6.jpg

http://www.dalgam.com/merend2.jpg

http://www.dalgam.com/axim.jpg

Sorry buts thats not a few hundred not even a few hundred people, there are close to a million there.

This isn't in Azerbaycan, this isn't in Turkey, this is in Iran by the TORKE of Iran ;_) Accept it.

Have you ever been to Iran? Azeri Turks arnt even called Azeri Turks their just called "Torke" ie Turk, that's a fact if you knew Iran you would know that I don't know why your trying to lie like this, its an accepted fact in Iran that they're Turks, try telling them their not ;_)

I mean common, just be honest, look at the pictures theres close to a million there there are marching as Turks thats the reality, look at their hands what's going on there? is it all a big conspiracy, I don't understand why you blaim Azerbaijan or Turkey for this they didn't fund or support it. The reality is, Turks of Iran want their language, identity and rights recognised, as long as you carry on with this self-destructive racist chauvanism and pretending that everything's just fantastic and rosy these problems will escalate and escalate.

Accept people for what they are not what you'd like them to be!

Turks in Iran are not a minority, they are the largest group, Azeri-Qasqai-Turkmen can understand each other, there population is roughly 30 million, Azeri Turks alone constitutre 23-24 million which is more than the Persian population according to ethnologue.com.

They deserve recognition and equality.

--Johnstevens5 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Johnstevens5 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well nice name but you should write with your own Turkish name. The fact of the matter is that Azarbaijanis in Iran did not make your their statement. BTW 30 million figure is bloated and it is about 20% of the population if you calculate the math. There about 25 million Kurds in Turkey, which you should worry about. Now this article is about history and I say that either back up your wild theories by mainstream history references like Encyclopedia Britannica or else do not claim that Turks existed in the area from time immemorial. The fact is that the old Turkic inscription is the Orkhon from Mongolia which is around 8th century A.D. That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says. The oldest manuscript in turkish from Azarbaijan is also around the time of Ilkhanids. The language of the area prior to turkification has been explained by many travellers and geographers. This is not a place for psuedo-theories that have no academic backing. --Ali doostzadeh 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aran and Azerbaijan have the same "different" histories as Khorasan and Hamadan in Iran. If you look at the history of even Atropates, he asked for, and received, armies from Caucasian Albania (among other Caucasian peoples) to fight against Alexander the Great. This is described in many details in Igrar Aliyev's books, by the way, I can easily bring you quotes in original, Russian. Same Igrar Aliyev is clear that: "Thus, Atropates had in essence the entire territory of South and substantial (if not the entire) part of territory of North Azerbaijan". («Итак, Атропату фактически подвластна была вся территория Южного и значительная (если не вся) часть территории Северного Азербайджана», см.: «История Азербайджана», глава Х, ред. Играр Алиев, Баку: «Елм», 1995.

Here's from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, article "Atropatena", author prof. Z.Yampolski: "In the beginning of 2nd century BC, Atropatena included also the territory of Naxcivan city (on the Araxes river)". (БСЭ (3-е издание, статья «Атропатена») за авторством З.И.Ямпольского: «В начале 2 в. до н.э. А. [Атропатена – прим. А.Б.] включала также территорию г. Нахичевань (на р. Аракс)»).

Russian historian V.M.Sisoyev, writing in 1925: "...the Arab geographers of the IX-X centuries by the name of Azerbaijan meant all of south Azerbaijan, as well as only the most south-eastern part of north [Azerbaijan] until city of Barda and until Kura river in the North".(Русский историк В.М.Сысоев в первой четверти ХХ века пишет, «у арабских географов IX-X в. по Р.Х. под именем Азербайджана разумелся как весь южный Азербайджан, так и только самая юго-восточная часть северного до города Берда'а (Барды) и до р. Куры на севере...» («Начальный очерк истории Азербайджана», Баку, 1925).). --AdilBaguirov 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments but I have quotes from about 60-100 historians (Greek, Arab, Armenian, Iranian...) from the ancient era. I would estimate a good 90% separate Arran and Azerbaijan. 10% mention Arran and Azerbaijan or Arran and Armenia or sometimes all of them as the same land. This was mainly due to political control and since Arran was a smaller region than Azerbaijan, whenever there was a dynasty controling both lands, they would call it by one name. Similarly sometimes they called all the caucus as Armenia. For example Ibn Wazeh Ya'qubi.. The point is that the south of the Aras river was mainly inhabited by the Medes and other Indo-Iranians but the north was inhabited mainly by caucasian groups. In another words the presence of Indo-Iranian groups was much stronger below the Aras river whereas above the Aras river, the caucasian groups were predominant. So it should be mentioned that caucasian Albanians did not have much influence in Iranian Azerbaijan. --Ali doostzadeh 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. There are many more reasons why the abovecited scholars are correct -- even toponymic and etnomymic references of the time on both banks of Araxes yield similarities, i.e., there was a Caspiana region both north and south of Araxes river, which certainly hints at movements and exchanges between the people. Caucasian people, along with Turkic people, were present south of Araxes -- even today, some parts of Iran have clearly Caucasian music and dances (and South Azerbaijanis have no trouble to dance such fast-paced dances as Terekeme, Lezginka, Avar mahnisi, etc., which are uncommon to Iranian/Persian culture and are clearly Caucasian). Same with Scythians and Sakae's. The scholars I've cited sifted through all the 60-100 historians you mention and probably more - and since you mentioned how greatly respected and admired academician Igrar Aliyev is (whom I also respect and admire), I made sure to quote him (and can do so more). "Armenia" or actually Arminyya, became a designated name only in Arab caliphate time, when indeed pretty much all of Caucasus, including Georgia and most of Daghestan, until Derbent, and until Euphrates was labeled as such for administrative reasons. Yet that was a supra-regional name, it did not prevent authors from referring to C.Albania as al-Arran and to south of Araxes as Azerbaijan, and sometimes to both as Azerbaijan. Yet before Arab conquest, shah Khosrov Anushirvan created the Caucasian Kust (province), which was called Adurbadaghan (Azerbaijan), and it included both Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan itself (along with a few other territories). Likewise, Iranian elements have been constantly injected north of Araxes as well, especially in Sassanid times, which lead to the determination by Enc. Britannica about Persianization of the population only from 3rd century AD. Hence, North and South Azerbaijanis are just as different or close as Persians from two opposite parts of Iran, or perhaps Tajiks. Let's find a genetic study of Tajiks - I'm sure they are closer to Uzbeks than to Persians from Shiraz or so. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading a lot of what's been said here and I just wanted to put this out there. How about I re-write the article in a way similar to Pashtun people or even Iranian peoples? One is a featured article and the other is on its way and I have many friends here who are both Persian and Azeri and I believe we worked out a compromise with Iranian peoples for example. I'd be willing to do the same and consider the various factors including the differences between the regions north and south and the various influences and other factors. The thing is that I'll be doing it academically and I'll ask the advice of some of the people whom I have a history of working with such as Kash, GM, Mani, Abdulnr, Tajik, and of course Khoikhoi and various other folks such as Zereshk who has done some good work on Greater Iran that I've seen. I'm in both the Azeri and Iran wikiprojects and I'm planning to work on the Persians next anyway. If people are cool with the idea, I'd be willing to redo the article and make it a lot more in compliance with encyclopedic standards. We could also agree that all statements placed in the article will have citations that are reputable since this is such a controversial topic as well. Just an idea as I was asked to help fix this article so I wanted to make sure everyone is okay with it. Thanks. Tombseye 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea. Grandmaster 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good! :) --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(Moved to /Arguments page) —Khoikhoi 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tombseye. I like the new format of article.--behmod talk 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm still in the middle of fixing things though, but hopefully, within a week I'm going to try to get it in as a featured article. No point in writing an article otherwise, right? :) Tombseye 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The 100% of Azerbaijani people said they are Turkish. And in article mentioned that Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language. And I also give an example here about the language.

• Ben geldim(I came) → Turkey's Turkish
• Men geldim(I came) → Azerbaijani Turkish

They have persisch effect in their culture but Turkey also have persich effect in their culture. But that make not Turkey's Turks a Persish people. Also Turkey have effected by arabish culture but that don't make Turkey Turks a Arabic people. Ruzgar 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your concerns. I'm writing the article to denote clarity and if you look you'll notice that in the info box the relationship as part of Turkic people is noted. Basically, the best ethnic group articles tend to begin with some generalizations etc. Thus, the Azeris are an ethnic group etc. Later it is clarified as to how their Turkic identity is defined etc. This article has been the subject of a great deal of controversy and I was asked to re-write the article. My intent is to write an article that can eventually become, at the very least, a good article, but I'm still hoping for another featured article. Thus, the current situation. Tombseye 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish speakers among the Iranian population who were spread through every region of Iran were not Persians who were forced to abandon their original language and forgot it and learned Turkish. No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands, as was the opinion spread throughout Iran; the Turkish speakers are nothing but the descendants of the Turks who had migrated in ancient times from Turkestan in search of safety and pasture and became conquerors of Iran and spread throughout it and settled here and there in tracts of land and mingled with the population over the course of time and intermarried with them and followed them in their customs and clothing and religion, although they have preserved their Turkish language and their descendants still speak it (although there are some of these Turks who have assimilated into the indigenous population and have forgotten their languages as well.

Proof of our claim, in addition to what has been outlined above, comes from the history books. To force a people to abandon the language into which they had been born and to forget it and to speak a foreign language against their will and to carry this to extremes–in this, the Arabs were supreme. They defeated the Iranians and captured their princes and kings and uprooted their rule and ruled over their lands and stripped them of their independence and spread among them their Islam and their Koran and governed them for centuries on end and made Arabic the language of letters and the Court and prohibited the people from writing in any other language and settled among the defeated two or three thousand poets and scholars and had them teach Arabic and spread it and habituated some hundred thousand writers with this language; but despite all this, the Arabs were never able to get the Iranians to repudiate and abandon their Persian language and exchange it for Arabic. This is in addition to the differences between the two sides in appearance and distinctions in sensibility and character, which cannot be explained except by a difference in race and ancestry with the native population. We do not claim that the people of Azerbaijan or all speakers of Turkish in Iran are pure blooded Turks/racially pure etc etc but nethertheless are Turks.

Now the Turks never outlawed Persian or forced Turkish and Turkification upon the population, this was never a policy, so you must look at the logic of these claims and realise how ridiculous they are. If the Turks could so easily brainwash everyone into speaking Turkish and thinking that they're Turks how is it humanly possible that the whole of Iran today isn't Arab as the Arabs ruled for centruries and outlawed all other languages and had a stron Arabization policy?

I hope this made some sense

Regards

Johnstevens5

The origins part is patronising and condescending, why are "racial" arguments being included? today in Azerbaijan people are Turks, they weren't forced into this, they simply are Turks who migrated to the area.

There are many "races" among the people, there is Caucasian blood, Iranic blood, Turkic blood, Arab blood................ but the nation is not made up by race. Its linguistic, cultural and a sense of identity.

Arabs ruled Iran for hundreds of years and had a clear Arabisation process, is everyone an Arab today in Iran? NO

Esfahan was the capitol of the Seljuk Turks, they did not have a Turkification policy.

How can people get Turkified and change what they are just out of the blue.

Why is there no hard facts, proof or events of when this forced Turkification took place? when did this happen?

The article talks about origins and claims of Turkification but where is the proof that these policies existed?

Turks moved in large numbers around the Caspian Sea region and the inhabitants there who were outnumbered eventually assimilated into becomming Turks.

Now, this must have been natural assimilation because there is absolutely no proof of any force being used in history to forcefully Turkify people during the Turks rule in Iran.

Regards

The article says: Additionally, Caucasus Albanian historian Moses Kalankatly (also Kalankatuaci) states that between 191-200 CE, hordes of Barsil and Khazar Turks crossed the Kura river into what is today known as Azerbaijan and that in the year 629, an army of Gokturks entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks ?

Did the Khazars exist back then in 200 CE? and also some state the book is translated to Georgian? Does anyone have access to it? Can someone point to an English version? Also when does Strabo consider Saks as Turks or even mention Turks? Can two groups with similar names be considered as a same group? For example take Iraqi and the American Indian tribe Iroqui.. The quote by Mua'wiyah is from a book about Arab myths and it is about the heroism of the mythical character raa'esh. It is not evidence. Does anyone have the quote from Strabo?

That book is available in Russian online. I will provide the link later. We can search for the relevant quotes in it, but it indeed mentions hunns and khazars. Grandmaster 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But Khazars in 200 CE does not make sense. As you know lots of books in history from Herodotus, to Ctesias and Tabari (who claimed Ibrahim is a descendant of Zoroaster) has lots of myths. As per Strabo , here is the relavent book with Chapter 9.. Identificaiton of the relavent quote would helpful

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&query=book%3D%234

Another arabic book for example said before Islam, ZOroastrianism was spread from Sudan to China. Each statements historical validity needs to be research. The book of Moses Kalankatly if I recall was written after Islam about 800 to 1000 A.D? If that is the case, then information about 200 A.D. needs to be backed up with actual evidence from the time. I can assure you the area was under Parthian control at 200 A.D.

As per Zoroastrianism in the Caucus, it was not wide spread and this is supported by the inscription of Kerdir. He calls Arran (Albania) part of non-Zoroastrian lands where he tried effortlessly to spread Zoroastrianism, although the area was won over to Christianity..

As per dede-qorqud, the book by academic sources is not from the 7/8th century A.D. Indeed it has the word Istanbul in it.

Also about Babak. There is a lot of evidence that Babak (whose name is Iranian) was Iranian. If by obscure origin you mean who his mother and father was, then that could be the case. But Armenian and Arab chronicles have references him as a Persian. And so have recent historians:

Oxford Medieval historian Professor Mark Whittow has noted that: Azerbaijan was the scene of frequent anti-caliphal and anti-Arab revolts during the eighth and ninth centuries, and Byzantine sources talk of Persian warriors seeking refuge in the 830s from the caliph’s armies by taking service under the Byzantine emperor Theophilos. [p.195] Azerbaijan had a Persian population and was a traditional centre of the Zoroastrian religion. [p.203] The Khurramites were a… Persian sect, influenced by Shiite doctrines, but with their roots in a pre-Islamic Persian religious movement. [p.215]

[Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p.195, 203, 215]. --Ali doostzadeh 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not khazars in 200 A.D., the chronicle mentions hunns Grandmaster 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay that needs to be corrected then. Also the term Hunn [7] is described here and various nomadic people were called Hunns. Of course Turkish elements were present, but where is the proof of massive settlement or linguistic remnants? All Arab and Muslim geographers who have travelled to Azarbaijan and Arran between the advent of Islam till the time of Seljuqids, have not recorded Turkic as a language of the area. Also the only other incursion was by Oghuz tribes during the time of Shaddadids, and these came from the Ghaznavid domains.

I would appreciate it if someone also finds the quote from Strabo. But I can assure that Saks (Scythians) are not identified as Turks by a majority of scholars. Also as I said the quote about the mythical Ra'esh whose tale was told in the court of Mu'awiyah is a mythical story which has been explained in more detail from Tabari and Ibn-Maskawyah.. I will write more on that issue later. Also assigning 1300 to dede-qorqud is not academically valid. The book has 300 Arabic words and 150 Persian words and talks about Istanbul and etc. Any country can celebrate anything with UNESCO, but actual academic backing is necessary to justify any antiquity. According to this site: The 1999 celebration of 1300 anniversary of Kitab-e Dada Qorgut is one of the best examples of the falsification I mentioned in the Preface. All the books I read before that on the subject stated that 'Dada Qorgut' was written not earlier than XIV century (Faruk Sumer in 'Oguzlar' dates it even XVI century). I suspected that I had missed some crucial discoveries of recent years, so I visited the official webpage of the Turkish Embassy in the USA only to find XIV century again. So we have overturked the Turks, and Dada grew old by century each year. [8]. --Ali doostzadeh 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You make some valid points. About Babak though, yes his origins were obscure in that his parentage is not exactly known. Since the article makes clear that modern Azeris are drawn from Caucasian, Iranian, and Turkic backgrounds, Babak can indeed be considered both Iranian and Azeri since the argument on Iranian peoples was that the Azeris needed to be mentioned. Tombseye 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's try to reach a full concensus on these theories on this page so that once the article is finished (which will be soon), there won't be constant edit wars and such. Thanks. Tombseye 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out the Khazar part. The Barsil Turk part is not there either. I will be looking for an English translation of that book, since Georgian versions I do not know. The Strabo part seems to not have been referenced right either and probably misquted. I know Strabo does say something about caucasian albanians. I am double checking everything for accuracy. --Ali doostzadeh 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me know. The relevant Strabo book is #11 by the way. Thanks. Tombseye 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I misread the roman numeral. I am looking to book 11 now:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Strab.+toc

Although the following should be mentioned about the Medes from Strabo as well:

and the name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations. [9]

--Ali doostzadeh 00:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is the statemet from the current Wikipedia artice:Strabo (64 BCE-24 CE) wrote that among the 26 tribes of Caucasian Albania there were the Sabirs, Barsils, and Saks who are believed to have been of Turkic origin.. But here is the statement of Strabo I found in 11.4[10]:

The Albanians are more inclined to the shepherd's life than the Iberians and closer akin to the nomadic people, except that they are not ferocious; and for this reason they are only moderately warlike. They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea, their country bordering on the sea towards the east and on the country of the Iberians towards the west. Of the remaining sides the northern is protected by the Caucasian Mountains (for these mountains lie above the plains, though their parts next to the sea are generally called Ceraunian), whereas the southern side is formed by Armenia, which stretches alongside it; and much of Armenia consists of plains, though much of it is mountainous, like Cambysene, where the Armenians border on both the Iberians and the Albanians. ....

Their kings, also, are excellent. At the present time, indeed, one king rules all the tribes, but formerly the several tribes were ruled separately by kings of their own according to their several languages. They have twenty-six languages, because of the fact that they have no easy means of intercourse with one another. The country produces also certain of the deadly reptiles, and scorpions and phalangia.9 Some of the phalangia cause people to die laughing, while others cause people to die weeping over the loss of their deceased kindred

And in 11.6[11] there is nothing to confirm the Wikipedia statement.

The 26 languages does not mean Turkic or Iranian necessarily. For example in one area of Kurdistan, there is 5-6 dialects spoken while the people consider themselves Kurds. Indeed if we take the large Kurdistan, there is at least 50 dialects many of them mutually unintelligble from each other. Either way I did not find anything affirming the Wikipedia statement in 11.4 and 1l.6. If the quote in the current article is from another part of Strabo, then it should be referenced. Else it should be erased.

Also I believe the great information that Arab/Persian and Muslim Geographers have given in the area should be included: Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Hawqal, Hamdollah Mostovfi, Al-Eskhtari, Al-Muqqadessi... (See the Nezami discussion page where I have brought actual Arabic and translations for most of these geographers and their statement can be found in the Iranica article on Azeri (Persian dialect)). Also the Turkification has 5-6 stages: 1) Oghuz and subsequent Seljuqs 2) Mongols whom most of their army was Turkic 3) Subsequent Ilkhanids who spoke Turkish 4) Black and White Sheep turkomens 5) The Safavids who brought a large number of Turkomens (Ghezilbaash tribes) into the area from Anatolia. The quote from Mua'wiya as I mentioned is mythical about a mythical warrior Himyar (yemense) named Ra'esh. Ra'esh foughts variety of people and the book is considered Arabic Myths. Also I will be looking for an English translation of the Albanian historian Moses and see what I can gather. But I do not think referring to a Georgian version is reasonable and already I pointed out a mistake or two about the quote (No Khazars for example). Also I have access to a Persian translation of the history of Azarbaijan by eminent Eqrar Aliev. But I do not have time now , to enter information from there. But parts of it is already online, if anyone likes to translate. --Ali doostzadeh 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work Ali. I'm going to make some changes asap and incorporate as much of what you've told me that I can. Let me know what you find on Moses as well. I think we might as well replace the wrong info. with the phases of Turkification that you mention. This article's going to have some real credibility! Tombseye 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the above book available in English near a local library and will take a look on my next trip: (The history of the Caucasian Albanians, Translated by C.J.F. Dowsett., Oxford University Press, 1961). The book is from the 10th century and discussing events of 2nd century A.D. can be highly suspect. See if you can find the book in your local library before me also. There is no need to reference a Georgian version, specially when it has been logically shown that the Khazars did not exist in 2 century A.D. As per the Turkification, you might want to look at this article:[12] I think reference to the above article is a must and also it has many quotes about the language of the area. See page 239-240 about general mechanism of Turkificaiton. Also middle Persian inscriptions have been found from the area [13], even as far as Darband. Also the following cities and areas have Iranian/Persian names: Darband, Ganjah, Shirwan, Ardabil, Zangaan, Azarbaijan, Nakhchivan (Nakhjirwaan), Aras and appropriate etymologies can be provided if anyone requests it.

Also I have a major problem with this statement: favored by academics who believe that centuries of Turkic settlement in addition to the Oghuz helped shape Azerbaijan's Turkic identity.. Can someone mention some academics of the last 20 years from Western Universities who favor such theories? Also the Khazars who later on converted to Judaism where a very much multi-ethnic empire, but their border was kept at Darband. Several incursions were made of course over Darband, but it was beaten by Sassanids and then later on Arabs, until the Russians ended the Khazar empire. --Ali doostzadeh 02:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Ali doostzadeh 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed sentence. Yeah I think we've got enough with the names as any reader will get the point that many places have names that are of Persian origin. I will definitely incorporate the Iranica stuff into the article as Grandmaster also suggested as much. I'm unfortunately not at university right now, otherwise I would have access to all kinds of books. Instead I use the city library which is basically inadequate and definitely doesn't extensively cover what is considered obscure topics (a libarian said that to me). More books I've found include: Russia and Azerbaijan: A borderland in transition by Swietochowski, Pride of Small Nations: the Caucasus and soviet disorder by suzanne Goldenber and Eastward to Tartary by Robert Kaplan. The other books I've found are already mentioned in the article. Anyway, we'll make do with what we have, which is still quite a bit. What's interesting is that I was looking at Virtual Azerbaijan (VAR)[14], somewhat nationalist, but has some good articles such as the one by Swietochowski (doesn't think there was much of a Turkic presence in the region before the Oghuz apparently). Here's something interesting on the Turkic presence before the Oghuz: [15]. What's interesting about this site is that it explains factual stuff, but in nearly all the cases of a Turkic incursion they are repulsed and never really settle in the region. Also there is lots of mention of Turkic groups in Byzantium and Central Europe which is strange (mostly Huns who were mixed and did conquer the coastal areas of Azerbaijan and parts of northwest Iran). Then it states things like: '461-470 A.D. Saragurs invade Azerbaijan' but doesn't explain what happened, such as settlement or whether it was a successful invasion etc. or where this info. is from. Then it even says stuff like: '551-560 A.D. Sabirs and Khazars invade Azerbaijan, but defeated by Sassanian Iran' which is odd since that just means that they failed to really penetrate the area. Here's the most relevant one and if you can find that Moses book (or if Grandmaster can), then we'll have some verification of this: 629 A.D. Army of Kok-Turk Empire and Khazars enter Azerbaijan (Albania), defeating Persians. Azerbaijan is declared to be "eternal possesion" of Turks. The capital of Albania - Kabala renamed into Khazar. Albanian nobility and clergyman escape from Barda to the Albanian stronghold - Mountaineous Karabagh.[Source: "History of Albans" by Moisey Kalankatly] The next year both withdraw from Azerbaijan due to internal strife within Empire. Basically, according to this site, lots of times Turkic tribes tried to invade (and with the exception of the Huns I believe) and never really got much of a foothold. Very strange. I'm not sure we need many more books as basically, I have yet to read much about a major Turkic invasion with substance other than the Huns, who may or may not have been Turkic. I'm at a loss. I think, given the information that we have, we need to work with the more proven and support hypothesis that, the main Turkic presence in the region starts with the Oghuz as even Peter Golden only writes of the brief invasion and occupation by the Khazars. Not very substantial at all. I think the main support for Turkic replacement would be via the Oghuz and turkified groups in the region frankly. Also, would like Grandmaster to weigh in on this. Thanks. Tombseye 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is essential that we have the book of Moses K since some unverifable statements which are definitely wrong are being attributed to him. As per the site you mentioned [16], it says: Hordes of Barsiles and Khazars crossed Kura, but were defeated by Alans"(Source: Moisey Kalankatly "History of Albans"), which was the same false statement. That is why the English translation of the book above is very important to have. I would not rely on web-sites, but would look at atual books. Of course the article by Swietochowski [17] is written by a Professor I believe in Columbia University. Also the Khazars attacks were constantly beaten by Sassanids and then the later on Arabs. The city of Darband was even created by Sassanids to keep them at bay and then the Arabs used it as such. --Ali doostzadeh 05:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. We'll all work on this page with a workable hypothesis and then I'll replace the wrong stuff in the article once one of you guys finds that book. Meanwhile, I'll continue with other aspects of the article in the culture section and, hopefully, by then we'll be able to retool the Turkic theory section to something more credible. Glad I don't have to do this all by myself! Tombseye 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Strabo states that among the 26 tribes of Caucasian Albania there were also Turkic speaking tribes ie Sabirs, Savirs, Gels........

This was the 3-4th century BC, meaning that even if it were little that there was a Turkic presence in the area since that time. This should be added.

I think it should be added as the area clearly was never homogenous and has been constantly mixing between Caucasion-Turkic-Iranic people's.

Caucasian Albania was a tribal confederancy, this kind of mixing often happens, it can even be seen in present day Iran, the "Khamsa Clan" is a an Arab-Turk tribal confederancy. Johnstevens5

---

First of, Dowsett's edition is indeed the best in the West, although Russian-language scholars have improved it by bringing additional manuscripts and more comments, and most importantly, have published much greater number of scholarly articles and books than the very rare articles (forget about books) that appear in the West. Secondly, there are many mentions of Turkic books in Movses Dasxuranci - who is sometimes identified as the same person as Movses Kalankatly (Kagankatvatsi, Kalankatuyski), but most likely those were two different people, living in . "The history of the Caucasian Albanians" consists of three books, with first two written sometime in the VII century per order of prince Jevanshir - the king of Caucasian Albania, who defeated Sassanids and fought very long with invading "Arabs" until he was assassinated by a court plot (the reason I place "Arabs" in quotes is because much of the army of caliphate used to subjugate Azerbaijan (both North and South), and other areas, were Turkic, such as the generals in charge, Bugha al-Kabir, Aytakh, al-Afshin, Ashnas, Mubaraka at-Turki, Khammad at-Turki, etc). The author, Kalankatly, makes that clear many times and dedicates a lot of attention to Jevanshir. However, in the 10th century a new, third book were added, by Dasxuranci (again, scholars have not fully agreed who is who, and as Dowsett wrote, the guy was no Bacon or Shakespeare, and thus, let his words speak for himself irrespective of true identity). Then, there must have been a third author, writing in 13th century, because Book III includes a lot of info on Hasan Jalal, the Alban prince who built Gandzasar monastery.

Anyways, many sources are clear that by Arab invasion, some of the residents of Chola town in north Azerbaijan (C.Albania) were Huns and Khazars. In VI-VII turkic Huns under the command of Alp-Ilitver came in with large army (Kalankatly/Dasxuranci, book II, 36). There are several references about Turkic people settling in Kambisena region, which is between Tiflis and Ganja. I wrote about it in a different post already on Nizami: as already mentioned and confirmed by Enc. Iranica, IX century author al-Balazuri (“Kitab futuh al-buldan”. Leiden, 1866, p. 203) and X century Al-Istakhri (ibid., pp. 191-192, footnote “k”) and al-Masudi (ibid., p. 75) – and confirmed by Minorsky (V.F.Minorsky. “History of Shirvan and Derbent in X-XI centuries”, Moscow, 1963, p. 214, footnote 115) citing Byzantium chronicler Constantine Bagryanorodniy – Turkic people White Sabarts (Sabarta Asfala), after war with another Turkic people, the Pechenegs, settled and lived on a large territory from Ganja to Tiflis. In 576, a large number of Hun Sabirs, a Turkic people, were resettled into Ganja (Sakashena) (Byzantian historians, Moscow edition, pp. 411-412), and thus the “country of Huns” became the land between Araxes and Kura rivers, i.e, Arran (see: Georgian chronicle. S.Takayshvilli, p. 1, 5, in M.Melikset-Bek. History of the appearance of Huns in Eastern Transcaucasus. M., pp. 710-711. Also see A. Artamonov. Studies, M., p. 54). The leaders of those Turkic Huns were called “Tarkhan’s” by Arabic historians (al-Balazuri, p. 209, at-Tabari, III, p. 1179, 1192).

Kalankatly and others also makes clear that from VI century Gabala was inhabited by Sabirs/Savirs, Khazars, Bulgars, Barsils (Kalankatly, Book II, 4). Prominent Russian Albanologist, K.Trever, writes about Khazars actually controlling both banks of Kura river in VII century

In any case, Turkic people were well present in the Caucasus long before the Seljuk era, there are numerous even Armenian chronicles (Buzand, Khorenatsi, Gevond), as well as Georgian and Byzantian chronicles who write about massive numbers of Turkic people settling since at least 5th century A.D.

Here’s another quote from Georgian source, O. Tkeshelashvili, G. Kacharava, Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979: “In 627 Tbilisi was invaded and destroyed by Byzantine and Turk hordes; in 736-738s - Arab military leader Marvan II Ibn Mohammed invaded the city. The Arab invasion had dire results for Tbilisi which in the thirties of the 8th century became the residence of the Arab emir. In 764 Tbilisi was sacked by nomad Turks. In 853 in order to strengthen the caliph rule in Tbilisi the city was invaded by Arab military leader - Buga Turk. In 1037-51s King Bagrat IV tried several times to occupy Tbilisi, but due to unstable political situation existing in the country by that time, it became impossible.”

In the V century, in Mughan (Azerbaijan), Huns were also settled, called Turks by Byzantian historians (Pheophilact Simmokatta, "History", Moscow, 1957, p. 36, 77, 102, 160). These Huns founded the city Ak-gun (White-day), or Balasagun in Arabic rendition (Marquardt, Eransahr S. 119).

Here are some interesting references: http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/history/020820_territorial_challenges_iranian_identity.php

"The Sassanids, like Parthians, faced many extraterritorial challenges and threats from the west, east, northwestern and southeastern sides, that is to say apart from threats by Romans in the west, they also encountered successive threats by the white Huns4. In addition to that, the desert dwelling Arabs of Najd, sometimes, particularly at the time of occurrence of internal crises, invaded Oman and Bahrain and other littoral societies of Persian. At the end of the fifth century, the Khazar empire which had occupied extensive pieces of land between Khazar (Caspian) Sea and the Black Sea as far as the Balkan borders rendered the Sassanids border in the north of Caucasus insecure, and eventually the Sassanids encountered Tuce or Turk tribes at the end of the sixth century."

"Apart from confronting the East Roman challenges, the Sassanids (as was mentioned earlier) faced the white Huns' invasions and threats for a period of two centuries, and the eastern provinces were often exposed to plunders, so they were forced to keep forces to counter the invasions. Although the Sassanids were often victorious in these clashes, Pirooz, the Sassanids king, was defeated twice by Akhshoon Navaz or Khashnavaz twice; the second time he was taken captive and killed, and as a result of these military defeats the Sassanids were obliged to pay damages and compensation until the time of Anushiravan. In 560 CE, Tuches or Turks, the eastern neighbors of the Huns, entered the political scene of the region. Through establishing union with Sin Jiboo, the Turkish Khaghan, Anushiravan triumphed over the white Huns, and in this way their political life was ended. But following these events, Tuches who has occupied major part of the Huns' territory, posed a serious threat to the Sassanids empire. At the same time, the Sassanids confronted a new power in the north of Caucasus and the Black Sea, ie the Khazars.

As the Khazars, like the Huns, were a branch of Ural Altay tribe, so they surrounded the Sassanids region in question. In order to hinder their invasion, Anushiravan created Caucasus Canyon."

http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=214&Itemid=230

"The first tribes to arrive were the Sabirs, Sarogurs and Onogurs. These Ogur tribes, who settled to the north of the Caucasus, raided the Byzantine territories from Macedonia to Thessaly. It is known that the Bulgarian Turks also came to this region along side the Ogur Turks. Byzantine sources refer to the name "Bulgarian" for the first time in 482. In fact, the Avars, with the Bulgarian Turks under their sovereignty, sieged the Byzantine capital at the beginning of the seventh century. The Avars , who left their homeland in Central Asia and who escaped towards the West when the Göktürk State was founded in 552, had an important place in the history of Europe. They first came to Caucasia and the north of the Black Sea, made an agreement with the Byzantines and fought against, and defeated, Turkish tribes such as the Sabirs and Onogurs on behalf of the Byzantines."

"During the period of disintegration of the Sabir State in the east of Europe, a new Turkish state called the Khazars came into existence. The Khazars, who were considered to be the continuation of the Western Göktürks, took over their military and civilian organizations. This state, which ruled for over 300 years bears the name of "Turk" in Arabian, Syrian and Byzantine sources. The Khazars acted as an allied force of the Byzantines in the war between Byzantium and Iran. It is observed that the Arabs who occupied Azerbaijan around the beginning of the eighth century, also raided Khazar territories and occupied their capital city Belencer (in Dagestan).

The war between the Khazars and the Caliphate continued for almost 25 years. The Khazar armies once again went to the south of the Caucasus from 762 AD and occupied all of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and Ras Tarhan, the Khazar commander advanced up to Georgia. The Khazars were threatened afterwards by other Turkish tribes, and especially by the Russians. Their state collapsed towards the end of the tenth century due to their long lasting wars against the Pechenegs."

http://www.kafkas.org.tr/english/analiz/karacaylarin%20tarihi3.html

"There is very important for the history of Karachai-Balkarian people information about so-called "Caucasian Huns" of the Caspian lands. Yet in 60's of III century, Caucasian Huns served in the Persian army, and in 90's of the same century, Armenian sources write about Hun wars in Fore-Caucasus. Moreover, one of the Sasanid (Persian) inscriptions dated by 293 mentions the name of one of Turk khakans from Caucasus. In 363, Armenian, Roman and Persian authors write about the necessity of fortifying Caucasian passages, especially Derbent passage, against Hun hordes, making repeated raids and campaigns against Persians , Armenians and the peoples of Middle East. These events made Sasanid Iran to build Derbent fortifications, which Turks called "Temir-Kapu", iron gates. Thus, yet before the epoch preceding Huns' invasion in Europe, they appear as mercenaries or hostile groups and stay in Northern Caucasus, creating their own state. Arabian and Persian authors mention town Varachan, or Belenjer, as the capital of this state, in the valley of river Sulak near village Upper Chir-Ürt in Daghestan. Some later authors refer to this town, or country, Balanjar as the native land of Khazars. Indeed, there were the ancestors Khazars among the Hun tribes, calling themselves Basils ("Bas", head; "il" or "el", people--that is, the ruling people)."

"The earliest information about Caucasian Bulgarians (Bulkars) was met in the old Armenian texts. They say that Armenian king Vaharshak (reigned between 149 and 127 years BC) invited the tribes, "living on the northern slope at the foot of the Great Caucasian Mountain, in valleys, in deep long canyons, extending from the Southern Mountain up to the mouth of the Great Plain, and ordered them not to be engaged in robbery and stealing cattle and people" Under Arshak I (between 127114 BC), the son of Vaharshak, continues the source, "great discord rose in the range of the great Caucasian mountain in the land of Bulgarians, so that many of them fell apart and came to our land and settled on the South from Koh, in the fertile and grain-producing places for a long time". Where those Bulgarians lived, there is still a river called "Bulgar-chaie", Bulgarian river. Thus, Armenian sources, well informed about the neighbors of Armenia and ethnopolitical and geographical situation, assert that early Caucasian Bulgarians already lived in the mountains, canyons and foothills in II century BC And the highlands of Caucasus were referred to as "the land of Bulgarians". These data are supported by that, as noted above, Huns were organized in a strong political formation in Northern Caucasus already in III century, and, by the words of Procopios of Caesarea, Huns led by Bazuk ("Bazik"--stout, powerful) and Ambazuk ("Embazyk"--the most stout, powerful) held the Darial passage in Transcaucasus in V century. Also, by the words of the Syrian author of VI century Zacharius the Rhethor, Bulgarians lived the territory of the former Hun state to the north of Derbent, being actually the descendants of Huns."

--AdilBaguirov 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the book, and it’s full of descriptions of invasions of Huns and Khazars to Albania. It describes invasions of Huns from the beginning. But the most interesting part is Book 2.

It describes the war between Byzantium king Heraclius and Sasanid Persia, when Heraclius made an alliance with the king of Khazars and the latter occupied Albania, from where he was sending threatening letters to the Persian king.

Chapter 26 describes how Albanian king Javanshir met with the king of Huns (to whom the author refers as king of Turkistan) at the river of Kura. They agreed to make piece and Javanshir married daughter of the king of Huns. This story relates to 7th century. It’s not clear why the author refers to them both as Huns and Khazars. But according to modern historians he married the daughter of the king of Khazars, to whom Moses was referring as Huns. [18] Grandmaster 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't distinguish between Huns and Khazars, which were both confederations of tribes, is because they both were very much present in the ethnic makeup of the country and spoke the same language. Similarly, often Persians were confused with Parthians, and Tajiks. Sometimes it is due to mistakes in manuscripts, arising from scribers' error, and that's why academic editions, such as Dowsett's, or Ter-Grigoryan's, are very important. But anyways, Turkic element has been very well present and quite sizeable at least already in ADs in the Caucasian Albania, although as some of the sources above show -- usually referring to either Armenian chroniclers or Byzantin -- were since BCs. --AdilBaguirov 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Boseworth(Arran, Iranica): Towards the end of the 5th century, the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania seems to have died out, and in the later 6th century and at the time of the Arab invasions some decades after then, Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihrān family, who claimed descent from the Imperial Sasanians but were probably of Imperial Parthian origin. Their most famous representatives in the 7th century were Varaz-Grigor, his son Ĵuanšer (Persian Ĵavānšir) and Varaz-Trdat I (Persian Varāzdād). The military exploits of the latter two potentates in the period of the first Arab invasions of Armenia and Arrān figure prominently in the 2nd book of MOVSES Dasxuranc`I’s chronicle. These princes bore the Persian title of Arrānšāh (in certain of the Arabic sources corruptly written as Līrānšāh), Armenian Eranšahik` or Aranšahik`.. Also the ethnicity of Afshin from Central Asia is not clear, but the Turkic generals under the caliphs are mainly from the era of Muta'sim and they were based in Baghdad and then sent to crush the Khurramdin rebellions. Also I have Masudi and Al-Baladhuri available in the original Arabic. Al-baladhuri has two sections: Armenia and Azerbaijan when it comes to the arab conquest above and below the Aras river. I have not been able to find anything definite on Turkish presence in Armenia, and it would be helpful to have the actual quote, like several sentences. What article in Encyclopedia Iranica are you referencing with this regard? The is a precise article about Balaasaagaan by Bosworth:

[19]. In the Futuh-Al-Buldan also it mentions Kurds of Balaasaagaan.

Also from the same article: The eastern Caucasus came under Saljuq control in the middle years of the 5th/11th century, and in ca. 468/1075-56 Ālp Arslān sent his commander `Emād'al-din Saboktagin as governor of Āzarbāijān and Arrān, displacing the last Shaddadids. From this period begins the increasing Turkicization of Arrān, under the Saljuqs and then under the line of Eldiguzid or Ildenizid Atabegs, who had to defend eastern Transcaucasia against the attacks of the resurgent Georgian kings. The influx of Oghuz and other Turkmens was accentuated by the Mongol invasions. Barda'a had never revived fully after the Rūs sacking, and is little mentioned in the sources. It seems to have been replaced as the capital of Arrān by Baylaqān, but this was in turn sacked by the Mongols en route for Šervān and Darband in spring 1221[13]; after this, Ganja (q. v.), the later Elizavetopol and now Kirovābād, rose to prominence, the southern part of Arrān now becoming known as Qarabāg (q. v.)

--Ali doostzadeh 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Mihranids were Parthian -- and they fought Sassanids, with Javanshir prevailing in the end -- until "Arabs" won everyone. Some of Turkic generals I've cited have no relevance to Babek -- for example, Mubaraka at-Turki served in 775-785, Khammad at-Turki served in 754-775, thus it was before Babek. Most sources I remember on Afshin called him Turkic, but it's always possible he was someone else, yet his name is typical for Turkic people despite not being originally Turkic, and shares much with another Turkic tribal name, Afshar. I also can't remember the name of the Turkic general who was in charge of conquering Azerbaijan (both north and south) in VII century, but Turkic generals and armies were certainly well-known long before Seljuks, and as payment, they were always given lands in the areas they conquered. The Iranica article I would have to find - I think you either cited it or referred to it, and it was based on Minorsky, whilst also was exactly the info that I had also from Minorsky. But anyhow, what is debated here? It seems that we all know that Turkic people did not come in to the region in the 11th century. We know they were there much longer, and with each century, especially snce 5th century, that info starts to increase. We know that Turkic presence was especially massive in the North Caucasus. We also know that half of Daghestan belonged to Caucasian Albania, with border being on Derbent. Also, from Enc. Britannica and others, we know that Persian influence became strong only with Sassanids, in 3rd century AD, and stopped with Arabs. Then Turks picked up where they left. --AdilBaguirov 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Afshin actually is a title of the rulers of an area of Soghdiana (Biruni) and I think it is Soghdian, although I can double check. I don't think it is related to Afshar tribe. What britannica considers Persian influence from 3rd century is Sassanid influence, but it seems the Parthian-Iranian influence was stronger in the caucus. I am not debating here, I am just trying to verify some facts because some informations from various web-sites and sources have been falsified. --Ali doostzadeh 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to this statement from the older version of the article:

Additionally, Caucasus Albanian historian Moses Kalankatly (also Kalankatuaci) states that between 191-200 CE, hordes of Barsil and Khazar Turks crossed the Kura river into what is today known as Azerbaijan and that in the year 629, an army of Gokturks entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be the "eternal possession" of the Turks

There’s certain truth in that. This is from the article about Caucasian Albania in Iranica:

In 626 there was a fresh invasion by Khazars. The marzban Sema Vstnas (Goshnasp?) refused to answer the summons of their leader, Shath. The Catholicos Viroy presented himself at the Khazar camp established in Uti and came to an understanding with Shath, which did not prevent the latter from declaring himself the lord of Albania and lord of Chor (Movses, History 2.14, tr. pp. 92-100, cf. Trever, Ocherki, pp. 239-40). [20] Grandmaster 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a small dispute on the main picture to represent Azeris. I am requesting to add a female Azeri because males are not dominant and for the sake of emancipation. I think Googoosh is a great candidate for this and she is also from South Azerbaijan. I think we should replace the mullah by Googoosh, what do you guys think? Baku87 16:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

You can add Googoosh but please don't replace Khamenei. The majority doesn't agree that he should be removed. —Khoikhoi 16:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we have 5 imgaes? —Khoikhoi 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a female for sure. Perhaps we replace either Ismail. And Googoosh sounds good to me. Tombseye 16:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually who agreed on removing Mehriban Aliyeva in the first place? Was this done without a discussion? What majority wanted to replace Mehriban by the mullah? I dont agree on 5 images because it will be to vertical and pictures will become smaller. We should be able to sort this out dont you think so. Now since Azeri nation is divided into 2 parts we should add 2 North Azeris and 2 South Azeris. And if you count the people for and against the Googoosh you will see that 4 people are for Googoosh (for - Baku87, Mehrdad, Karabakh and abdulnr) and 3 people are against (Behmod, Kash and Behmod), although its just a tiny difference its still the majority. This is the reason why I replaced the mullah with Googoosh, also my prefered version has a better resolution, perhaps you could send me the PNG version to me to edit it into higher resolution. What do you say Khoikhoi can we change it into Googoosh? Baku87 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Actually, the majority of Iranian editors have been requesting for a long time that I add an Iranian Azeri up there, so I finially did. I'd really rather we just have 5 images, I mean, look at the Kazakhs page or the Volga Tatars article. As I said, Googoosh would be great, but I'd also like to have Khamenei up there, as he represents an Iranian Azeri who loves his country, as not all Azeris in Iran want to join Azerbaijan. Also, what's the copyright status for the image of Googoosh? They won't let this be a featured article unless we know. —Khoikhoi 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of not a big deal really. Ali Khamanei is mentioned in the article already so replacing him wouldn't necessarily be a huge deal. How about Haji as well? He's not necessarily essential. None of the choices are essential in fact. Also, let's see how 5 pictures looks. If it's fits well, then okay by me. No big deal. Tombseye 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and let's not go the Volga Tartars route please! That thing looks like people add a picture on a daily basis. Tombseye 17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Googoosh is South Azeri, although her parents were Azerbaijani immigrant from Azerbaijan SSR she was born as South Azeri. This is also why we chosed her. Googoosh doesnt have anything to do with the reunifiction of Azerbaijan, in fact Googoosh describes herself rather as Iranian then Azeri. Khoikhoi the thing is we already had a discussion about this and the results were 4 - for Googoosh and 3 - against Googoosh. And there are tons better South Azeris then this mullah, by far the most famous is Babek or Sattar Khan, etc. But we want a female to be added not another male. Also I got the picture from: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j70/worldorder2000/Googoosh.jpg it was also published on her personal site. Baku87 17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Baku, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Consensus. A difference of one person does not make consensus. Again, what's wrong with having 5 people in the image? If it's published on her personal website you're probably going to have to contact them about the copyright information. You could replace Khamenei if there was an overwhelming majority to do so, but there isn't. —Khoikhoi 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. 5 people isn't a huge variation and it probably won't throw the universe out of balance! Tombseye 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Baku, can you upload this picture: [21] and any others with adult females would be good as well. the article's kind of male top-heavy I think. Tombseye 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if we are going to have 5 pictures then I will request to replace the mullah by either Babek or Sattar Khan both are way bigger then the mullah. The already have a picture of Babek (see the painting) and I have a great picture of Sattar Khan (who is by far the most famous modern Azeri). And by the way I was granted permission to publish the picture of Googoosh on wikimedia, I think I added the link somewere. And Tombseye I will upload the picture as soon as possible Baku87 17:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

What? There are four users who want to have him, I thought that were were having 5 images to include both Khamanei and Googoosh. Please just let him stay, he's definately famous enough, most Iranian editors want him. —Khoikhoi 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I gotta agree with Khoikhoi, who is a master at negotiations I might add, and go with the concensus. I realize this requires a lot of give and take, but if they feel it's important to have Khamanei I think we should keep him. I like where Babak is right now myself as his menacing visage goes well with the history section. No need to worry about how the article will look or be perceived as we'll all make sure the Azeris are presented in a factual and fair light. Tombseye 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I told you Khoikhoi before there are many better represtatives for Azeris then the mullah, I favor Babek, he is South Azeri and is a symbol there (also in Azerbaijan Republic). On the other side there is Sattar Khan a national hero of Iran and the main man behind the constitutional revolution in Iran. My suggestion is that if we are going to have 5 images to include Googoosh then we should vote for the other South Azeri male. We can then choose from Babek, Sattar Khan or Khamanei. What do you think about a vote? Baku87 17:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Yes, but not everyone agrees with you. I don't think a vote would be necessary, I don't really want to make too big a deal of it, but if you still doesn't to have Khamanei then I guess we might have to. —Khoikhoi 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You cant tell that for certain who agrees or doesnt agree with me, Babek or Sattar Khan have not even been issued here so you cant make that conclusion without a vote. Baku87 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Well, so far I'm certain that the people who want Khamanei are Iranian Patriot, Mani, Kash, Behmod, and I. —Khoikhoi 18:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plently of people who dont agree that a mullah would represent Azeris. And as I said before Babek and Sattar Khan have not even been issued here. I would agree with the 5 images if we could hold a vote between the 3 male South Azeris? Baku87 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

I just think a vote would be a waste of time, it created nothing but bickering at Talk:Iranian peoples. —Khoikhoi 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Im going to make a 5 images for now including the mullah to make a tage point if you dont mind? Baku87 18:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Huh? Can you rephrase that please? —Khoikhoi 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Khamanei could be only 1/4th Azerbaijani, via his grandfather from Khamene town. Heydar Aliyev for one has left a much greater political and leadership legacy -- on the top of political Olympus for about 30 years (1969-1987 Soviet, 1993-2003 President of AR, 1991-1993 speaker of Naxcivan palriament), was 4th highest ranking leader of superpower USSR (the biggest country in the world by size and nuclear warheads ;), first Muslim general of KGB, first Muslim member of the Politburo. Googoosh is definitely more representative if only because she has her most famous song, "Ayrilig", and by bloodline, as both parents are Azerbaijani. Another woman -- Dr. Shirin Ebadi - Nobel Peace Prize winner, who is Azerbaijani from Hamadan. Generals Mehmandarov and Gen. Shikhlinski - the latter known as "the God of Russian artillery". --AdilBaguirov 19:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I’m not happy to see Khamenei there as well and I was the first to object. I think there was no consensus on his inclusion, and there will be no consensus on his deletion as well. I think the best way out of the situation will be increase of the number of the pictures, otherwise the reader would have an impression that Azeris are not a modern and culturally advanced nation, but people stuck in the middle ages. I say we should have between 6 to 8 pictures to cover all aspects of activities of Azerbaijani people. We have not only poets, sportsmen and mullahs, but also musicians, scientists and female activists. This should be fairly represented. The best solution would be making a collage of 8 people, each row containing 4 pictures. Then everybody would be happy. And as I said politicians are divisive, I would really prefer to do without any of them. But if we have to have Khamenei there, Aliyev should be there as well. Grandmaster 19:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I support this suggestion by Grandmaster, 4 images above and 4 below would be a good solution to this problem? With this solution we can keep Khamenei but add Googoosh, Babek, Sattar Khan and Mehriban Aliyeva. Baku87 19:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Hi, just to interject here, I like Babak in the history section so can we substitute him with someone else? He just goes well with the section that it would be redundant to put him in the collage. Thanks. Tombseye 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Baku, although Tombseye is also correct, Babak should stay in the history section. —Khoikhoi 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Babak is in the history section, so let's add an Azer scientist, I suggest either Kerim Kerimov, head of Soviet space program, or Lotfi Asker Zadeh. Grandmaster 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Kerimov. I've always admired the Soviet space program and I think they've gotten a bad rap in the US historically. Tombseye 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

True. I read articles about Soviet space program in the Western media and they are too much on negative side. I think Kerimov should be there. Grandmaster 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

if the number of pictures doubles, both Kerimov and Zadeh should be included, as they are different, one is more general, the other more scientist. Also, Gilbert Hyatt is part Azerbajani and inventor of the microprocessor (got his US patent after 20 years of waiting in 1990, until under pressure they took it away from him in 1995, as all companies would have to pay billions in royalties). unfortuntely, I don't have links on him. Also, Amb. G.Mamedov might be a good candidate -- he was Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, and in charge of nuclear disarmament talks, the Moscow Treaty of 2002 was his brainchild. Similarly, either Alihan Samedov -- who is on 2 or 3 Budha-Bar CDs (a popular lounge compilations) or better UNESCO musician of the year 1999, Alim Gasimov. Similarly, Aziza Mustafazadeh - a woman, nickname Jaziza, for her great jazz CD (all 5 by Sony records). Also, Dr. Vagit Alekperov - the former First Deputy Minister of Oil and Gas of USSR, founder of Lukoil - the 2nd largest private oil company in the world. Or multiple Oscar winner screenwriter-director Ibragimbekov. There are also a few other scientists like academician Mirzabekov, academician Salmanov, and generals and other military heros (e.g., partisan Ahmadiyye "Kardo Michell" Jabrailov, who got the highest honor of France for WWII from De Gaulle, who then especially requested Stalin to meet Jabrailov in Moscow during his visit (Stalin sent a plane for Jabrailov, who had to be brought in from Sheki). --AdilBaguirov 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How can Khomeni be even mentioned as a candidate for a picture.

Ayatollah Shariatmadari image should be there instead, he's the reason for the revolution among Azeri Turks and was imprisoned and got rid of by the so called Azeri Khomeni who didn't give what was promised.

Since we agreed on adding Googoosh we now have 3 spaces left and I would like to see another female added to the picture perhaps like Adil suggested Aziza or Mehriban. And we should definitly add Kerimov and I think for the last image we should add a South Azeri perhaps Sattar Khan or any other suggestions? Baku87 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

I check out the source of ethnic related gorups and the site says as following: The Azeri (Azerbaijani), a Turkic-speaking, Shiite Muslim people of Persian culture The text says related to Persian culture which is true but it doesnt say anything about related to Persian ethnicy. And in the Persian people article it doesnt mention that Persians are related to Azeris. So why is Persian added in the ethnic groups or is this perhaps a group based on culture? If so then I think we should add Russia or Eastern Europe along with it? Baku87 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Hello Baku. Please don't make a big deal about the inclusion of the Persians as a related group. There is a lot historic intermarriage (the dynasties of the Safavids for example) and there are references of continued interaction in this section: [22]. The interaction with Persians is much older than that of the Russians etc. and the fact that most Azeris live in Iran makes a big difference. I think I've shown that I am willing to write the Azeris in a fair light and so I'm asking if you can please drop this contentious issue so that the article can be improved overall and possibly make it as a featured article. Thanks. Tombseye 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but 30% of Azerbaijanis in the Republic are Sunni - and nearly all Azerbaijanis in Turkey (who number over 2 million, not the small estimate given on the page) - and the rest of Shia's are mostly nominally so. There are of course ethnic Azerbaijanis of some other religions, like Bahai, Zoroastrian and Christian. Similarly, if Armenians are not identified as Christian people of Persian culture -- despite having a border with Iran, living in Iran for centuries and being Indo-European, Aryan, with an Indo-European language -- then why should Azerbaijanis? Moreover, while the majority of Azerbaijanis live in Iran indeed, at the same time, in the age of nation-states, when one thinks of a nation, they think of its country, and hence, I think that despite population disproportion, the weight of the Republic is very important and IMHO, prevailing. 80% of Ireland in its time immigrated to the USA, and are still a large, unassimilated, "Irish-American" ethnic group. Another group lives in UK. Yet we do not look at USA or UK when we look at the Ireland page. Can we make the wording a little smoother and less cliche? --AdilBaguirov 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But amongst the 30% that is Sunni, there is higher proportion of Lezgis, Kurds and other people. I think Shi'ism is ingrained with the mainstream Azerbaijani literature/culture and it is safe to say 85% of Azarbaijanis are as much Shi'ites as Armenians are as much as Christians.

The Azerbaijanis of Turkey as far as I know are predominantely Shi'ite, but if you have any reference let me know. The Azarbaijanis of Iran are overwhelmingly Shiites (over 90% at least) and I don't think there is any Zoroastrian or Christians (unless recent converts within the last 20 years which would not number more than say 30,000 at most). --Ali doostzadeh 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only so much this article can contain as if it's too long and mired in details and arguments and counter-arguments it will not be able to make it as a Featured article. I am trying to incorporate as much as possible (and I have worked mostly with Grandmaster and Ali so as to have to diverse opinions) as well as doing my own research and I think we've come up with a fair article that covers all the bases. Neutrality and academic references are used to give the Azeris a fair depiction. As of now I am going to add the women's section and then try to simplify the wording and shorten it a bit so that I can nominate it as a featured article by tomorrow. Tombseye 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye I didnt mean to start a point here, I was curious, checked it out and I noticed it. Anyways this is isnt worth debating here, as you suggested Im dropping this. Baku87 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Thanks Baku, I appreciate it. Tombseye 23:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, all citizens of Azerbaijan are Azerbaijanis, and thus we cannot separate into various ethnic groups. What any one Azerbaijani person does affects all others as well. However, to go along with the opinion, then among the Shiite's there are a lot of Talish and Tats, and in fact most Kurds. It is true that many Azerbaijanis in Turkey are Shiite, Alevi, but the whole thing is that the balance started to change with Shah Ismail (many Sunnis had to run to Turkey to save their lives) and continued until Russian conquest, which too preferred Shiites over Sunni (hence, huge diaspora of Sunnis from Caucasus, including Azerbaijanis, in Turkey. Precise numbers I don't know. I definitely do not think that religion is deeply ingrained in modern popular literature, cinema, music, or arts of Azerbaijan (and I obviously do not count few mentioninings of "Allah" or its derivatives as religious). Unlike for example Iranian or Turkish films, or scholarship, which is fixated on religion, Azerbaijani films (the one's in intl, competitions at least) do not bother with the whole "religious exploration" stuff, are clearly secular. Also, what I said is that when someone says "Azerbaijani" (or "Irish"), you immediately think of Azerbaijan Republic (or Republic of Ireland), and not Iran (or USA). Hence, with the existence of a modern nation-state it doesn't matter what proportion lives anywhere -- it is the Republic of Azerbaijan (AR) that is the face and representation of all Azerbaijanis in the world, much like China represents all Chinese and Ireland of Irish. Thus, it should be kept in mind and taken into account fully, and AR should get more time/space as being more representative. Perhaps this point can be better taken into account in the next version, after the article is featured. --AdilBaguirov 06:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Note in this topic, I am not debating (everything is not a debate), but I am trying to ascertain some facts or clear them up. For example we saw that Strabo did not mention any Turkic tribes or Khazars did not attack around 200 A.D. So I am trying to assess the veracity of all statements with regards to the Turkic origin theory. For example Mr. Baguirov who mentioned some useful facts, also mentioned: Kalankatly and others also makes clear that from VI century Gabala was inhabited by Sabirs/Savirs, Khazars, Bulgars, Barsils (Kalankatly, Book II, 4). But actually in Book two Chp 4 it says: After these events, the land of Albania was captured by the Khazars and churches and gospels destroyed by fire. In the second year of Xosrov, king of kings, when they established the begining of the Armenia era, the throne of Albanian patriachate was transferred from the two of Cholay to the captical Partaw on account of the marauding incursions of the enemies of the cross of christ. So there is difference between inhabited and captured and also in Book three it clearly mentions Ganja was a city build during the Islamic era.

I already have done research on the Iranian origin theory and much of it is already in the Azeri article of Iranica. Now I was able to get a hold of the book by Movisi Kalankatuacwoy which I will refer to as MK. The translation of MK has an index and I look through where ever there was mentions of Huns, Khazars and etc. One interesting side fact is again confirmed by Islamic sources and that is the city of Ganjak was build during Islamic times. But going back to the issue, I looked for examples of Turkic settlements and thus far I have not been able to find anything and indeed to the north of Caucasian Albania and Armenia, laid the Khazars and Huns. These groups sometimes fought the Sassanids and Romans, but I did not see any reference in that book for them settling in the area. What I am tring to emphasize is the difference between settlements and actual military expeditions. Indeed various hordes of Iranic tribes like Alans, or Ural and Altaic tribes, and Romans and even Russians might have penetrated these areas, but they were not settled. Also if we take MK's book as a reference, Iranian influence specially through the Parthians was very strong (one good proof of this is that 15% of Armenian is composed of Pahlavi).

But to support this thesis, I was able to get a hold of An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. This Book is probably the most up to date and comprehensive book published on the history of Turkic people. On pg 385 and 386 he talks about Azeris and I quote: Turkic peneration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occured with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (Peter Golden comments: more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol(Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan(Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran(derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors. (pg 386)

Also in the same book he talks about the Sabirs. On pg 104, Prof. Golden says: Sabir origins are equally obscure. And also on pg 105: We shall not consider at this time, ..the Sawrdyh (awardiyah) of Al-Baladuri and Al-Masudi, who are probably to be connected to the Hungarians or Hungarian-related group, Savard, as Marquart and Nemeth have suggested and also same pg: Sabir origins and ethno-linguiistic affiliations, aswe have seen, are uncertain and then furthermore he says the bulks of Sabirs were absorbed by Avars and then later on Khazars. I am not trying to have a debate here, but I am pointing out that Islamic Geographers who have described the language of the area from Islam all the way to coming of Oghuz tribes have not mentioned Turkic as a language spoken in the area or widely heared language. I hope the information on pg 386 of Peter Golden's book can be incorporated in the article. My opinion is that any Wikipedia article about the origin of Turkic speaking groups should not be written without consulting this book. --Ali doostzadeh 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at Golden's book as well and I concur as I read much the same. I think the current version is fine as it sticks to the academic views. I further clarified the wording so as to make clear when turkification is likely to have taken place. Thanks. Tombseye 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I actually found a way to incorporate the Peter Golden reference in the Turkic theory section. This should end the matter I hope. Thanks Ali. Tombseye 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Golden's book is good, but majority of scholars consider all those tribes I've named as Turkic at least with highest degree of veracity. On Sabir's we don't have to go too far -- see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabir Also, let's not forget that the Sabir is quite popular among the Azerbaijani Turks. All other tribes I've named were not from MK, but other, mostly modern, books/sources. As I've stated many time, much of Turkology is either in Turkic languages, or in Russian -- the only other language that united a lot of Turkic people and due to enourmous intellectual potential of USSR, assured massive amount of research and scholarship published. I am not really very enthusiastic about translating bunch of passages and references, it's easier for me to scan online some of those pages. Hence, MK does write about Turkic people, and that's what was the question. While you are very correct, that there is a difference between "inhabited" and "captured", the passage you quoted -- "the throne of Albanian patriachate was transferred from the two of Cholay to the captical Partaw on account of the marauding incursions of the enemies of the cross of christ" -- is fairly clear: if they had to transfer the seat of the Catholicos of Albanians to a safer city in the middle of the country, protected by a river and mountains, it means the other was sacked, occupied, etc. And as recent history teaches us, if you lose control, other move in and start settling, having children, etc. By the way, ethnonym "chol" is Turkic, and is found in Dede Korkut, and was named so because of the Oghuz Chol tribes that settled there early on. Hence, once again, even MK shows that Turkic people definitely inhabited Caucasian Albania (and he, being a good Christian, divided everyone into Christian and "enemies of Christ", not into Caucasian or Turkic, Alban or Oghuz, Alban or Chol, etc). But there are also many references to Turks in various Armenian chroniclers -- maybe Favstos Byzand can be found as well in an academic edition in English? I can help with chapter numbers to locate references to Turkic people. --AdilBaguirov 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is not much indication of heavy settlement of Turkic tribes before the Oghuz according to most of the sources I've read as well (listed in the article). I think we need to stick with mainstream verifiable academic sources in order to give this article credibility. Otherwise, people will tear it apart under scrutiny and not allow it to make it as a featured article, which is really one of the main reasons why I am writing the article in addition to my interest in the region and requests by Grandmaster, Abdulnr, Kash, and Khoikhoi to fix the article. Tombseye 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Next to Tombseye's comment, I just wanted to point out some comments for Mr. Baguirov. The Saabir that is popular amongst Muslims actually comes from the arabic S (saad as opposed to sin) and its root is the word patience (Sabr). A Saabir (with Arabic saad) means someone that is patient. The latin based Azeri-Turkish does not differentiate between the two s sounds and indeed the pronounciation of the two s are the same in both Persian and Turkish. On the other point, what the majority of scholars say is important (if indeed we have read what all scholars have to say! and then do the math to find the majority), but what is more relavent is what the most updated materials (Brittanica, Golden's book and etc.) have to say. A Wikipedia article also is not necessarily even reliable although that should be the goal. There is a good amount of Turkology materials in German and English and the materials are relatively up to date. Note the difference between occupation and settlement. Also similar sounding words does not mean similar roots. For example Azar and Khazar sound similar, but it doesn't mean they are etymologically related. So such an ethnonym as Cholay is not the same as Chol. The city is also called Choray by MK as well and is mentioned in Roman, Persian, Khazar.. hands many times. Also when we say Persian or Khazar or Roman we must remember that these empires used a lot of mercenaries. For example Persian empire used Arabs. Romans used lots of Germanic people. Khazars used many Alans. So any hypothesis needs to be proven. Now as per the occupation mentioned, I never doubted that the Khazars sometimes made incursions into Caucasian Albania (and this was about the end of the Sassanid era), but they were usually beaten back. Occupation also does not mean settlement, and for example Germans occupied France during WWII or the Achaemenids controlled Egypt for more than 200+ years. I think for now the statements of Prof. Golden and Britannica and Iranica and the other Professor from Columbia University are accurate and if there was Turkish presence (and I do not mean the Khazar incursions) below Darband from the Islamic era, it would be very minimal and these groups assimilated into the local population. Some other good reason would be that the earliest manuscript of Turkic from the area is after the Seljuqid era (and only settled people living in large cities would produce literary texts), the many Muslim Geographers that have travelled to the area do not mention Turkic as a language spoken in the area and major cities, and also some of the poems of Qatran Tabrizi shows that Turks where foreign to the area and the area was controlled by Iranians (Kurds, Daylamites) Arabs (who became Iranified) and Christian groups some with Parthian royalty like Albanians, Armenians, Georgians prior to the Seljuqids. --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Baguirov wrote: there are also many references to Turks in various Armenian chroniclers -- maybe Favstos Byzand can be found as well in an academic edition in English? I can help with chapter numbers to locate references to Turkic people.. Since I already made a large effort and obtained MK and checked for references to Turkish settlements and so far I did not find anything, I am willing to do the research. I have access to an English translation of a certain Pawstos Buzandis , History of Armenians. (I think it is the same author), and I am willing to check any reported reference to Turkish settlements for the sake of my own curiosity. Also Moses of Khoren is available in English as well. --Ali doostzadeh 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're okay as is. If you want to do research be my guest though, but I think as far as the article's concerned we have probably too much material and it's going to have to be shortened, which is something I am in the process of completing. Thanks for all your help though. Tombseye 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I won't add more materials. I think we do have materials from the most recent and updated references. take care --Ali doostzadeh 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pawstos Buzandis is the same person -- but which edition is it, is it academic? Same with Movses of Khorene - if it's based on Emin's version, then throw it out. The best editions are obviously either in Armenian or in Russian. Other Armenian, as well as Georgian (e.g., Leonti Mroveli) chroniclers also mention Turkic people in the Caucasus. On a side note -- neither Golden, nor Britannica, nor many others are the most recent. The most recent is the research of perhaps #1 authority on Caucasian Albanian history, prof. F.Mamedova, whose 800-page book I have in front of me and was just published in 2005. The also has three other books out from her life-long research of this matter (she speaks/knows Pahlavi, Grabar, modern Armenian, as well as English, Russian, Azerbaijani and some nominal understanding of a few Caucasian languages), and several high-quality maps, in which she has reconstructed the borders of C.Albania (her maps from 15 years ago are also very good, but new ones are in color and just better produced). I've checked my memory and notes that I've used to write in here with her book, and everything coincided, I can supply all the page numbers, together with scanned pages, if necessary, as well as any references that she uses. Similarly, I have two other books, published in 2004 (1st edition in 1997), a 222-page book by prof. G.Mamedova (that's similar last names, and both are women) and another book by the same author published in 2002 but more on architecture of C.Albania -- however it has a full section in English, which is nice. Anyways, their research is much better not only because they have full access to all Russian-language research in addition of English-language one (and some German and Italian, as there too there are some strong scholars), but they can actually visit all the sites, speak to some of the direct descendants like the Udis. Just recently, after almost 200 years of abolition, the Albanian Apostolic Autocephalous Church was restored and this is a big and great news for all of Azerbaijan. Thus, going by only outdated, rigid and not complete sources written by authors who have never been to Gabala, to Kish, to Barda, to Derbent, to Mingechavir, to Gazakh, and other places that occupy special place in C.Albania's history, is hardly a good practice. --AdilBaguirov 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I support Azerbaijanis taking pride in their Iranian and Caucasian heritage. That is why I am trying to also compromise on the Nizami page (see my message) and I want everyone to be proud, while accurate information is kept. As per Moses of Khoren, it is from the famous edition by Robert W. Thomson, Harvard University Press, London, England, 1978. As per Pawstos Buzandis History of the Armenians / it is translated by Robert Bedrosian, 1985, New York. I believe these are sufficient and very recent editions. As for Prof. Mamedova, with all due respect to domestic scholars, I usually do not trust domestic scholars of countries when they write about their own history. This applies equally well to Iranians, Indians and etc. I make an exception for scholars that are well cited by other academics like Professor Ighrar Aliyev. [23]. Prof. Golden is a well known academic: [24] and I would take his word simply because he is not a domestic scholar and also he has wide range of publications. --Ali doostzadeh 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Nizami page in the last week or so, will do so soon. While I agree in terms of standards of scholarship, at the same time such "unsexy" topics as Caucasian Albania are not really generating a lot of funding opportunities and grants for the Western scholars. Plus language barrier. Thus it's sometimes easier to pretend they don't see and keep on reciting the old, proven stuff. Meanwhile, prof. Mamedova had to go through a lot of hurdles and criticism, both academic and not, to publish her book. Although that's not the most important -- for our purposes, she, who actually firmly establishes primacy of Caucasian ethno-national element in C.Albania, only reports, fully referencing, all the Turkic references - or Iranian or Caucasian for that matter. Hence, she has no bias and horse in the race, whilst her work is the most complete on the history of her country's that specific era. What she cares about is the history of the people - and she was the driving force behind re-establishing of the Albanian Church, as thanks in major part to her efforts, she gave history back to the people. --AdilBaguirov 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will also do some copyediting to shorten the article a bit and fix the references section, so that it is more accessible to readers. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I believe we have worked out all of the problems and controversies surrounding this article in the past. We've given equal time to various theories and origins, and I've listed 67 notes (a record for me as that's more than any article I've written or helped written!) to support the positions the article takes. It is my hope that we can delist this article as a controversial one and move on to better things. As Ali correctly pointed out, no article is perfect and wikipedia is prone to vandalism and edits that often are more nationalistic than factual or even referenced, but I think we've managed to show that this doesn't have to be the case. At any rate, I hope this article can make it as a featured article once I'm done with the copyediting phase. Thanks. Tombseye 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty good site (eurolympic) with good information about sports (history) of Azeri people. Perhaps it could be usefull. Baku87 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Okay, I'll see if I can add it. I well, at the very least add it as a reference. Thanks. Tombseye 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way here are some latest achievements:

• [25]
• [26]

I read Akkadian Empire in Wikipedia. In this Wikipedia's article a Turkish historian claimed that Akkadians (usually known as Semitic) are actually Turks. I am trying to figure out how reliable this claim is.[[27]]

Does anybody know this Turkic historian?

Check this link: [[28]] --behmod talk 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably a joke. Unless there is some new amazing evidence I doubt it will change the mainstream view of the Akkadians. Tombseye 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They do it mainly via linguistics -- there are many amazing similarities, I know dozens of words that are the same, whilst no other major language achieves that degree of overlap. In general, Sumerian and Akkadian studies are very popular in Turkey and Azerbaijan. I know one top scholar, but her work is unpublished yet and thus I cannot say much. But all people came in from one, and there must have been some proto-language. --AdilBaguirov 05:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know for certain that it's not the Sun Language Theory. ;) —Khoikhoi 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Akkadian is Semitic language and is well studied. As for Sumerian, it too is well studied. Lots of languages claim similarity to it from Indo-European to Dravidian to Altaic to ..: Here is a Latvian-Sumerian resembelence supposedly. [29]. But Sumeria is a language isolate and usually many of these dictionaries strech the meaning and sounds until they find some sort of resembelence. --Ali doostzadeh 06:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Smart Turkic historians, again made a new discovery!!!!

Who is the next. Elam, Sumer, Persians or Greeks? Somebody should stop them! After stealing Armenians and Georgians, Iranians and Greeks elements.

Now, is the Akkadian and Elam turn!

Is that the Armenian Academy of Sciences speaking? --AdilBaguirov 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Azeris is now a FA candidate. Hopefully, it'll make it. I'd like to thank all the folks who helped with the article, including people on this discussion page. I'm glad we could work out some neutral views on the divisive origin theories. Let's make wikipedia a place where people with age old rivalries can come to compromise. Cheers! Tombseye 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As a featured article , it should be written based on the acceptable references. Do you have any references to support Azeri origin of Shirin Ebadi? I checked some references such as her auto biography, I could not find any indication to her ethnicity. All I know that she is from Hamedan which has Kurd, Azeri and Persian residents --behmod talk 05:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never searched, but I know two people, very close to me, who met her and her family (sister and son), and spoke to her in Azerbaijani and she herself acknowledged that she is Azerbaijani. This was at the actual Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Norway. I am not sure there can be academic references, but perhaps some websites/articles might have mentioned. Anyways, there are 4 Azerbaijanis on the Iranian football team -- are there really many references around about their ethnicity? Same can be said about many others. But I will see if something pops up. --AdilBaguirov 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually some of the Iranian editors mentioned that she was Azeri at some point. Only place I found that she was listed as an Azeri was here: [30]. I'm not 100% on it as I have yet to find a source that talks about her ethnic background at all. I had trouble finding that Ali Khamanei is Azeri too. I take it these people don't talk much about their ethnic background as many Azeris simply identify themselves as 'Iranians' while others are more overt about their ethnic background. I've also heard that Shohreh Aghdashloo's Azeri from the Persian editors, but I have no idea if she is or not. I've taken her picture down for now and will let mention of her stay since she represents all women in Iran until we know for sure one way or another whether she's Azeri or not. Okay? Tombseye 06:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the point, most don't mention their ethnicity in the newspapers, etc., so it's hard to place them here. Much like in Soviet era when anyone from USSR was labeled "Russian". But Aghdashloo is Azerbaijani, as is another actress in Hollywood - even her last name is Azerbaijani, which is a typical giveaway, and there are a few newspaper stories identifying her as such. --AdilBaguirov 06:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following 4 people in addition to those who are already there:

1. Kerim Kerimov

2. Googoosh

3. Lotfi Zade

4. Another female

Grandmaster 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Shirin Ebadi is a native Azarbaijani-speaker, and I think her husband is a native Persian from Tehran. As per Shohreh Aghdashloo, she is actually native Persian-speaker [31], but her former husband Aydin Aghdashloo is an Azarbaijani and the name Shohreh Aghdashloo has sticked. --Ali doostzadeh 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say Shohreh is Persian? It's strange, but way too many people told me she was Azerbaijani, and I do remember a newspaper story in the US identifying her as such (which is when I first found out about her). I can't find it though. But I did find angry letters to her, including for badmouthing Googoosh. Thus, she should not be listed on the Azerbaijani page. Meanwhile, the other actress I mentioned, I found her name: Shiva Afshar Rose McDermott, married to Dylan McDermott, also actor. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0741675/ She is definitely Azerbaijani, although mother is French I think. There is also famous French actor, Robert Hussein, who is Azerbaijani (and speaks it too, along with Russian), but there are no online references of that. But I would rather not feature actors - they come and go, there are only a few really famous actors of the caliber of Al Pacino, Ford, etc., who are that recognizeable. If we need someone from "popular culture" then it's better to use the two musicians I've proposed - or someone like Rashid Beybutov (Behbudov) -- whilst not well know in the West, he was extremely well known in all of USSR as well as Middle East, and was a true giant, real talent. Or Aziza Mustafazadeh if another female is needed. --AdilBaguirov 07:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On Shohreh, the misconception is because of the Aghdashloo part which was her former husband's last name. I will double check though, but I can tell mainly because of accent. But I will double check from a verifiable souce. Not too many people know she was married to Aydin Aghdashloo and think the Aghdashloo part is part of her original last name . As per Afshar, I would also be careful, since although it is originally a turkic tribal name, many kurds, lors, persians have that last name. --Ali doostzadeh 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay good to know. Do you have a source on Ebadi though? I can already foresee someone not believing that she's Azeri given the nature of wikipedia and it's usually pretty annoying when people edit without thinking whereas a reference often stops them (well most of them anyway). Would appreciate it if have one, otherwise I'll just leave her name in the section as is. As for pictures whatever works, but one voter feels that the picture selections are silly and POV[32]. Took out the little kids so hopefully that will be okay. Otherwise, I don't know how to deal with that as anything can called POV and it would help the article to have pictures of the general population I would think. Tombseye 07:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On Shirin Ebadi, I am very sure she is Azerbaijani. But I will double check for sources. --Ali doostzadeh 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Pictures in the article resolved as well. Tombseye 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both Rashid Behbudov and Muslim Magomayev should be briefly mentioned in the article. Grandmaster 07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can try to put them in. Are they essential? The article's gotten really long and sometimes during the selection process people complain if it's too long. I'll put them in if it's essential though. Tombseye 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They were immensely popular in former Soviet Union and Soviet camp, as well as neigboring countries. Magomayev was # 1 singer of the USSR. Grandmaster 07:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Oh and GM can you upload this picture: [33]? It's a good general scene that can't be interpreted as POV or arbitrary as it is relevent. Also, make sure it has the pertinent information such as where the picture was taken etc. Thanks! Tombseye 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. It's a fruit market in Urmiye and I will mention it at the photo description. Grandmaster 07:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article is long, and you have to choose between Behbudov or Magomayev, then choose Behbudov. He was a great singer and great actor too -- one of the classics, which probably some Iranians saw too, is his Arshin Mal-alan. He is better known internationally - I haven't met an Iranian yet who didn't know him, for example, and heard his music very often, even in one Kurdish cafe in US. Shirin Ebadi is definitely Azerbaijani, she spoke it and admited it to two of my close sources. Shiva Afshar -- I've heard it from several Azerbaijanis from Iran that she is. Meanwhile, I am surprized about Shohreh Aghdashloo, and hopefully Ali will get some info on that. I will ask too. Maybe she is from mixed family, and thus, both informations are correct? But for films Ibragimbekov is better -- his films were nominated 3-4 times for Oscar and he did get it for the "Burnt by the Sun" in the mid-1990s. And his young nephew, Murad, got the top Venice Film Award (Murad lives and works in Russia though, his uncle less so), and that got even Putin excited, invited him to the Kremlin. But again, while popular culture is exciting, my preference is for scientists and military, they are bigger heroes. I think we are overlooking such a giant of Soviet energy industry as academician Farman Salmanov -- he discovered all of the oil deposits in Siberia, and thus every single Russian energy company and all of Russian riches (some 200 bln. in the bank and counting) are thanks to him. That's why they kept on naming various oil regions of Siberia as "second Baku", "third Baku", etc. Today, Russia even positions itself as an "energy superpower" -- a new concept, coined by Russian political scientists. Without academician Salmanov, who spent grueling months in the tough, harsh extreme north conditions, Russia would not have either money or energy superpower status (and I have the honor to have met many of these great people on several occassions, like academician Salmanov, who is probably in Germany right now, as he is an avid football fan, and Gen. K.Kerimov, R.Ibragimbekov, etc). --AdilBaguirov 07:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the list of Grandmaster, if we could have a good confirmation that Shirin is Azeri then that would be awesome. Baku87 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Okay I asked about Shohreh Aghdashloo from an Azarbaijani friend involved in Iranian film review and he said he doesn't think so. But I guess I will never know 100% until I ask her oneday.. About Shirin Ebadi I have always been 100% sure she is an Iranian Azarbaijani. But here are my suggestions: I would removed Esmail I and Khamenei for two reasons. The first one killed about at least 250,000 Sunnis and the second one does not have a positive image in the world media. So putting people like Khameni, Mir Jafar Bagheroff and etc. does not bring a positive image. Instead I suggest the following people: Shahryar the poet, Sattar Khan the leader of the constitutional revolution of Iran (this one for sure needs to be put here I believe), Prof. Lotfi-zadeh and Shirin Ebadi or perhaps Prof. Eghrar Aliyev. Well I'll let others choose, but I believe we should put pictures of people that everyone likes and I hope Sattar Khan and Shahryar are given considerations. --Ali doostzadeh 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. However I was under the impression that some Persian editors were insisting on having Khamanei. Although I agree with your comments and suggestions, will they be okay with them too is the question. I really don't want to see this article devolve into an editing war over pictures of all things! Tombseye 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Iranian editors want to make sure Iranian Azarbaijanis are shown as well. Of course I am just announcing my own opinion and I haven't seen any other Iranians giving opinion on the pictures. Here are my four: Sattar Khan, Shahryar, Shirin Ebadi, Lotfi Zadeh. Actual pictures of all four are available on the internet. Of course there is nothing to insist upon here and I am just giving my opinion. --Ali doostzadeh 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I think though that these pictures will simply have to be distributed throughout the article, but with the caveat tha people don't go overboard with too many pictures. Just some in appropriate sections and leave it at that. We simply can't have every famous Azeri on the page give the small amount of space to work with. Tombseye 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Ali's suggestions, but Lutfi Zadeh was born in Baku, and then got advanced degrees and works, lives in US, spending only brief time in Tehran for his bachelors. Hence, he is not an Iranian Azerbaijani. As a scientist, perhaps Ali Javan, the inventor of the gas lazer, would be a better choice (unless there are some official names of the scientists involved in the nuclear efforts of Iran). At the same time, Googoosh is more famous than Shahryar, who is really only known and beloved by Azerbaijan and Iran, no one outside really knows him. Perhaps some one from sports can be put -- there are currently 5 Azerbaijanis on the Iranian World Cup team, which unfortunately lost: Ali Karimi, Karim Bagheri (from Tabriz), Yahya Golmohammadi (from Ardebil), Rasoul Khatibi (from Tabriz), and Ali Daei (captain, from Ardabil) http://sify.com/sports/football/fullstory.php?id=14213023, http://www.persianmirror.com/culture/famous/bios/alidaei.cfm. --AdilBaguirov 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope everyone else also agrees about Sattar Khan and Lutfi Zadeh. I know Lutfi zadeh was born in Baku, but since he also lived in Iran, it would very good to have him. Ali Dai is another good choice. I am not sure about Ali Karimi being Azerbaijani, but by now I think we have a good amount of choices for the article: Shahryar, Gogoosh, Shirin Ebadi, Sattar Khan, Prof. Lutfi Zadeh, Prof. Ali Javan.. --Ali doostzadeh 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I support all the people proposed by Ali. All are good choices. From the republic of Azerbaijan it would be good to have Kerim Kerimov, Teimour Radjabov, Vagit Alekperov or Uzeyir Hajibeyov, and also a female, how about Aziza Mustafa Zadeh? As for Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev, he’s a very highly regarded person in Azerbaijan, but unfortunately he’s unknown outside of the country. But also all the people from both sides are modern people, but Azerbaijan has a long history. Do we need to include a historical personality there or we can do without them? Grandmaster 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is no clear evidence/source for Shirin Ebadi's origin, she should not be mentioned in this article. I do believe you that some of you know her or her family ... however, this is no propriate source for Wikipedia. Some unknown IP could claim that he knows Shirin Ebadi personally and that she is Persian, Lur, Kurd, or whatever ... I suggest to remove her from this article till we find a proper source for this. I also suggest to remove Babak from this article, since this article is primarily about the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis (or as Grandmaster likes to say: about the Turkic Azerbaijanis). Babak was neither Turkic nor Turkic-speaking. He might have lived in Azerbaijan 1400 years ago, but this does not make him an "Azerbaijani" in modern context, i.e. to a Turkic-speaking/Turkic Azerbaijani. That's like claiming that the medival Turkic historian Mahmoud al-Kashgari was a "Chinese", only because he was born in Kashgar which is today located in China or that Genghiz Khan was a "Russian", because his birth-place was probably in what is today Southeastern-Russia. Instead, he rather qualifies for the Tati people article. Tājik 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would agree except we don't really say Babak was an Azeri or that Shirin is an Azeri for sure, although it seems that most folks Azeri and Iranian seem to be telling me she is. All of that aside, the history section talks about a lot of people who had an impact upon the Azeris who aren't Azeri such as Prince Javanshir who was Albanian or the mixed Safavids etc. It's just the history of the region that the Azeris inherited as the article also makes clear that they are of mixed origin with Turkic, Iranian, and Caucasian elements. I agree that Babak was not an Azeri given the time-line and was probably a speaker of an Iranian language. Ebadi's mention is important as it impacts all women in Iran including the Azeris and again we're not calling her an ethnic Azeri specifically anyway. Khatami is mentioned as well as is the Pahlavi dynasty (the last Shah's wife was an Azeri, but we make no mention of that), but anyone can click on their names and see who they are. The Azeris live in Iran and Iran's policies have an impact upon them so there has to be mention of the Persians just as a peripheral note at the very least. Tombseye 17:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning a cleric in a political article dedicated to a nation's ruler is not the same as mentioning a person in an article about an ethnic group. Shirin Ebdali may be Azeri - and actually I've heared from a lot of people that she is an Azeri. But the point is that we do NOT have proper sources, and that's basically what Wikipedia is: a collection of preper sources, not just claims of certain users.

As for Babak or anyone else: those people may have had strong influences on Azeri epople, but fact is that today's Azeri people are a Turkic-speaking (Turkic) people, identifying themselvs with Turkic identity. Babak, Nezami, etc were NOT Turkic and they were NOT Turkic speaking.

We can't just mention Non-Azerbaijanis in this article who may have had certain influences on the modern Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis ... if that were the case, then Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton should also be mentioned in this article, because their discoveries had also influences on the Azerbaijani people - maybe even more than Babak (who, btw, had absolutely no influence on the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis).

Either this article only concentrates on the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis or it expands to an extent that it does NOT only focus on the Turks, but also on all other peoples in Azerbaijan.

Tājik 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is that for example Alexander the Great is mentioned everywhere for example and the context of the discussions (history, women's issues) requires some mention of these people as the Babak rebellion attracted a lot of attention on the part of the Arabs and Shirin's work impacts all women in Iran anyway. I think with the strict parameter that they not be called ethnic Azeris (until someone verifies it with Shirin who can be later) we can at least simply mention their efforts. I'm not saying Nezami was a Turk, but his statue is a reminder of the impact of Iranian influence and under the Iranian theory, which argues that the Azeris are in fact turkified Iranians, Nezami is a perfect example of possible evidence to support that claim since so many people in the region obviously spoke Persian. Removing him simply undermines the Iranian theory. If other people in addition to yourself still want that, then okay, but I would think the Iranians would in particular like him there as a reminder as to the Iranian character of the region in the past. Tombseye 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

With Babek what matter is that he was born in the land that even then was called Azerbaijan -- and much of his activity and army hailed not only from South Azerbaijan, but North Azerbaijan, then Arran/Caucasian Albania. It was the Alban ruler of one principality, Sumbat, a former ally, that gave Babek to Arab forces. Hence mentioning Babek in Azerbaijanis page makes perfect sense -- plus "Azerbaijanis" includes Caucasian and Iranian and Semitic elements. Thus, anyone born and living on this land and belonging to one of the traditional ethnicities inhabiting it is a very fair inclusion. --AdilBaguirov 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point in here. This article is about the Turkic speaking Azerbaijanis, NOT about all ethnicities that live or lived in Azerbaijan. That'S why this article is called "Azerbaijani people" and not "People of Azerbaijan". Babak's supporters were not only Azerbaijanis, as you claim, but people from all over the region. He himself was a follower of Abu Muslim Khorassani, a man who was born and lived in Khorasan (modern Afghanistan).

I've also removed Nezami from the "Azeri literature" section, because that section is only about the TURKIC literature of Azerbaijan. One cannot name "Dede Kurkut" (a work that was written in Central Asia) and the Persian-speaking Nezami in one paragraph. There is a difference between "Persian literature of Azerbaijan" and "Azeri literature", the same way there is a difference between "Persian literature" and "Azeri literature of Iran"! One cannot name Turkic poets in the Persian literature article, and thus, one cannot name Persian poets in the "Azeri literature" article/section.

Tājik 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik. Although Babak Khorramdin was not a Turkic speaker, still he was from Azarbaijan so it is valid to put him in the history section, just like the medes and albanians were not Turkic speakers either. I think the article is okay. As per Safavids, we know Shaykh Safi ad-din was of Iranic origin, but his later descendants became turko-phones. Just like for example the many Seyyeds all over the Islamic world who are originally Arab (even well known Azerbaijanis like Shahryar and Kasravi and Rasulzadeh were Seyyeds), but nevertheless they are considered part of the region they are from too. Also Azerbaijanis have Iranian heritage and just because of the linguistic shift, we should not say that Babak Khorramdin did not belong to them equally as well. Azerbaijanis can look at their roots also prior to the Turkification of the area, specially since genetic evidence supports the fact that there was linguistic shift and not a people shift. --Ali doostzadeh 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me and I see that as a valid deletion since that section is about Azeri language literature. The history section just relates the history of the area where the Azeris are from, but we won't put a picture with Babak or anything and just leave it as is since anyone can click on his name and read about him just as wikipedia functions. Everything else okay then I hope? Tombseye 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that a picture collage could have copyright issues since it would entail manipulated pictures. I suggest that we choose some prominent Azeris and just put their pictures throughout the article instead and place a symbol of the Azeris (just as the Tamils article does) in the infobox. That way there won't be any copyright questions. OR we could place a few individual pictures side by side and resize them until they are in the same formation. Tombseye 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this emblem representing fire in the place of the collage that we can't use: [34]. It's both an Azeri emblem AND the Iranians can't not like it as it is from Zoroastrian times so it should be okay with everyone. What do people think? Tombseye 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that aswell, fire is the symbol of all Azeri people in fact the word Azeri means fire. But Im not sure how the Iranian Azeris would think about using Azerbaijan Republic emblem. Baku87 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Is there a reason for this article being at Azerbaijani people and not at Azeri people, or even better, at Azeris. The people qualifier, is normally only used when the people need to be disambiguated from the language, e.g. English people vs English language, and Italian people vs Italian language. In other cases, one word titles are (or should be) used, e.g. Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks; it saves space. If you do a google test, you'll see that Azeris, is more common than Azerbaijanis. --Telex 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not certain if this has been discussed before, I couldn't find anything in the archives. --Telex 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could go that way. I saw the trend though going in the direction of adding people to every group's name so that's probably why it is what it is. I'm okay with either one, but good observation. Tombseye 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's another problem though. If you check the native names, it seems that Azerbaijanis (Azərbaycanlılar) is more common than Azeris (Azərilər). Personally, I prefer Azeris, as it is not centred around the state (Azerbaijan). I think this is important in this case, as most ethnic Azeris/Azerbaijanis, live outside Azerbaijan. Additionally, "Azerbaijani" could apply to any inhabitant of Azerbaijan, unlike Azeri, which applies to the specific ethnic group. See a similar example: Bosnians (any inhabitant of Bosnia) vs Bosniaks (the ethnic group). Moreover, Wikipedia policy seems to be in favour of naming entities after their most common English name, as in East Timor (not Timor-Leste, which is what the state's government uses in English). --Telex 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another reason I favour "Azeris", is that we know how to spell that in the Arabic alphabet used by the Azeris in Iran. --Telex 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Persian alphabet? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The official name is Azerbaijani(s), and that should be used instead of Azeris. Same as "Azerbaijani language" and not "Azeri language" as sometimes spelled. The latter is used mostly out of convenience -- it's shorter. But the Constitution of Azerbaijan clearly says Azerbaijani for both people and language. Recently, a special letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also circulated, which specified the same -- that it's Azerbaijani, not Azeri. However, since "Azeri" is also widespread, it should be included in the subhead or otherwise in the text. This all relates to the section below, "Cyrillic name", which also spells, in Azerbaijani Cyrillic alphabet, "Azeris", instead of "Azerbaijanis". --AdilBaguirov 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're sure then good (the Azerbaijani Google test turns up more results for Azərbaycanlılar than Azərilər). How about renaming it to Azerbaijanis? It's a shorter title, and for the reasons I stated above. --Telex 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I found out how to spell Azərbaycanlılar in the Arabic/Persian alphabet here. --Telex 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool deal. It's the little aesthetics that make the article look better so good job guys! Tombseye 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes perfect sense to simply state "Azerbaijanis". Just as "English", "Russian", "French", "Italian", "German", etc., for both people/ethnos and language. --AdilBaguirov 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that the "people" qualifier is needed only when the people need to be disambiguated from the language, as in English people vs English language. There is no term in that case which could refer only to the people (excluding the politically incorrect Englishmen). On the other hand, we have Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romanians, Arabs etc, as their titles are unambiguous. The split comes when we have Italian people instead of Italians and Russian people instead of Russians. It seems to me that the title depends on what the editors think is more appropriate. --Telex 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is "Азәриләр" in the table. It's apparently the name used in Cyrillic Azeri in the Azerbaijan SSR. I suggest to put it somewhere else, may be in the lead section. --Brand спойт 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Caucasian Albanians briefly established a kingdom that barely lasted a century, as Armenian invaders took control from 99-66 CE. They were followed by the Romans, who dominated Azerbaijan until 224 CE"

The above sentence it incorrect and should be changed. First of all, the "Armenian" reference I am sure refers to the Tigranes II Great's alleged conquests of Caucasian Albania (C.A.). Well, to begin with, he ruled from 95 to 66/65 BC, that's only 30 years. Seconly, he obviously didn't have much to rule in 95 BC when he ascended the throne. He subjected Atropatene and Media only by 85 BC, for example, and started losing much very quickly to Romans. Thirdly, according to some Armenian chroniclers, he made Caucasian Albania, a vassal state -- and to others, he incorporated some lands of C.A. into his empire. None of this is correct and I've got very details debunks of all those allegations. Indeed, scholarly sources and encyclopedia's mention NOTHING about conquest of C.Albania, as it is an early misconception by some, mostly Armenian, writers. Finally, Tigranes was not even ethnic Armenian -- he was Parthian, as was his whole dynasty of Artaxiads (as was the next royal dynasty of Armenia, Arsacids)! They were a branch of the Parthian Artaxiads of Iran, and have also, for continuity purposes, claimed to be of Iranian heritage, as descendants of the Eruandid dynasty.

Secondly, Romans did NOT dominate Azerbaijan at all -- where is that info from? Romans fought several battles with C.A., and it was a Pyrhic victory, with both sides losing huge numbers of soldiers. Once again, C.A. was not conquered. Indeed, the king of C.A. didn't even appear in Rome -- unlike Tigranes II and other kings of Armenia, who became vassals at different times of Rome, Byzantium, Parthia and Persia/Iran.

Caucasian Albanian kingdom was established since IV-III century BC and existed until 705 AD century, and then while part of caliphate, several attempts were made to re-establish the kingdom, and it did, albeit partially, in IX and X centuries, as well as small principalities later. --AdilBaguirov 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History section fixed. Thanks. Tombseye 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me when you want to make changes to the article as your changes were badly written (no offense as I realize you're not a native speaker) and redundant as Prince Javanshir is discussed one line after you added him. There's no need to add more as the article is already too long and no one is going to want to read more details. You'd be better off writing an article on Javanshir as there is currently none. Thanks. Tombseye 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and indeed I was tired. But the page in its current form, as I've said before, is incorrect in that section, and omits very important details. Here's the paragraph I had, which can be shortened:

Caucasian Albanians are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of Azerbaijan. Early invaders included the Scythians who arrived in the ninth century BCE.^[1] A century after the Scythians, the Medes came to dominate the area to the south of the Aras.^[2] The Medes forged a vast empire between 900-700 BCE, which was overthrown by the Achaemenids around 600 BCE. The Achaemenids, in turn, were defeated by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE as the Median satrap Atropates was allowed to remain in power. Following the decline of the Seleucids, in Persia, Caucasian Albanians established a kingdom, which was interrupted 224 CE until six century CE during which the Sassanids made it a nominally vassal state.^[2] Caucasian Albania has officially adopted Christianity as its official religion in 313 CE^[3][4] and would remain a Christian nation until the eighth century.^[5] In the seventh century, the king of Caucasian Albania, Jevanshir, was killed in a court plot and the country was soon overrun by invading Muslim Arabs, starting in 642 CE and finishing in 705 CE.^{[6] [7]}

The text still have errors -- for example, C.Albania was not established "following the decline of Seleucids" -- it existed already in Alexander the Great times! My inclusion were dealing with two things: specify the year of adoption of Christianity, a very important fact, and two, clarify the wording and dates about Arab conquest, as well as alleged and disproven conquest by the Parthian Tigranes II Great. He obviously didn't, as even POV maps do not show territory left of Kura river as part of "Greater Armenia" (which means at the very minimum -- if we go along with those biased maps -- that no more than half of C.Albania was occupied). Meanwhile, C.Albania still retained all its lands, as even Strabo doesn't mention C.Albania among the conquests of Tigranes -- only Atropatena, that's it. Plus, Tigrane's activity was from 85BC to 69BC -- not from the already incorrect 99BC until 66BC. --AdilBaguirov 01:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik turned this article as well into the battleground over Safavids, trying to suppress their connection to Azerbaijani people. In fact, Safavids spoke Azeri as a native tongue, and used Persian in administration.

Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

This fact is confirmed even by Iranica:

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war. [35] see page 246

As is known, Safavids started ruling Iran since 16th century.

Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular. Iranica Book 1, p. 240

Vernacular = native language.

Later Safavids also spoke Azeri Turkic language: Shah Abbas II (r. 1052 – 77/ 1642 – 66 q.v.) was himself a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani. [36] See page 251

But the version of Kurdish origin of Safavids is not supported by all scholars, such prominent historian as Bernard Lewis says:

The Safavid threat to the Ottomans was rendered at once more acute and more intimate by the Turkish origin of the Safavid family and their extensive support in Turkish Anatolia.

It is ironic that in the increasingly angry correspondence between the two monarchs that preceded the outbreak of hostilities, the sultan wrote to the shah in Persian, the language of urban, cultivated gentlemen, while the Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins.

Bernard Lewis. The Middle East. ISBN: 0684832801

So I don’t know why Tajik brings up this issue again, while the article had a very neutral wording. Grandmaster 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not try or do anything. It is you who has some kind of desire to mention the Azeribaijani language 10, 20, or 40 times in every article connected to the Safavids. That the Safavids were Turkic-speaking is already mentioned in the text. So, there is absolutely no need to mention that twenty-thousend times ... Besides that, you also make a mistake by saying that "all Safavids were Azerbaijani-speaking" ... The Safavids were a laaaaaarge family, with every king or prince having 10 or 20 children. Many of them were local rulers in certain provinces and married local nobles. NOT all of them were native Turkic-speakers, especially not those who had Armenian, Georgian, or Persian mothers. Azerbaijani Turkic remained an important language of the dynasty - and many princes were native-speakers of that language - but your claim that all Safavids were native Azerbaijani-speakers is WRONG. The same way that your claim that Persian was only used in adminsitration is wrong ... In fact, the overwhelming majority of Safavid literature was written in Persian, and many Safavid princes were themselvs Persian poets, such as Shah Ismail or his son, Sami Mirza (who was born to a Persian mother). You can read that in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article. Do you want me to post the part about the literture of the Safavid era? Tājik 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't really anything wrong with how it was originally worded though as it's exactly what Ira Lapidus (Prof. at UC Berkeley) wrote: They were of Kurdish descent and spoke Azeri. The point of the next line was that the dynasty in the long run was bilingual in BOTH Azeri and Persian so this was not redundant but a clarification for people who don't know who the Safavids were. Regardless, the main point of the Safavids was that they were Shia in a Sunni region and so I've removed the whole controversy all together. Really no reason to argue over this small matter frankly. Tombseye 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, saying "Azerbaijani-speaking" is very much correct, as the Azerbaijani language existed and the founder of the shah dynasty himself wrote in beautiful Azerbaijani many of his poems. Much of government and court writings were in Azerbaijani language -- I even have both faximille and transcribed archival copies of the following letters in Azerbaijani: from Shah Safi I (1629-1642) to the Austrian Emperor, Hungarian king Ferdinand II (1619-1637) and letter of Shah Sultan Huseyn (1694-1722) to Saxon prince, Polish king Fridriech August (1694-1733). There letters were discovered in 1936 by a Hungarian scholar, Fekete Layosh. As you can see, they are from the *dawn* of the Safavid rule, which proves that Azerbaijani language was used throughout the entire dynastic rule -- from 1501 till 1722 (and then on during the Zend dynasty, which never declared itself shah, and kept Sefevids in place). In addition to these two, there are also nine more letters and orders, such as order of Shah Ismail I to Musa Durgut (dated 23 June 1512), letter of Shah Safi I to Russian czar Michail Romanoff (1613-1645). Also, letter by Shah Tahmasib I to Ottoman prince, future sultan, Selim II; Shah Tahmasib I order on Zeynalabdin Ali Abdi bey's "Takmellatul Ahbar" writing; letter by Mohammad Khudabande letter to Farhad Pasha; Shah Abbas II (1642-1666) letter to beylarbay of Shirvan, Haji Manuchehr khan, etc.

Meanwhile, various exceptions -- someone's mother being non-Azerbaijani, etc., are creating the following problem: 1) this is typical for royal families, wives were often of other nationalities and from other countries, and 2) as such, not a single "Persian" dynasty is then Persian -- and we can then demand than all Persian-speaking/Iranian dynasties be approached with the same logic in mind as the one you employ.

Since all scholars perfectly realized this, yet still said Turkic-speaking or Azerbaijani-speaking, it makes sense to stick to that and not open a Pandorra box, since everyone would be affected. --AdilBaguirov 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point of the discussion, AdilBaguirov. The point is that there is absolutely no need to mention the Azerbainai language of the Safavids more than 2 times in the article. It's already mentioned in the text that they spoke Azeri, and - in addition to that - it's also mentioned that Shah Ismail wrote poetry in Azeri.

I removed an additional mentioning of the language in a paragraph in which this was totally unnecessairy. That paragraph does not deal with the language of the Safavids, but with the simply and well-recognized fact that the Safavids were the first native Iranian dyansty in more than 800 years. The paragraph is about the contrast between namodic Turcoman "Aq Qoyunlu" Khans and the Iranian Sufi-grandmasters of the Safavid family. The language of these dynasties - borth were multi-lingual - has no importance in that paragraph.

As for the letters: there are also enough Persian letters and scripts from the Safavid era. It is even confirmed by Shah Ismail's son - Sam Mirza - that his father also wrote poetry in Persian (which deffinitly proves the fact that Persian was not a "foreign language" to Ismail, but like Azeri a "native tongue", because it's not easy to write poetry in a foreign language).

It was Shah Abbas who reintroduced Persian military-titles to the Safavid army, removing the old Turkic and Arabic words (for example "Sipahsalar" instead of the old "wakil").

The majority of poems, books, and religious scripts written in the Safavid era were in Persian, not Azeri ... That's why the Safavid influence on the Mughals in India turned that dynasty into a Persian dynasty and not into a Turkic one.

But all of this has nothing to do with my eidt. I am just saying that certain infos should not be mentioned in every paragraph ... they should only be mentioned in the part where they belong in. The language of the Safavids is explained in a seperate paragraph ... therefore, there is no need to mention that in the "origin" part as well. Tājik 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, who ever said that Persian was a "foreign language" to Ismail or the Safavids? As of knowing well several languages, while hard, is commonplace, and even Nizami obviously possessed that quality, as did Sultan Selim for example, or sultan Mahmoud Ghaznevi, and many other Turkic rulers who commanded and spoke in Turki, but wrote poetry in Farsi, sometimes exclusively. Meanwhile, I agree that there is no need to mention language many times, but also placing artificial limits ("two times is enough") is not good either. It should depend on the context. And once again, let's approach all pages with equal standards and measurement. Best, --AdilBaguirov 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that "Azeri was the native-tongue of the Safavids and Persian was only used in administration" is the same thing as saing that "Persian was a foreign language to them". But this is totally wrong.

As for the Ghaznavids (who did not consider themselvs "Turks" but "Iranians", as Italian archaeologists found out after translating a Ghaznavid poem on an old minaret in Afghanistan, in which the Ghaznavid Sultan Mas'ud links himself and his family to the epic Persian heroes of the past - see "Ghaznavids" in Encyclopaedia Iranica) : these people were not Turkic-speakers, they were native Persian-speakers. The Ghaznavids were a 100% Persinized family of origianlly Turkic slave origin. They were trained by Persians, they were raised in a Persian-speaking environment. There is absolutely no proof for the claim that "Ghaznavids spoke Turkic" - ALL sources point to the established opinion that they were 100% Persian-speaking, considering themselvs "Persians" and linking themselvs to the Persian epic. heroes of the past.

Tājik 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tajik, there is no doubt that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was of Iranic origin. But the later Safavid dynasty people's mother tongue was probably Turkic.

There is no doubt that the Safavids were Persianized specially when they moved their capitcal to Isfahan. But they also spoke Turkic. Esmail the first has poetry in both languages. Interestingly enough Esmail the first had a Christian mother of Georgian or Greek descent and this also adds variety to the genetics of Safavids. I think the information about Safavids is fine right now. --Ali doostzadeh 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ali, who has been a good voice of reason with this article from an academic standpoint, and I would just like to add that the whole argument seems to me pretty pointless here. I mean the wording was directly quoted and then by saying bilingual I merely was explaining that they were political leaders of an empire based in Iran that required them to be Persian speakers as well. People seem to be a little too sensitive over this issue. At any rate, how about we put it behind us now please guys? Thanks. Tombseye 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali, since you bring in Ismail's mother into this, let's not forget that Halima Begum's father was Uzun Hasan, a Turkic ruler (emperor). Thus, Ismail and his descendants definitely had royal/noble Turkic blood in them from a male lineage (that is, grandfather). And since ALL sources say that Safavid's were Turkic speaking from the very time of Ismail's conquests, and had the hordes of Turkic Qizilbash's (some of which Kurdified later), it means that Ismail's father had Turkic blood too. Meanwhile, how is Sheikh Safi Kurdish? Just based on one, even if "official", history account? Why you don't think that they could falsify it, for reasons of prestige and claim to, for example Saladin's fame, and otherwise to Iranian kings of antiquity? After all, didn't Ismail proclaimed himself essentially an Arab by claiming descent from Ali's (sas) lineage? And how could all the scholars miss that one reference about sheikh Safi being of Kurdish descent (i.e., even there, it was of descent, already mixed)? --AdilBaguirov 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, I think you are misunderstanding -- even saying what you quoted does not mean what you took it for. Indeed, you say that, yet then talk at length about sultan Mahmoud Ghaznevi, who was a Turk no matter who his mother was or what his geneology was falsified to say, or how much he wanted to be like a mythical king from Shahnameh, etc. Everyone wants to be superman, so what? All sources I saw said he knew Turki and that he was Turk. And Ali agreed with the opinion of many scholars that in his famous letter to Nizami, Shirvanshah Axsitan I implies sultan Mahmoud Ghaznevi when he says that Turkish customs are not the style of his court. --AdilBaguirov 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On Nizami lets leave that issue for the other entery. But on Shaikh Safi ad-din Ardabili, Roger Savory and Zeki Validi Togan .. have mentioned Kurdish. The reason is that not only all the poems from Shaikh Safi ad-din Ardabili are in the ancient Iranic dialect of Azerbaijan (which is slightly different than Khorasani Persian, see the Azari dialect), but also the oldest manuscripts of the Safavid geneology: Safvat al-safa have mentioned the ancestor of Shaikh Safi (Firooz Shah Zarrin Kolah) as a Al-Kurd al_sanjani (the Kurd from Sanjan..)... but since the argument has ended, there is no reason to delve into this topic in this page. --Ali doostzadeh 05:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

@ Adil: according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, from Sheikh Haydar Safavi to Shah Ismail Safavi, all leaders of the Safavi family had Turcoman mothers (in case of Ismail, his mother was half-Turcoman, his grandmother being Greek). In here, the word "Turcoman" simply refers to thge Aq Qoyunlu kings who themselvs were of mixed origin - including Persian.

In regard of Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabeli, there is absolutely no doubt that he was of Iranian origin. His poem-collection - the "Dobayt" collection - is (interestingly) written in his mother-tongue Old-Azeri (Pahlavi). Since Pahlavi (Old Azeri or Old-Tati) was not really a literary language and had not the same status as Arabic, Persian, or Chaghatay, one has to ask himself WHY Sheikh Safi wrote his poems in that language?! And the only logical explanation is that Old-Tati was his native language - his "vernacular". There are also a couple of Persian poems written by Safi al-Din, but NO Turkish poetry.

Sheikh Safi al-Din married into the family of Zahed Gilani who was called "al-Kurdi" because he lived among Kurds ... yet, his paternal linage was Persian, from Khorasan ... that's why he was known as "as-Sanjani".

It was only in the last3 or 4 generations that the Safavids mixed with the Turkic-speaking population of Azerbaijan, with ONLY Junayid and Ismail having evidently "ethnic Turcoman" background (both were related to the Aq Qoyunlu Khans).

Ismail's son Tahmasp was born to a Persian mother, but since he had lost his father so early, he was raised by the Ustajlu clan-chiefs who were the de facto rulers of the kingdom. From then on, the Safavid rulers married into the noble families of the kingdoms - both Kizilbash-Turcomans and Tajik nobles. Mirza Salman. for example, the ethnic Persian wakil of the Kizilbash armies in Transoxania, was a father-in-law of Shah Abbas I. Shah Safi, on the other hand, was born to a Turcoman mother - other Safavid princes had Armenian or Georgian mothers.

As for you allegation that "Ismail only claimed to be Persian": keeping in mind that Ismail was the first in more than 800 years who actually claimed to be a "descendant of the Sassanids"´, it's already a proof that - unlike previous rulers of Iran - the Safavids had an "Iranian identity" that was a clear contrast to the Turcoman tradition of all other rulers of the region.

And as a last point: the "Kizilbash" were not exclusivly a Turkish group. The Turcomans were the most influental group, but there were also many Non-Turks - including Lurds (for example the Zand family), Kurds, Persians, and others - in addition to the ethnic Persian "wakils" of the Safavid army, the commanders of the Kizilbash tribes.

Tājik 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but now I am confused - so why is Sheikh Safi - not to mention Ismail himself - considered by you as Kurdish, and not Tat? And did Tats have their separate from Persians ethni identity 500 years ago? Indeed, some Tats in Azerbaijan claim he was Tat, whilst some Talysh claim he was Talysh - and all refer to the same "family history" book. But even then, all evidence shows that Ismail was at least half-Turkic, and his blood connection, ability to legitimately claim descent to Uzun Hasan was certainly extremely important for political and military power. Which Safavid had an Armenian mother? Aside from Shah Abbas I, I've never seen any references to such -- and in case of Shah Abbas, his mother was Persian, not Armenian. Meanwhile, there was a Georgian mother or two indeed - but again, this is typical for any royal family and nobles, not a single royal house is then belonging to any one country. All Georgians, Persians, etc., royal houses had many "outside" bloods as well. Also, I thought Zand's were Kurds - so they were Lors? --AdilBaguirov 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adil. The Zands were Lurs , although some Kurdish nationalists consider Lurs as a branch of Kurds. As per Shaikh Safi ad-din, the language he uses is called 'taati'. Taati is a general term, actually of Turkic origin, which refers to peakers of Iranic languages that were non-Turkic. I think Kashghari uses Taati in Turkish and Farsi in Arabic as equivalent in his dictionary. The Taati in the republic of Azerbaijan is closer to Dari-Persian a SW Iranian language, but the taati of Shaykh Safi-ad-din Ardabili is closer to Kurdish/Talyshi and the words used can be understood by Talysh and Kurdish speakers. The Taati of Iranian Azerbaijan in some villages is actually closer to Talyshi and mutually intelligble. Also Talyshi and the Kurdish of West Azerbaijan share large amount of lexicon and according to one Talysh I know, he understands 90% of Kurdish. So that is why I guess some Talyshis also claim the poetic of Shaykh Safi ad-din to be in Talyshi. --Ali doostzadeh 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to remind folks that adding more details about little things is not a winning recipe for a featured article. Most featured articles simply give overviews on things and then point to bigger articles with details. In many cases citations are what people will read if they want to know more about something. There are a lot of sub-articles that could be developed instead. This article is probably the longest of the ethnic group articles now AND doesn't need more (especially when it's badly written) unless it has something to do specifically with the Azeris. Otherwise, this article will fall apart and read badly and the average person (who is not Azeri or Iranian) will grow uninterested and stop reading. So please bring up changes here first. This is a request in the hopes that we don't suddenly see this article devolve into chaos. Thanks. Tombseye 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, my hat is off to you user:Tombseye 69.196.164.190

Can we also deal with the views of Iranian Azaris and Azaris from the Republic of Azarbaijan? The majority of Azaris in Iran see themselves as ethnic Iranians while a large amount of Azaris in the Republic Of Azarbaijan see themselves as mixed Turkic peoples. I have looked at the archieves and there has been a lot of sources used to verify this. 69.196.164.190

I can put in something of that perception, but I'd need a citation or two just to make the case as I haven't read or seen anything about a predominant view one way or another. Mostly what I've read points to many Azeris being well integrated and in essence identifying with the Persians (which I put in the Azeris in Iran section) to others who aren't (the Institutions section explains the more dissident views) and so I need something, like a study or statistics to make such a claim. Everything in the article has citations because of the many controversies surrounding the Azeris. Note, for example, the contention over the Safavids, which to me seems very pointless. Blanket statements will otherwise weaken the article's attempt at going for a neutral academic approach. Thanks. Tombseye 04:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a few references for such a point would help. The thing is, in Iran, they rarely call Azerbaijanis as such, they prefer to call them "Tork" ("Turk"), thus actually emphasizing Turkishness. Thus, at least in the 4-5 north Iranian provinces that are generally understood to be as South Azerbaijan, it's doubtful that any sizeable minority can look at themselves as "ethnic Iranians" (unless they are like mollah Kasravi, but that source is 60+ years old). They certainly view themselves as Iranians, but "ethnic Iranians"? Doubtful. Plus, everyone everywhere in the world has mixed through centuries -- not a single Persian is a "pure Persian", like not a single Azerbaijani is a pure Turk. And trying to capture the very complex ethnogenesis process is not as simple. As I've noted before, there is much more than genetics or language that unites Azerbaijanis -- they have common music and cuisine style, different from others, and certainly folk dances, especially the typical Azerbaijani fast-paced dances like terekeme (you can view video and pictures of some of that, of course geared for a Western audience and not as authentic, as well as sign up for classes from one of the teachers (well, dance therapists) in LA: http://www.azerbaijandance.com/main.htm). Some additional pictures are available here[37]--AdilBaguirov 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are extremly wrong; the majority of Azarbaijanis in Iran view themselves as ethnic Iranians, just go read the archieves and see all the verification given. The Firstl leader of the Republic of Azarbaijan in between WWI and WWII was a Pan-Iranianist originally and only gave the idea up for political capital in Baku. 69.196.164.190

I think the primary goal of any article is to make the article accurate and free of any sources that may be biased. One of the sources quoted in the article has a definite political bent [38]: This statement can be related to the activity of Armenian "historians from politics", to whom peculiar to falsify historical facts. We can only guess what else Armenian historians prepare for us.

!! (I do not think quoting such a source is responsible)

Also the article by UNHCR: [39] is also made up by psuedo historians and I quote: The ancient states of Azerbaijan, which maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Sumer and Akkad and formed part of the wider civilization of Mesopotamia, were governed by dynasties of Turkic descent. The Turkophone peoples which have inhabited the area of Azerbaijan since ancient times were fire-worshippers and adherents of one of the world’s oldest religions - Zoroastrianism. The country’s name, in its current form, is derived from a Turkic collocation meaning “land, noble people, keepers of the flame”..

The above article does not have an author and it could be a report prepared by the Azerbaijani government or the Azerbaijani government had some input in it. Such statements as above are false and extremly unfortunate. I think we need to adhere to the utmost academic standard and every source needs to be verified.

On the matter of Christianity and Caucasian Albania, I would quote reliable references like the statement from the Iranica article on Albania: (see pg 806). [40]

Also Caucasian Albania was fully within the Sassanid domain as testified by Kartir's inscription. Since Tombseye is doing good work, I would encourage him to read this article in full also: [41]

--Ali doostzadeh 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, obviously none of the sources can be always perfect and 100% accurate -- neither is Iranica, I've shown that with Atabek state, for example. In the articles cited we are interested not in politics, but in concrete dates. Zurab's article -- he is not Azerbaijani Turk, but an Udin, a direct descendant of the Uti's, who were one of the core Albanian ethnos -- explains very well the whole chronology (although the English is a bit rough), and once again, shows that Iranica's interpretation of the events is incorrect -- which is because in addition to Dowsett's best academic edition of MK, Iranica also, for some increddible reasons, uses the horrible Emin version (read some thought of Dowsett about Emin's edition in his intro, as well as how some key pages from the manuscripts of MK stored in Armenia "fell out", but were later found and added back) and Chahnazarian's Paris edition. My objective was to cite the exact date of Christianity adoption - and that's what those two articles were meant to do. Albanology is relatively young or rare in the West, hence there is not much English-language info except from Armenian sources. Sassanid period spanned several centuries, and sometimes suzeiranty was full, sometimes it was nominal. In any case, that doesn't relate to the Christianity adoption too much -- the process is discussed in MK, and that's what scholars use primarily to determine the date. --AdilBaguirov 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well those two articles are unacademic, specially now that you mentioned it, the person is writing about their own ethnic group. I do not think we can compare Iranica which is written by top scholars(and no one is perfect and even Britannica and Iranica have errors) to those two articles. Prof. Marie-Louise Chaumont is well known actually and has lots of academic articles in peer reviewed journals (BSOAS for example). The other article on Daghestan is written by a professor from the former USSR and so he is not a Western author. I do not think there is an edition problem with MK, where the date of adoption of christianity is in question. If you know the exact passage let me know and we can check other editions. Else I do not think those two sources just recently added to the article are academic and their political bent is clear. For now the Iranica articles are most up to date online references I am aware on the history of Caucasian Albania and both authors are experts in their known field. --Ali doostzadeh 04:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference to UNHCR with this one: Charles van der Leeuw, "History of Azerbaijan: A sequence of turmoil" [42]. I've left the second one, as it contains details from the books on how the date was calculated. It contains the answers Ali which can be verified with the book. If you have the book, can you also provide the first chapter of the first book, where MK says how C.Albania came to exist, that a territory from Khnarakert to Derbent to Araxes was inherited by Aran? Best, --AdilBaguirov 04:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More academic sources are what we need and also I'd like to reiterate that we don't need these details of the exact date of conversion to Christianity in THIS article because it's too long already. Succinct summary style is what people like in a featured article. I would recommend that if you want to expand upon this subject, then help the articles that this page links such as Caucasian Albania. For example there is no article on Prince Javanshir so that would be a good place to start. Plus more details such as the cartoon's editor being fired aren't really relevant as the only issue is that people protested the cartoon whereas the external links give the rest of the story. We don't want this article to turn into a mess of citations and bad writing about things people can simply read by clicking a link. Less is more at this point. Thanks. Tombseye 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adil, but your new source is not academic [43]. I have MK's book, but it is hard for me to scan all the information. BOOK 1, chapters 6-10 in general discuss the conversion. The article by Zurab seems bias for several reasons. One is because of the authors background. The other is the statement I brought. And the third is that the author does not have any academic publications in major journals as far as I know. I think we need to make sure this entery adheres to the highest academic standards. --Ali doostzadeh 05:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are yet English-language academic publications on the date yet, and neither does Zurab have anything in English aside from this poorly translated article. Otherwise, I can cite at least one source right now from the Russian-language book of prof. Mamedova. Whilst I do support rigid standards for an encyclopedia, then I insist we do that everywhere and in everything on all pages. The truth is that there is just not enough academic sources in english online on our subjects. Unfortunately. --AdilBaguirov 05:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that should be the case for any topic. Usually the most Academic sources written by major Professors that have many publications in their respective field, are given the top consideration. I think the Iranica article which quotes a lot of Russian sources and one of the article seems to be written by a Russian Professor. Usually the Western Academics that talk about Albania definitely read Russian. See for example the reference to Aliev by Prof. Chaumont.. If you have any ancient source on the exact date of conversion (I do not see anything in MK) , let me know. For now I think the statement of Prof. Chaumont in the Albania article is sufficient about the conversion to Christianity. --Ali doostzadeh 05:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If we are to discard the sources I've linked -- despite, once again, the acceptance of 313 by some scholars -- then I don't see the reason to use Iranica's when you have the MK book. It's better to use the primary source, as it will tell you the same Iranica does, but with more details and more correctly (in case of Dowsetts edition). --AdilBaguirov 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Iranica source quotes MK's book. See the pages 80-8808: Towards the begining of the 4th century, at a date which is still under discussion, the Arsacid king of Armenia, Tiridates III, officially adopted Christianity, having been converted by St. Gregory. According to Movses KAlankatuac'i( or Dasxuvanc'i, History of Albanians, ed. J. Emin, Moscow, 1860; repr. Tiflis, 1912; and ed. Chahnazarian, Paris 1906, 1.11; tr. J.F. Dowsett, The history of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranci, Oxford, 1961, pp. 1-12), Urnyar the king of Albania soon arrived in Armenia with his dignitaries for the purpose of being baptised by St. Gregory. Christianity spread in Albania only gradually. Grigoris, a grandson of St. Gregory, consecrated biship of Iberia and Albania, came to Albania, build a church, and established priests in the city-fortress of Tri (or Tsri), but the inhabitants killed the priets and revolted against the king of Albania, with the help of the king Persia. The city was taken by the Argesacik Persians. So the Iranica article does not necessarily contradict 313 A.D. I just do not see any references to 313 A.D. I think the above statement from Iranica which quotes MK is accurate on the Christianity of Albania. But I did have major problems with the Zurab article (since it has a political bent) and also the other article claiming turcophoneness of some major ancient civilizations which was false. The other source: [44] although not too much to disagree on about christianity, is not academic source. Indeed the author is not a Professor of a major university, but he is a: Dutch-born journalist Charles van der Leeuw has lived in Azerbaijan for more than a decade, and is the author of: Azerbaijan - A Quest for Identity, 1999, St. Martin's Press, New York.. So there is not much contradiction here on the actual era of adoption of christianity, but one should give preference to an Academic source, specially those written by Professors who have spent decades in the field of ancient history. --Ali doostzadeh 07:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's an academic source, which on the part about Armenia proves Zurab, a young historian, along with all Azerbaijani scholars, correct, and on the part about adoption of Christianity by Albania is off by only 7-15 years due to 1) being slightly old (1996) and 2) lack of any English-language books from non-Armenian sources: "The culmination of this growing Roman influence came in the early fourth century when possibly in 314 (not earlier as Armenian tradition would have it) king Trdat accepted St Gregory the Illuminator as the first bishop of Armenia. the conversion of Albania, Iberia and the western Georgian kingdom of Lazika followed, probably in the 320s and 330s." (Mark Whittow, "The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025", Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996, ISBN: 0520204972, pp. 204-205). --AdilBaguirov 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is good information and it doesn't contradict the Iranica information. I think MK mentions the same thing (with the exception of dates). Thanks. --Ali doostzadeh 08:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with user:Ali Dosstzadeh; he knows what he is talken about and has verified and cited all his assertions so far. I agree with his rationale and more importantly he has proven it! 69.196.164.190

Not to make it harder for Tombseye, but I thought this data is important. Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab (an Iranian Azarbaijani ) did his PhD in Cambridge University. Here is the older homepage where he is mentioned as a student of the following Professor: [45]. In a recent article, see the Persian text [46] , the doctor and his group member in Cambridge have done extensive DNA testing in Iran. (the first of its kind). Here is an important result from the text which I think should be mentioned: براساس تحقيقات پژوهشگر ايراني ژنتيك پزشكي و جمعيتي دانشگاه «كمبريج» كه با كمك و نظارت گروهي از برجسته ترين محققان اين رشته انجام شده، جمعيت هاي ايراني كه با زبان‌هاي غير از گروه هندو-اروپائي تكلم مي‌كنند به ويژه جمعيت آذري زبان ساكن در فلات ايران ريشه ژنتيكي مشتركي با اقوام ترك زبان ساكن در كشور تركيه و اروپاي شرقي ندارند و بر عكس «شاخص‌هاي تمايز ژنتيكي» آنها (مانند FSt) با ساير گروه‌هاي ساكن در فلات ايران به ويژه فارسي زبانان نزديك به صفر است كه نشانگر ريشه ژنتيكي مشترك آنها در اعماق تاريخ ايران است.

Based on the research of Dr. Bonab and the Cambrigde university genetic team where he received his PhD (so it is not just any research but actual PhD thesis was based on these results). The study was done on the indo-european and non Indo-European speaking groups of Iran. Specially the large non- indo-european speaking Azerbaijanis. The study found that the Azerbaijanis of Iran do not have a similar FSt and other genetic markers as those of Anatolian Turks and Turkic speakers of Europe. But on the other hand, their genetic Fst and other genetic traits is very identical to the Persian speakers of Iran.

The above data should be incorporated in the genetic section of the text. --Ali doostzadeh 05:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali, this is an unproven and unclear result - first, because it does not prove anything about Azerbaijanis per se (i.e., north and south), and second because there are often very contradictory results from studies seemingly using same recognized methods (e.g., see [47], [48], [49]). This is hard science and we should treat it as such. Until the study of Dr. Bonab is fully published for review, it is not correct to jump into premature conclusions. --AdilBaguirov 05:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Bonab's research has been done in conjunction with Cambridge University and it is the most exentsive genetic study of Iranian groups. I do not see anything wrong with stating the result. I can email the Cambridge University team to verify the facts more if it is necessary. The articles you cited are not DNA studies. Also it is not necessary to have genetic studies of all the region although in the more extensive report that will come out, I am sure Dr. Bonab has done testing beyond the Aras river of Iran as well. But for now, the above results are solid and backed by the research of Cambridge University. Here is the picture of Dr. Bonab in Cambridge University. [50] --Ali doostzadeh 05:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reports I brought were on medical studies indeed, the effects of which are better known than the DNA studies. Secondly, we need to give far more background info -- like is provided on the DNA studies that are linked already to the article. Thirdly, are Persian-speakers in Iran as close to Tajiks in Tajikistan or other Persian-speakers outside of Iran, closer to each other or to people in their respective countries? I think the answer is pretty obvious, unless the ethnic (or linguistic) groups under study is very small and lives in mountains or on an island). Fourth, since it's scientific studies, then specific, hard numbers should be used -- i.e., if various defined groups are different, then by how much, is the difference/divergence by 1% and within margin of error, or 90%? Finally, the article already has excessive emphasis of various DNA studies -- this is truly excessive, unprecedented and bordering on racism. Adding more is smth of an obscession which in the end doesn't prove much. --AdilBaguirov 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DNA and medical effects are two different things. DNA is the ultimate marker and is 100% accurate whereas medical studies are trial and errors. The background info is in the article I mentioned, I will contact Cambridge University soon to get more materials. I would probably say geographical distance determiness genetic approximity more than language. So Persian speakers of say Khorasan near Mash-had are probably closer to Persian speakers of Herat. And Persian speakers of say Qazvin or Hamadan or closer to the Turkic or Kurdic speakers of that area. This was shown in a recent study with Azerbaijanis and Armenian of caucus as well, where Azerbaijanis of caucus were much more closer to Armenians than Anatolian Turkic speakers. DNA is mostly a deterministic science since the actual gene is not statistical. But the margin of error can be do to sampling a large population. But what is important is that amongst the samples themselves, there is no margin of error. Or to say it accurately, if 50 of group X and 50 of group Y were examined, we can say that within these 100 samples, there is no error. I do not think DNA studies have anything to do with racism and indeed they will provide many interesting new facts about history of different groups. Of course like any science they can be used for bad purpose (create weapons to target specific genes which is racist), but that is not the goal I hope. But when discussing matters of origin, they are getting more spot-light every day. --Ali doostzadeh 06:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The genetic evidence has always consistently supported the Iranian orignis, that is why those who promote the Turkic view argue that ethnicity should be decided by language; in which case we are all Anglo-Saxons! 69.196.164.190 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references to Babk from historical sources:

• ... the name Bābak is found in all the sources, but Mas'udi also says that "Bābak's name was Hasan" ... (Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Bābak Khorramī")

• ... his father's name was Merdas/Mardās ... - Sam'ānī

• ... his father's name was Abd-'Allāh, a native of Madā'in ... - Ibn al-Nadīm in Fehrest, ed. Flügel

• ... his father's name was Matar, a vagabond ... - Tabarī

• ... his father's name was Matahhar, the son of Abu Muslim's daughter Fātemah ... - Dīnāvarī

• ... his father's name was Amir bin Ahad from the Sawād region who had gone to Ardabīl ... - Abu Mal'ālī

• ... his father's name was Abd-Allāh, a cooking-oil vendor from Madā'in who had left his home for Azerbaijan and setteled in the Belālābād village ... - Wāqed (the most detailed and most important source about Babak)

• ... his mother's name was Māhrūh, a native of Azerbaijan ... - Fasih

• ... Bābak belonged to the Fātemiyya group of the Khurrāmīs ... - Mas'udī (according Iranica and Tārīkh-e Baghdād, the "Fātemiyya" were named after Fātemah, the daughter of Abu Muslim)

So, according to all of these sources, the background of Babak cannot be considered "obscure". It's not really consistent, but it is not "obscure" either. Almost all sources seem to agree that Babak's father was not a native of Azerbaijan, but from Iraq, probably Ctesphion (Madā'in and Sawād were both other names for Ctesphion). His mother was a native of Azerbaijan, and her name Māhrūh clearly points to a native Iranian origin.

Tājik 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term obscure in this case refers to his humble origins in a non-descript family and not his 'ethnic' background. I think you're reading a lot of ethnic stuff into everything here Tajik. I directly quoted Lapidus who merely referred to him as a regular guy leading a rebellion somewhat like William Wallace in Scotland. Obscure has multiple meanings and in this case the sentence should have been clear in this regard. Tombseye 16:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Obscure" means "unknown" ... in any way, this claim is wrong. My review was not about "ethnicity", as you believe, but about the wrong claim that Babur's "background is obscure".

• historical sources agree that his family was not from Azerbaijan
• the name "Babak" is mentioned in all sources
• most of the sources - including Wāqed, the most detailed source, agree that his father was from Ktesphion
• he was born into a poor family
• he had - through his mentors - contact to the local rulers of Azerbaijan and later married into the royal family

The only things we do NOT know are his real name (according to some sources it was "Hassan") and the name of his father (according to some sources, it was Abdullah)

So what makes you claim that "his background was obscure"?!

Tājik 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not my claim first off, but a professor at UC Berkeley whose view I think takes precedence over both of us, and secondly obscure ALSO means "Of undistinguished or humble station or reputation." So the term is quite applicable and since much is not known about him in addition it was perfectly viable. However, I'm not interested in arguing over what is a small matter frankly just as the Safavid issue was (again quoted from the source given) frankly a pointless issue. Tombseye 19:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Iranian government refuses to publish statistics on ethnicity. The only "official" information I found (which is rather a semi-official one) is a text from the Iranian embassy in Germany [51] which claims that Azeris are 20% of the population (13.8m).

Tājik 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

...Azerbaijan's final division was formalized by the Turkmanchai Treaty between Persia and Russia in 1828, which ceded Azerbaijan, north of the Aras river to the Russian Empire.

I am sorry, but it should be noted that Arran (the Present-Day Republic of Azarbaijan) was annexed from Iran. If you are going to say Persia, please also offer the name Tehran. I will not change anything as of this time since I see that this article is the subject of heated debate and edit wars, I would like everyone to express their opinions. Please keep in mind neutrality and the fact that people who know nothing about the subject will be reading it. Thank you. 69.196.164.190

It might give the wrong impression, but for different reasons. North Azerbaijan (current Republic of Azerbaijan) was not and could not have been "annexed" from Iran - what's the basis fo that claim? The 1813 and 1828 treaties between Persia and Russia were formalities, that dealt also with Iranian territory, since Russians won and occupied much of northern Iran (Khoy, Tebriz, Urmiya, Ardabil). Indeed, the 1828 Turkmenchay Treaty was signed on Iranian territory. Meanwhile, half of North Azerbaijni khanates were INDEPENDENT and that's exactly why they -- and not the shah -- signed treaties themselves about the fate of their kingdoms, such as the Kurekchay Treaty of 1805 between the khan of Karabakh and Russian czar on inclusion of the Karabakh khanate into the Russian empire. Same with Sheki khanate, and a few others like Shemakha khanate, while the Ganja khanate (1804), Baku khanate (1806), and Jaro-Balakan jamaat (1803), Samukh sultanate, put up fierce resistance -- and were all severely punished, killed for that. Only a few khanates of North Azerbaijan were either nominally independent or otherwise vassals of Iran, and thus could in theory be considered as "part of Persia" - that's only Lenkoran (1809), Yerevan and Naxcivan khanates. It should be noted that in 1801 Eastern Georgia was also included into Russia -- and shah's definitely regarded Georgia as "theirs", and indeed, invaded it both before and after its inclusion into Russia. So why are no claims laid in their respect, and only towards Azerbaijan?

With Karabakh khanate it was espcially interesting -- shah Agha Muhammed Qajar tried to conquer it twice, and failed first time, went to Georgia, conquered that country, and then returned to Karabakh, finally prevailed in taking over Shusha (although the khan was in a different location), and was killed. Then Iran's army came in AGAIN in June of 1804, and were defeated again. This is the best testament of the total independence of Karabakh khanate (as well as others, like Ganja) from Iran. However, since it was a small kingdom, and depleted its resources, they understood that would be unable to withstand Russian conquests, and thus voluntarily signed the Kurekchay Treaty. Shah invaded Karabakh again at least three more times, each time beaten back. --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that internationaly, the caucus specially the cacausian Azerbaijan was recognized as part of the Qajar territory. Many local khans operated all over Iran during the Qajar, but nomially they were under Qajar control and in no way did they have their own country independent of Qajar or Russians. We can look at international maps of that era and see exactly which territories were considered part of Qajar Iran. According to this reliable article: This not only reflected the Persian loss of sovereignty in the Caucasus, but also undercut Ottoman claims to some of these territories. [52]. So I think it is important to mention that Caucasian Azarbaijan was most of the time, part of the Safavid, and some eras of Qajar Iran.

As per the comment of the first user, I agree that the satement should reflect academic standards. The statement can be reworded, since Azerbaijan was not a separate country in Qajar Iran for it to be divided. Indeed most Qajar texts reflect the fact that the area of North of Caucaus was called by various names like Shirwaanaat, Karabaagh..and in the Golestan/Torkomanchay treaty which is available in its original Persian, it is not mentioned that "Azerbaijan is divided", but what is mentioned is the concession of the 17 cities of caucus and etc.. So the word 'divided' is ambigious here and needs further clarification. If it is country, then it is very false. If it is territory, the Gulistan and Turkmenchaay treaties are available online, and the name of exact territories conceded to Russia can be given. But the concession of 17 cities of Qafqaz and Shirvan and etc are mentioned. So the wording should accurately reflect the treaty. But we do not want to make this article large and the one/two sentences needs to be chosen correctly.

Perhaps the following wording from this book can be agreed upon: Being on the frontier with the Rusian Empire, Azerbaijan gradually came to be under intense diplomatic, economic and military pressure from the Russians. Following upon the humiliating military defeats of 1813 and 1828, the Persian frontier with Russia was fixed by the Treaties of Golestan and Torkamanchay. As a result, Persia was forced against her will to abandon her eastern Caucasian provinces forever. (Dr. Touraj Atabaki,Azerbaijan: ethnicity and the struggle for power in Iran, pg 11).

And perhaps even a source everyone should agree upon to end any misconceptions, The Encyclopedia Britannica[53]:Fath 'Ali Shah (reigned 1797–1834), in need of revenue after decades of devastating warfare, relied on British subsidies to cover his government's expenditures. Following a series of wars, he lost the Caucasus to Russia by the treaties of Golestan in 1813 and Turkmanchay (Torkman Chay) in 1828, the latter of which granted Russian commercial and consular agents access to Iran.. The above statement is more accurate and explanatory. --Ali doostzadeh 09:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali, all those sources do not know what they are talking about - simply repeating each other. It can't be any other way, as Azerbaijani history was not well represented in the West, and in fact, is still not. Neither Iranica, whose articles on Armenia, for example, cite more Armenian authors than anyone else, nor Britannica, where Armenia article is co-written by an Armenian professor who cites more Armenian authors than others, or others, can offer much insight. None of those researchers knew of multitude of facts and legal documents and treaties. Once again, let's for example examine the Karabakh khanate -- it was fully INDEPENDENT of Iran, although the latter of course wanted to see it as its part or vassal. Yet, Karabakh was unquestionably independent - 1) it fought several wars with Iran, and won them, succeeding in even having the shah killed, although in a inner plot, in Shusha.

2) It signed a SEPARATE legal treaty with Russia in 1805 - one year before Iran even started the war with Russia. That treaty, available in english, and I have its faximille in both Russian and Arabic script, clearly specified all this and shows the Karabakh khan and the khanate as independent, although did recognize that Iran might have some claims to it arising from common history, from the fact that before it did belong to it for certain periods of time. 3) Karabakh khanate made its own money -- they made silver coins called Panakhabad's. They even had their own standard of measurement of length - khan arshin. 4) The Karabakh khanate by Panah khan Jevanshir Karabaghli was founded after the death of Nadir Shah -- which is important, as Nadir Shah Afshar was not even a legitimate shah, but an usurper, and after his death Iran was plunged into a complete chaos continuing for some 4-5 decades. Thus, Iran itself was an ambiguous political entity from 1747 until 1780s-90s, was really separated into different states and had no legitimate claims on anything north of Araxes. But even before, in 17th century, much of Azerbaijan was controlled by Ottoman Empire, and they had same "legitimate" claims as Iran would. 5) Finally, between being a vassal or otherwise accept suzeiranty, being semi-independent on one hand, and being part of or being a province - is another. Obviously, pretty much none of the khanates north of Araxes were a province of Iran -- all of them had more indepence than not. Meanwhile, such khanates as Karabakh were completely independent. 6) Lastly, there is an interesting letter by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When at one point Iran did present some claims to lands north of Araxes, it was instantly rebuffed by Russia, saying that by the time of Gulestan and especially Turkmenchay treaty these khanates signed their own, separate treaties with Russian czar and were in effect completely independent, allowing them to do that in the first place, thus Iranian claims are without merit.

But to make it short -- no source/publication, that is not aware of the Kurekchay Treaty of 1805, can not only write, but analyze and assess political and legal situation of the Azerbaijani khanates, such as Karabakh -- an independent and sovereign Azerbaijani state of the 18-19th centuries.

Thus, the best wording for the Wiki entry would be: ...Azerbaijan's final division was formalized by the Turkmanchai Treaty between Persia and Russia in 1828, which recognized Azerbaijan, north of the Aras river as part of the Russian Empire. --AdilBaguirov 10:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Will continue this discussion later as I've gotta crash. Hold off on making changes to the article as I'm doing a copyedit to fix the article and meet Tony1's criticisms on awkward wording and needed brevity in the article. Tombseye 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, the problem witht the entery is that it does not reflect the actual geographical names of that time. I'll leave the discussion when which Khanates that started becoming Russian protectrates for another time, but that is actually not relavent. Since multitude of khanates themselves mean there was no Azerbaijan specialy above the Aras river to be divided. So the statement should actually be clear. The statement implies there was a united geographical entity of Azerbaijan which was finally divided between Russian and Persia. Such a united geographical entity did not exist. For now I think we have to accept Britannica's, since these are neutral. The issue of Karabagh Khanate (a khanate as administrative unit used by Qajars and Agha Muhammad Khan Qajar did take control of the area) can be discussed in a separate entery.

Here is another source I like to add though(Tim Potier, Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal, 2001, pg 1): During the 17th century and first half of 18th century, Karabakh was the arena for continious wars between Iran and Turkey. Panah Ali-Khan who founded the Karabakh Khanate in the mid-18th century. To defend it, in the 1750s, he build Panakhabad fortress (subsequently named Shusha after a nearby village) , which then became capitcal of the Khanate. It was not until 1805 that the Russian Empire gained control over Karabakh Khanate, from Persia. Also I refer you to the book as well (Michael P Croissant,the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications, pg 12 ). In a momementous event for the development of the Armenia-Azerbaijani conflict, Russia annexed the Nagorno-Kabakh region from Iran in 1805 as a result of the first Russo-Iranian war. In an attempt to consolidate their rule, the Russians dissolved the numerous Iranian administrative units in the conquered territories and recognized reorganized them into a handful of larger guberniaa, or provinces. The former Khanate of Karabakh was expanded to include parts of the areas to east, forming the Elisavetpol Guberniaa. So no matter how automonous some of the Khanates were at one time or another (all over Iran there was big Khans ruling an area and sometimes even making treaties with British in the South), they were still under nominal Iranian control. Also both Vagif and Ibrahim were executed by the Qajar government in 1796 for their Russian royalties and the Qajars had full control of the area till 1805 when major hostilities started with Russia. Going back to the issue, the sentence is very ambigious though and even if we strech or contract the meanings of semi-independent and nominal control, in the end the area would be considered under nominal control and semi-independent. Not fully independent and this was the case with many areas of the Qajar Iran. Also the Russians themselves divided the area and it was not called Azerbaijan by them either. So I think the one sentence regarding this issue needs to be precise. I think the following sentence started by Tombseye is good: Following the Russo-Persian Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, Persian territories in the Caucasus, including Azerbaijan north of the Aras river, were ceded to the Russian Empire. The treaties of Golestan in 1813 and Turkmanchai in 1828 finalized the border between Russia and Persia.

But if we want to reflect the view of all sides, Following the Russo-Persian Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, Persian territories in the Caucasus, some under nominal Persian control, including geographical areas of the current Azerbaijan republic, were ceded to the Russian Empire. The treaties of Golestan in 1813 and Turkmanchai in 1828 finalized the border between Russia and Persia. -Ali doostzadeh 17:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good compromise. I adapted it to the opening so hopefully everyone's happy, right? Tombseye 18:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This language is probably better indeed, although it doesn't take into account the independence of khanates. Also, what is meant by "Turkic dominion was interrupted by the Mongols in 1227. The Mongols and Tamerlane ruled the region until 1405. Turkic rule returned with the Sunni Kara Koyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu, both of which dominated Azerbaijan until the Shia Safavids took power in 1501.[16][11]" Aren't Tamerlane Turkic, as well as the Mongol-Tatar confederation, of which Tatars are definitely Turkic? Hence, Turkic rule never interrupted starting from 11th century, just different rulers and dynasties and states. --AdilBaguirov 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Timur's army was largely Turkic (the same goes to Gengiz Khan), but Timur himself was not a Turk (though probably Turkic-speaking) and he did not consider himself a Turk. In fact, when he invaded Anatolia and killed the Ottoman sultan, he justified his attack by claiming that "the Ottomans were not appointed by the Mongols to rule Anatolia" ... a century earlier, the Mongol Il-Khans had appointed a few Seljuqs to rule Anatolia who were overthrown by the Ottomans. Besides that, Timur and his descendants (up to Babur) called themselvs "Gurkani", a Persianized form of the Mongol "kürügän", "son-in-law". This is also a proof that Timur considered himself a Mongol (well, he was a Mongol) and that his Mongol linage ment a lot to him. Tājik 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term should be Iran and not Persia, looking back in retrospect we know this term is wrong and we are allowed to retroject ther name Iran; by the way Persia has always been called Iran. 69.196.164.190

Ali, as I've wrote, none of those authors are aware of many important details, such as Kurekchay Treaty - an official and legal treaty which defined the entry of Karabakh into Russian empire. At the same time, the khan of Sheki too signed a similar treaty, for example. I know Michael Croissant, and his book is full of mistakes and errors, his book doesn't mean much in this regard. His mistakes are too gross -- the Russo-Iran war started in 1806, whilst Karabakh became part of Russia in 1805 before such a war. Meanwhile, Tim Potier is a good legal expert, and it is surprizing to see him write that. But everyone is entitled to errors and his was due to lack of resources - he was limited as a scholar in variety of materials and legal status of Karabakh in 19th century was not his objective -- the 20th century was. Anyways, I do not know the khans of Iran in the south and which treaties they concluded with British. If they did it in the Zand period, they probably had full legal right at the time, since Iran was more of a geographic entity, than political. Same with Azerbaijan (North) - it was geographic too. Whilst I do not remember the legal documents and letters of the time, the later Russian and British documents clearly identified Azerbaijanis of the North as "aderbeijani tatars" - I have evidence of that as far back as 1880 in British census estimates and in the 1897 official Russian Imperial Census. Same word is used by Russian ethnographer Velichko in his 1903 book. Azerbaijani author, Firudin bey Kocharly wrote a book in 1908 "Literature of Azerbaijani Turks".

Anyways, Azerbaijanis simultaneously fought against both Iran and Russia at the time, and some sided with either one side or another. Unfortunately, you won't find much on that in libraries - but just one such translated book would allow scholars to reconsider mistaken assumptions. What is more important however, is that Karabakh khan (khan being a Turkic term derived from kagan), was that it concluded its own treaty, that it minted its own money (one of the typical examples of independence), and fought several wars with Iran, some handily winning, others, like 1797, ambgiously -- but still Shah Muhammed Qajar gets killed. And I don't know who told you about Vagif and Ibrahim -- by the later you probably mean Ibrahim khan, right? Well, Vagif, the poet and vizier, was executed in 1797, AFTER shah's death, and was executed by the temporary ruler, Mamed bey Jevanshir, who was nephew of Ibrahim khan. While details are murky and contradictory, the Qajars didn't have the primary rolse in this -- indeed, once shah was killed, Iranian troops withdrew, it screwed up all the plans to re-conquering other parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia. Meanwhile, Ibrahim khan lived and ruled the khanate until tragic error - or so it is explained -- in 1806. But anyway, the Kurekchay Treaty was signed by him. Thus, once more, Karabakh khanate, for one, was totally independent, and Iran had no legitimate or otherwise claims whatsoever to it. Meanwhile, few other khanates were nominally dependent - like Poland was to USSR, or Armenia to Russia (Russian speaker of Parliament, #3 person in the country, openly called it "forepost of Russia" whilst in Armenia). --AdilBaguirov 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, thanks for the comments. About your first statement Azerbaijanis simultaneously fought against both Iran and Russia at the time, this is actually not correct, because the Qajars themselves and a large portion if not most of their government were administered by Azerbaijanis and so probably represented more than 90% of Azerbaijanis against the Russians. FoI did a recheck and Vaqif and Ibrahim Khan were executed after the Shah's assanination. Actually both Zand and Qajar are a state and had ministers and delegates and were recognized by other major states like Ottomans, British.., although the Qajars were a weak state. But about Vagif and Ibrahim Khan is from the book above I quoted. Some khanates acted more royal to the Qajars than other. But a few treaties or documents with Russians also does not establish independence, since we would have to study every single document from the era and parties changed royalty and sides, treaties were made sometimes as fast as they are broken. Also there is a large amount of Persian books from the era dealing with the government and situation that have not been translated. One has to probably go through hundreds of documents to establish the quality of semi-independence of the various khanates. Another book I found is Azerbaijan: a quest for identity which says similar things. Another book also says that Agha Muhammad Khan Qajar re-established the boundaries of Iran 1796. Of course some Khanates of the caucus did submit fully to Qajar rule until their annexation. Although the Qajar era is definitely not my faviorate period of Iranian history, I will check the Cambridge history of Iran soon, to see if there is more details. For now I am going to accept, the informations the books I mentioned provide. Perhaps in 10 years they will be rechanged or updated if your case is correct, but till then I'll go with the standard books that have been published in the last decade or so. As per tatar, I guess it is not related to this article in anywhere, but I did find this source:[54]. If you do have the actual census documents from the British online, send it to my email or talk-page and I would appreciate it. --Ali doostzadeh 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ali -- of course about Azerbaijanis fighting simultanously with both powers in the north and south doesn't mean anything ethnic-based in case of Iran -- indeed, Azerbaijanis fought other Azerbaijanis. What's so surprizing about that, all khanates constantly fought each other, and generally all nations fight each other (the whole Zend rule during which they at least kept Iran somewhat intact is testament to that). Ali, today there are many weak and failed states that are officially recognized but do not control their territory at all, being completely submerged in civil wars, and indeed having no real central government. Iran was probably something close to that, when any khan thought he was Chingiz khan. In case of Panakh khan and Ibrahim khan they at least proved themselves on the battlefield. The truth is, people generally preferred local rulers over bloodthirsty, as they viewed them, czars and shahs. Also, Azerbaijanis played a key role in Russia's victories over both Iran and Turkey at those times. One notable figure was the only hero of the Bayazet castle defense 1877-78 - Lt-Gen. Ismail khan Naxcivanski. He was the only Azerbaijani there and the only one who was rewarded with a medal by the czar, no one else. Similarly, Vice-Admiral Ibrahim bey Aslanbeyov (1822-1900), who fought many navy battles with Ottoman Navy in the Black Sea. Same with Lt-Gen Aghayev, Maj-Gen. Yadigarov, etc., who all fought in Crimea, in charge of the "Muslim" (Azerbaijani) Cavalry Corps against Ottoman empire. And then there one of grandsons of the Sheki khan, Gen. Daniyal bey Ilisu, who was the right hand and naib of Sheikh Shamil, and put up firce resistance to Russian conquest of the Caucasus, spanning some 25 years. So it's not all black and white -- people can be of one ethnicity, but fight each other viciously.

I am curious as to what did the books you looked at say about Molla Panah Vagif (executed in 1797 by Ibrahim khan's nephew) and Ibrahim khan (killed in 1806) -- my info is definitely precise, and any book contradicting it is simply wrong.

And of course all researchers trying to write about the legal aspects of this region absolutely must study those treaties - how else? There are not so many of them - only 3-4 khans signed treaties, the rest were either viewed as vassals of Iran and thus it would have been illegitimate to conclude treaties with them, or put up such resistance (Ganja, Baku, etc) that were punished by being all killed and executed, no treaties signed obviously, and names changed (Ganja immediately became Elizavetpol). I am not sure Cambridge history would have it either - the cliche about Iran's territories being overtaken by Russia, etc., etc., has been written for decades, and there was simply no one to correct it -- Azerbaijanis were forbidden to discuss, research, learn and teach certain aspects of history, for example the whole period of independence of 1918-1920 was banned. But many Soviet sources still mentioned it -- for example, the junior companion of Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary's entry [55]. It's in Russian, but clearly says that: "In 1805 a treaty was signed on attachment/inclusion of Sheki khanate to Russia, which was formalized [further] by the Gulistan peace treaty of 1813." ("В 1805 был подписан договор о присоединении Ш. х. к России, что было закреплено Гюлистанским мирным договором 1813").

In addition to those separate treaties, a serious researcher must take into account that in 1723 Russian forces occupied Baku, Salyan, Lenkoran, until Resht. The rest of territory was occupied by Ottoman empire. In 1724 Istanbul Treaty, all those Caspian Basin lands of North Azerbaijan became part of Russia, whilst the rest part of Turkey. Then in 1734 Nadir shah (not yet a shah at the time) fought and won Ottoman empire and returned Ganja. Next year, he signed a treaty with Russia on giving up those Caspian basin regions. Then one he died in 1747, everything went loose again, and now some of those khanates declared independence, and in case of Karabakh and Guba, were very strong regionally.

Thus, with all due to respect to some of those books, and no respect for others, I simply cannot accept any source that doesn't take into account crucial treaties like the 1805 between khan of Karabakh and Russian czar. It is available in English, including in wikipedia, and I do have myself its faximille's somewhere.

Right at 1828 Russian czar signed a few relevant decrees, one of which was to call Azerbaijanis as "Caucasian Tatars" or "Aderbeijani Tatars". All Turkic people were called "Tatar" by Russians, only Ottomans (Anatolian Turks) were called as Turks. I need to find the 1880 British population estimate and will post it here for you, plus I am sure we can use it for various pages. --AdilBaguirov 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Adil. Thanks for your lengthy comments and discussions, as my knowledge of the Qajar era is not as strong as Sassanid, Parthian and Achaemenid eras simply due to lack of many humiliations Iran suffered at the hands of British and Russia. Usually one likes to remember the glory days. But it is probably more important to look at the weak days and find out the causes for the defeats. Of course I think if Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar was not murdered, things might have turned out different.

I think the following article clears it up and it quotes from the famous Tarikh-e-Qarabagh, which is a good source.

[56].

It says: the khans of Erevan, Nakòjavan, and Ganja submitted, but Ebrahim Khan attacked.. So by all account most of the caucus was under Qajar control before Russians moved in. Something which all the sources I brought also mention.

But furthermore the article says: Agha Moháammad Khan, angered by the betrayal of Ebrahim and other khans in the Caucasus, attacked shusha and captured it. Ebrahim fled to his in-laws in Daghestan. Five days after the conquest of Shusha, Agha Mohammad Khan was assassinated in that city.

Ebrahim Khan returned to Shusha and ordered that the shah's body be honorably buried until further instructions from the nephew and heir of Agha Moháammad, Baabaa Khan, who soon assumed the title of Fatha-Ali Shah. Ebrahim, in order to maintain peaceful relations with Tehran and retain his position as the khan of Qarabagh, gave his daughter Aga Begom, known as Aga-Baji, as one of the wives of the new shah.

Fath'-Ali Shah claimed the Caucasus and stationed the Persian forces in Tabriz.

So it seems before the Russian offensive, Ebhrahim Khan was royal to the Qajar king and the area was under nominal Qajar control.

As per the treaty of 1805, it seems that the Khan renewed his allegiance to Persian in 1806.

General Tsitsianov, the Russian commander and governor of the conquered regions, promised that Russia would recognize him as khan and agreed that Ebrahim's elder son would succeed his father. Tsitsianov then occupied Shusha and left a Russian garrison there in 1805 (Qarabagh, p. 116).'

The Russians' and Muslims' mutual mistrust and the death of Ebrahim's elder son did not help matters. Tsitsianov's death in 1806 and the breakup of the Russian offensive persuaded Ebrahim to switch his allegiance and to ask the shah's aid in ousting the Russian garrison.

A Persian army approached Shusa, and Ebrahim Khan left the fortress and camped outside. On 2 June 1806 the Russians, instigated by Ebrahim's grandson and fearful of their own vulnerability, attacked the camp and killed Ebrahim, one of his wives, a daughter, and his youngest so. So it seems I misread a text on the exact nature of death of Ebrahim Khan. Since I just read quickly that he was killed a little while after the Qajar King. I'll try to remember that text again. On Mollah Vaqif it seems it was 1797. Since Ibrahim Khan in 1806 switched alliance, and also before the Russians came, he nominally was royal to Persia, one can classify the area as semi-independent , but not fully independent, since that means not having allegiance to anyone for the whole duration, which does not seem like the case. But the Qajars seem to have full control over most of the other Khanates. As per Azerbaijanis serving Russians, as I said 95%+ of Azerbaijanis and other Iranians were behind the Shi'i King of Iran, and most of the people that supported Russians were Georgians and Armenians and other Christians. This was seen as a religious war to some extent and Fatwas(religious verdicts) were given and virtually most Muslims (which most people's primary identity was Islam at the time) did abide by them. The best example of Having powerful Khans controling area right now, is probably the NWFP of Pakistan, were the Pashtun Khans control the area and the Pakistani government has no real control over the area. I do not see too much about the word 'khan' before the Tatar-Mongolian invasions, and it seems to have slipped in the vocabularies of the area after their invasion. As for the British census, there is no rush and let me know the source when you have the time. All the best. --Ali doostzadeh 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Ali, as you see, the Tarikh-e-Qarabagh (which is one of the 6 Karabakh-nameh's that were written then, I've read the main 3 in their entirety including the one by Molla Panah Vagif's successor as vizier of the khanate, Jevanshir), has given a more precise and closer to the truth account. Indeed, as I've stated all along, Yerevan and Naxcivan were definitely dependent on Iran - despite being fairly strong. Ganja became so due to onslaught of Russia -- Ganja, like Karabakh, was traditionally a zone of "interest", sort of speak, for the Qajar tribes, and indeed, all Azerbaijani Qajars come from those regions, considered them their home base. In case of Javad khan of Ganja, he was very religious and when presented with a choice, clearly preferred his relative from Iran, who also happened to be a Shiia, over infidel Russian. That's why the Ganja battle was so powerful too - the khan and his sons fought till the end and chose to die instead of surrendering to Russians. Meanwhile, as the account admits, "Agha Moháammad Khan, angered by the betrayal of Ebrahim and other khans in the Caucasus", thus not only Ibrahim was independent, as I've also stated. I don't know why would it describe it as "betrayal", as it's obvious from the same history that Ibrahim or his father never accepted and founded the khanate way before Qajar rule. And Shusha was taken by him only from the second time -- the first time, in 1795, he failed and had to withdraw. When he did take Shusha the second time, it was not really a victory -- as Shusha was abandoned for some reason. No one knows to this day the precise details -- or how was Vagif captured for that matter. Likewise, Ibrahim's killing in 1806 is still disputed in terms of reasons -- it appears that Russians overreacted and thought that Ibrahim was about to stab them in the back - which is very believeable, considering that it was typical for rulers to do that both then and now. But it doesn't matter what he wanted in 1806 and whether or not he decided to accept suzeiranty of the shah - he signed the legal treaty in 1805 and reduced himself from an independent khan to essentially a vassal of Russia. This treaty was still valid, and affirmed as such by Great Soviet Encyclopedia [57] and Great Encyclopedic Dictionary [58]. In fact, they even recall that each time, in 1783 and 1797-99, when there was a threat from Iran and Ottoman Empire, Ibrahim khan appealed to Russia for help. Indeed, for one, Catherine II Great loved the letters from the khan, drafted by Vagif, she described them as the most elloquent of all letters from Muslims, and sent expensive gifts. One of the reasons why Ibrahim khan had to maneuver with Russia was because of the treachery of some Armenian subjects, who also wrote to Russians and begged for invasion of Karabakh and making it part of Russia. Anyways, whilst imperial Russia never kept its word to any of the khans and khanates, the example of Karabakh, Sheki, and Guba khanates, as well as some sultanates and jamaats, shows they were independent.

It is no incident that both Ottoman Empire and Iran declined, and in case of Iran, didn't modernize - it was not as much due to Qajar weakness, although certain level of degradation was certainly present, but due to increased strength of others, such as resurgent Russia. Today, who can imagine that Mongolia at some time commanded half of the whole known world, creating the biggest empire? At the end of the day, people deserve the government they get, however unfortunate that may be, as governments, like army, are generally reflection of the society as a whole. --AdilBaguirov 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adil, thanks for the comments. I think independence means that Ibrahim Khan does not have to become a vassal state. So an independent state would be defined such as for example Russia or Britian or the Ottoman/Qajar states. The Russian treaty with Ibrahim Khan shows him not as equal but just another vassal state. Although as the source above mentions in 1806: Tsitsianov's death in 1806 and the breakup of the Russian offensive persuaded Ebrahim to switch his allegiance and to ask the shah's aid in ousting the Russian garrison.. So effectively this sort of shows you that treaties were broken easily and how the Khans easily switched alliance or were pawns at the hand of the greater powers and tried to get rid of the Russians after allowing them in and playing big powers against each other. I have some books about Qajar administration I will look at later to see which parts of caucus were fully in their control like Nakhjavan and which parts were semi-independent, but it seems that Aga Muhammad Khan Qajar was able to effectively establish authority over most of the caucus. I agree that lack of modernization was the biggest weakness of the Qajar. The Russians at that time were also at their peak and streached from Alaska to Europe, and I doubt there was any stopping them.. just like the Mongols or the Arabs after Islam. --Ali doostzadeh 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The treaties such as the one signed between the Russian czar and Karabakh khan, or Sheki khan, were typical of that era, obviously there could not be an equal relationship -- was there one between the Russian czar and the shah himself? Of course not, both treaties of 1813 and 1828, as well as treaties from 18th century, were pretty humiliating for Iran. Likewise, of course nothing is permanent and treaties are regularly broken -- didn't the shah brake his promise of 1813 when he tried to win over Russia in 1826-1828? Thus, none of this reduces the importance and significance of a treaty such as Kurekchay. After all, such a behemoth as Russia could have simply overtaken Karabakh, Sheki, Guba, etc., and not sign any treaties, just treat the khans with respect accorded to them by noble status. Treaties are signed only and only with someone who is strong enough and legitimate enough - otherwise there is no need to waste paper on some vassals.

As of Ibrahim khan's change of mind, first of, there are a lot of unclear moments there, chroniclers are contradictory. However, most modern scholars suspect that he indeed wanted to fool Russia -- but then also to fool the shah, and using both against each other, restore independent khanate. It was primitive thinking of course, but at the same time, had all Caucasus unified, perhaps Russia would have been unable to capture it. One Ganja or one Baku khanates created so many problems for Russian conquests -- with Baku khan even cutting the head of the Gen. Tsitsianov, the Russian commander of the Caucasus front. And then sheikh Shamil's rebellion which resulted in at least 100,000 Russian soldiers killed. Thus perhaps Ibrahim khan knew something we do not -- especially since when shah took Shusha after second attempt in 1797, Ibrahim khan was in the north of the Azerbaijan.

An attempt to create unified Azerbaijan was made in 1750s by khan of Guba, Fatali khan, but primarily due to strength of Karabakh khan, it failed. Which also shows smth -- vassals and provinces do not fight each other for aggrandizement, they appeal to the shah, but the Azerbaijani khans didn't care for that, because most of them were independent. --AdilBaguirov 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded this pic of the popular Iranian Azari author, if it is needed feel free to use it. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will place him somewhere. Tombseye 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not too happy with the ancient period part, it talks about christianity and "Muslim" arabs but doesn't say much about the fact that Medes, Achamenids and Sassanids were all prominently Zoroastrians --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Added brief mention of Zoroastrianism in ancient section. There is no need to discuss it further as it is covered in other parts of the article (Iranian theory) AND the links provided explain how each dynasty was Zoroastrian anyway. The article's too long and wikilinks are what provide details. There's too much to cover to please everyone as the article is simply too long at this point. Tombseye 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Samad, I would have put Sattar Khan. But either way, the article is very informative and although there is never an article where everyone can be happy 100%, I think this article has done a good job overall. --Ali doostzadeh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think Sattar Khan or Baghir Khan are more famous and definitely merit to be mentioned more than Samad Behrandi. Also, the population of Azerbaijan Republic should be adjusted - the official figure is 8,436.4 milllion for 2006 - source: State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan [59] --AdilBaguirov 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sattar Khan's picture is on the page actually. Thanks for the population stats. I will change them right away. Tombseye 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)