Talk:Azerbaijani language

Active discussions

Spit Azerbaijani?Edit

What’s does it mean to be south Azerbaijani?there is no language as South Azerbaijani.its just Turkish language with different accent.or at its best could be a dialect but not a language.Simsala111 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing myself on the subject; I note that the article states, with sources, that:
'North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani do not have much differences in phonology, lexicon, morphology, and syntax.'
'Both Azerbaijani lects are members of the Oghuz branch of the Turkic languages.'
'Azerbaijani is closely related to Gagauz, Qashqai, Crimean Tatar, Turkish and Turkmen, sharing varying degrees of mutual intelligibility with each of those languages.'
'Speakers of Turkish and Azerbaijani can, to an extent, communicate with each other as both languages have substantial variation and are to a degree mutually intelligible.'
- which suggests that linguists seem to view North and South Azerbaijani as being distinct, and also both closely related to Turkish. Note also that they are referred to as lects rather than languages.

Hi Simsala111,

You can edit if you think the information provided here is bias or you can make it more clear. Please purpose what you would like to change and if there is no opposition to this purpose you can proceed with change. However, this is not guarantee that your change will not be changed by another user. Hence, you should follow keeping your point and references discussed in "Talk" platform eventually if your changes is attached by editor or user, after 5 warning you can complain to wikipedia administrative board.

Looking forward for your contribution Mirhasanov (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

History of Azerbaijan LanguageEdit

I have added below reference to the sentence "By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavids and Afsharids" in order prove the statement as it didn't had proper reference before.

ref name="A Pepys Of Mogul India l653-1708" >An Abridged edition of the "STORIA DO MOGOR " of Niccolao Manucci, translation by William Irvine, THE NEGOTIATIONS FAIL page 19</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talkcontribs) 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not a proper source per WP:RS. You really should stop edit-warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Could you please give more clarification why do you thing that the source I provided is not reliable. This is memories/chronicles that was written by Niccolao Manucci during his visit to Iran and India.

let me give a brief information about Manucci. NICCOLAO MANUCCI, the hero of our narrative, ran away from Venice in 1653, being then fourteen. He hid on board a vessel bound for Smyrna, and was fortunate enough to find a protector in a certain Viscount Bellomont, an English nobleman, then on his way to Persia and India. He followed Bellomont through Asia Minor to Persia, and from Persia to India, meeting with many adventures by sea and land. The sudden death of his master near Hodal, in 1656, left Manucci friendless in a strange land.

If you will read, Persia The Shah's banquet Interview with 'Azamat-ud-daulah, his reply on behalf of the King Negotiations fail, part from book you will see that resource is true and can be used as a reference. - Information about book publised by NY times in 1914.

I even can send you a link to download this book or you can find it by yourself in google. This is publication of university of California Library and there are tons of reference to this book, and you are stating that it is not reliable source?

Looking forward for more constructive negotiation. I don't want it to turn edit war as I am trying to justify my edit in a proper way with references.

Thanks and Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me give more information to prove that it is reliable source,

As per Wikipedia,

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book) - It is a book from written and translated by western university. "STORIA DO MOGOR " of Niccolao Manucci, translation by William Irvine. This is wikipedia link to get more information about him

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) - Creator is Nicolao Manucci, who (19 April 1638–1717) was an Italian writer and traveller. He wrote a memoir about the Indian subcontinent during the Mughal era.[1] His records have been a source of history about Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, Shivaji, Dara Shikoh, Shah Alam, Raja Jai Singh and Kirat Singh.

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) - It is a book which published for Government of India under supervision of Royal Asiatic Society. ( Link to the book -

This source fulfills all three. If I am still doing something wrong could you please specifically mention based on what my source is still considered unreliable?


Mirhasanov (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, thanks for providing that information. The statement the citation is meant to support is: By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavids and Afsharids. The first thing I notice is that page 19 of the book you linked to on says nothing about the Azerbaijani language, nor about the beginning of the 16th century. Is the page number incorrect?
The book was written in the late 17th and early 18th century, and that section is discussing events of that time. Even if the information is somewhere else in the book, it is a bit difficult to see how a travel memoir (which btw. may be considered a primary source) would be considered a reliable source for events two centuries earlier.
Beyond that though, I don't see an obvious reason why the book could never be used as a reliable source for some information it contains, depending what that is. LouisAragon, do you have a moment to explain why you think it can't? And (talk · contribs · WHOIS), please explain your comment not a good source ; fake and hoax content, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I attempted just now to search this entire book (the copy on for the words "Azeri", "Azerbaijan", "Azerbaijani", "Safavid", "Safavids", "Afsharid", and "Afsharids", but I couldn't find any occurrences of any of these words. I also searched for the words "language" and "languages", and I found numerous hits, but none referring to the Azeri / Azerbaijani language. Perhaps the source citation is mangled somehow? Because the cited source simply doesn't appear to discuss the Azerbaijani language at all. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is anyone edit warring over this? Has anyone taken the time to look at the Safavid Iran article?? Check out the languages in the infobox.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
If one or more of the sources cited in Safavid Iran are relevant here in Azerbaijani language, said source(s) may of course be copied here. Just make sure, of course, that a source does in fact support the claim about this language. The edit warring going on here appears to involve people doggedly insisting on citing one specific source which, in fact, does not appear to support the claim. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My dear Friends IamNotU,wales,Kansas Bear,

First of all thank you very much for this king of healthy conversation. I really appreciate your time and effort around this discussion and please also accept my apologize regarding the link I provided as it was link to different volume of the book. Please se below link for your information:

For sake of saving your time I have prepared below explanation of my point.

If you will read page 9 "At Qazvin" which describes ambassador visit to chief minister. You will see that observer which in this case Manucci describes that conversation between Charles II, which is con of England King Charles I (you can find this information from page 7), is in Turkish. Subsequent pages till 20 describes dialogues between ambassador Charles II and chief minster (Azamat-ud-daluah), King of Persia. On page 19, the observer Manucci concludes that all conversation he observed was in Turkish. Please note that that time Turkish was one language spoken by all turkic tribe confederations including Ottoman Turks as well.

IamNotU regarding to your point that this book refers 17th century. You are absolutely right, as the sentence is very generic by saying "By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavid dynasty and Afsharid dynasty", it covers the period from 1501, since Shah Ismael announced himself as a King of Iran, till period of 1796.

If you will check Savory, Roger (2007). Iran Under the Safavids. Cambridge University Press. - yet they speak Azari the form of Turkish which was native language of Azerbaijan. (Page 2). Page 213 mentions that "qizilbash normally spoke Azari brand of Turkish at court, as did the Safavid shahs themselves; lack of familiarity with the Persian language may have contributed to the decline from the pure classical standards of former times". Even-thought I consider this source as insult to my language as it referred "language of streets" but, it proves that court was speaking Azeri Turkish.

You can read book from here _online version is free to search for this evidence.


Mirhasanov (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, please be more careful about editing the talk page. You made several duplicate copies of other peoples' comments, and you edited one comment that I made, which is not allowed. I had to spend some time investigating and cleaning up the mess.
I don't think anyone is disputing the statment in the article. However, the consensus is that the book and page you have cited, regardless of whether it is reliable or not, doesn't verify the statement it follows: that it was a language of the court since the early 16th century. It only verifies that in the second part of the 17th century, a conversation between the ambassador and the king took place in Turkish, and even then it is a primary source. There are other better sources to verify the statement, see for example the Safavid Iran article as suggested above. Please do not add that citation again, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for you comment and it is fair enough. Hence, I agree not adding this link to the existing statement. Unfortunately I don't know how it happened, my apologize for inconvenience.

How about adding reliable source to below sentence :

The first examples of Azerbaijani literature date to the late 1200s following the Mongol conquest and were written in Perso-Arabic script.[26][unreliable source?]

Source from Roger Savory -Iran Under the Safavids (page 214) - "Language of streets" did not make it's first appearance in Persian poetry in Safavid's time. It has been present since at least Mongol period and one has only to examine the great mystical epic of Jalal al-Din Rumi (1201-1273) to see this. From the Mogol period onward the ghazal and the mathnavi become the most popular persian verse-forms, and each of these verse forms let itself to the use of the "language of streets" more readily than did the qasida, with its rigid convection.

My friend, I am just trying to make this article better. Looking hear from you and I would appreciate if you could answer to my comment under Shah Ismael's article as well.


Mirhasanov (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

North vs South AzerbaijaniEdit


I find this part of article a bit strange it has statement below saying that South and North Azerbaijani has significant difference. However, when it compares North Azerbaijani and Turkey Turkish the statement says that "Historically, Azerbaijani and Turkish speakers have been able to communicate with relative ease".

As being native speaker of this language and also having relatives and friends from South Azerbaijan. I would like mention that this statement is not true. South Azerbaijani and North Azerbaijani people understands each other much more easily than they do with Turkey turks. Unfortunately, the sentence mentioned in wikipedia trying state that North Azerbaijani and Turkey Turkish much more closer and mutually understood during conversation than South Azerbaijani which is not true. It is like saying United State's English is significantly different from Canadian and British English. Canadian and British people easily understand each other, however having difficulty understanding United State's English.

I would like to see references to this statement and ask author to justify. Otherwise I would like to change it to reflect truth.

Looking forward for discussion.


Mirhasanov (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Below information was added and the information was stating both language are significantly different was deleted.

Despite the fact that North Azerbaijanians were under Russian Empire and South Azerbaijan is part of Iran, Azeris on both sides managed to keep their language alive. As for the difference between them, it is certain that Russian and Iranian words, respectively, have entered the vocabulary on either sides of the Araz river, but this has not occurred to an extend that it could pose difficulties for communication [1].

Mirhasanov (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, as I noted on your talk page, the above text is a close paraphrase of the cited source, and as such is a copyright violation. It has been changed to an attributed quotation in the article. I'm just noting that to give attribution here.
I've restored the quotation that you removed in this edit: "Information about North and South Azerbaijan language is significantly different was deleted and updated with sourced information saying there is not big difference...". The quotation about "significant differences" was sourced to Ethnologue, maybe you didn't see that because the link wasn't working? I've added archive links now. In general you shouldn't delete information from one source and replace it with information that says the opposite thing from another source, if they are both reliable sources. If reliable sources of equal prominence disagree, then both sides should be explained or otherwise reconciled. Please see WP:NPOV, especially:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

Also, you wrote: the sentence mentioned in wikipedia trying state that North Azerbaijani and Turkey Turkish much more closer and mutually understood during conversation than South Azerbaijani. The article did not say that. It noted that there are some significant differences between North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani, but never said that they were more significant than between Azerbaijani and Turkish. It's clear that's not the case, though it's true that "significant" is somewhat vague, and could be misinterpreted. The changes by IP 2601:410:280:a90:617e:3e12:4a3f:75d9 and by you have made that more clear, so thank-you for that. --IamNotU (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ A study of Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, author Svante E.Cornell page 22 (ISBN 0-203-98887-6)


Thank you very much for making my notes better and aligned with Wikipedia standards. As I am new your help is highly appreciated and really helpful. It is fine now, I was able to open link and see the information. Thanks for correcting it. I am native speaker of this language, even thought I don't see ay difference in phonology, lexicon, if enthnologue says it is I can't argue as I am not linguist.


Mirhasanov (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language is a languageEdit

I've reverted the recent edit that changed mentions of "lects" to "languages", and mentions of the Azerbaijani language to a "macrolanguage" or "the two languages" etc.: [1]. A similar edit was made by the same editor here: [2].

I've also changed the lead sentence from "Azerbaijani ... is a term referring to two Turkic lects (North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani) that are spoken primarily by the Azerbaijanis" to "Azerbaijani ... is a Turkic language spoken primarily by the Azerbaijanis". This is in accordance with MOS:LEADSENTENCE (see also WP:ISATERMFOR and WP:REFERSTO). We must say what the subject of the article actually is, and the obvious answer is that "Azerbaijani language" is a language.

It's true that the Ethnologue/ISO classification system calls it a "macrolanguage", but that isn't a good reason for the Wikipedia article to avoid calling it a language. "Macrolanguage" is a term not widely used in lingustics outside of these classification systems. It does not mean that something classified as such is not a language; Ethnologue specifically says: "The individual languages that comprise a macrolanguage must be closely related, and there must be some context in which they are commonly viewed as comprising a single language." [3].

I also don't believe that the classification codes are reliable sources for determining if there is a broad agreement among experts about whether two language varieties are dialects or separate languages, and this is even supported by Ethnologue itself (see previous link). For example, Arabic is also called a "macrolanguage" in the Ethnologue system, but the lead sentence of its Wikipedia article begins: "Arabic is a Semitic language..." The same is true for the Azerbaijani language, and "Azerbaijani is a Turkic language..." is appropriate. This is particularly true since the two varieties of Azerbaijani are far more similar than some of the varieties of Arabic which are mutually unintelligible and thus argued by a few to be separate languages.

There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a language vs. a dialect (see Dialect § Dialect or language), but the main criterion is mutual intelligibility. Describing them as "separate languages" is surprising to readers if we also say that all speakers can easily understand each other. On the other hand, the fact that they use different writing systems for example could be reason to argue that they should be considered languages rather than dialects, although we would need citations for that, which I haven't found. Linguists commonly use the term variety (or lect) which avoids having to make arbitrary distinctions.

Ethnologue/ISO 639 similarly has individual language codes for different varieties of Arabic. But to conclude only from this that, for example, the North and South varieties of Levantine Arabic, even though they are both labelled as "a language" by Ethnologue, are actually "two separate languages" would be highly misleading. We would need reliable sources showing that linguists generally agree that these two varieties are so different from each other as to be considered separate languages - and that does not exist, because they are not. Regardless of how they are slotted into Ethnologue's system, they are very similar and the word dialect or variety is normally used for them in the literature, and in the Wikipedia article.

The real test, as always, is "what do the most reliable sources say about 'Azerbaijani language'?". One of the most authoritative is the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics cited in the lead. It has only one entry for the language, which begins: "Azerbaijanian (Azerbaijani, Azeri) (Azerbaycan dili, Azerbaycanca) belongs, like Turkish, to the western group of the southwestern, or Oghuz, branch of the Turkic language family. It is spoken in northern and southern Azerbaijan (i.e., in the Republic of Azerbaijan), particularly in the province of Azerbaijan, and in Iran." It consistently refers to Azerbaijani as "the language", and repeatedly calls the northern and southern forms "varieties". Even if North and South Azerbaijani could arguably be called "languages" by some definition, it does not follow that "Azerbaijani language" should never be called "a language", but only a "macrolanguage", "a term referring to two languages", etc. This is not how it's done in other encyclopedias and language books, and doing so in this article does not adhere to WP:NPOV.

It's ok to mention how Ethnologue etc. classifies things, or to quote it saying there are differences between the varieties. But it's not ok to extrapolate from this that there's no such thing as the "Azerbaijani language". It is considered one of the Turkic languages, alongside modern Turkish, Turkmen, etc., and is widely discussed and accepted as such in the majority of reliable sources on the subject. --IamNotU (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU (talk),

My friend hats off to this brilliant explanation. I read every single sentences that you wrote and it clearly shows how well you did your research and justified important points which were subject to dispute. Even writing this kind of text takes a long time so, thank you very much for your good will and time invested to produce this healthy argumentation.

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkish vs. TurkicEdit

Dear all,

recently the English Wikipedia users changed all of the instances of the word "Turkish" to "Turkic". The distinction between the two terms only existed in Russian before (this was politically motivated - one can present numerous citations regarding this matter). I find it extremely peculiar to try and translate this etimology into Western languages. For instance, some Azerbaijani-speaking users have tried to change "Türkisch" to "Turkisch" in the German version of this page in order to artificially create the distinction between the two concepts. Sadly, this sounds extremely ridiculous in German, for the reasons that such word simply does not exist in the respective language. With the help of the Russian-speaking users, the word "Turkic" found its way into the English by now. I hope, however, that our community decides to pull back this naming. Even if one does insist on using this terminology, it is imperative to at least mention that the distinction between "Turkic" and "Turkish" does not exist in Azerbaijani itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qara159 (talkcontribs) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "Turkic" has existed in English for a long time (certainly predating Wikipedia), as a reference to languages and ethnic groups related to, but not necessarily part of, Turkey or the Turkish language. You're simply not going to get English speakers, when discussing non-Turkish people or languages, to stop using "Turkic" and start using "Turkish" instead. And even if a distinction between these two English words doesn't exist in the Azerbaijani language, that isn't germane to whether the two words are distinct in English — though I will concede that a discussion of the lack of this distinction might possibly be relevant in the narrow context of a discussion about whether Azerbaijani is a dialect of Turkish or a separate language. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the word Turkic is widely used in reliable English sources when talking about language families. Wikipedia will continue to describe Azerbaijani as "a Turkic language" for example. On the other hand, there is mixed usage of e.g. "Azerbaijani Turkish" and "Azerbaijani Turkic" in reliable sources (Google books search) to refer to the language. The former gets about ten times more general Google hits, though that's not conclusive. I don't think that edits like this: [4], where several instances of "Turkish" were replaced with "Turkic", are necessarily correct or helpful. I reverted the last replacement because it changed a direct quote. I'm not sure what to do about the rest. --IamNotU (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Names in lead sentenceEdit

I've restored the actual terms found in the cited sources in the lead sentence, "Azeri Turkic" and "Azeri Turkish" rather than "Azerbaijani Turkic" and "Azerbaijani Turkish". However, in a Google books search, I did find examples of both of the latter. I don't think that all variations should be crammed into the first sentence: Azerbaijani, Azeri, Azerbaijani Turkish, Azerbaijani Turkic, Azeri Turkish, Azeri Turkic, and another one that is often found: Azerbaijanian. Only the most common two or three should be listed, see MOS:ALTNAME and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. If it's necessary to mention the others, it can be done in another part. Citations that only give an example of one or another being used in a book are not very helpful in determining how common they are. It should be based on reliable sources that discuss the language and the common alternative names.

Although not necessarily referring to the language specifically, a Google ngrams search shows Azerbaijani and Azeri being by far the most common, followed by Azerbaijanian, with the rest having few or no occurences. A regular Google search shows for example very few results for the "Turkic" variations. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics notes Azerbaijanian, Azerbaijani, and Azeri only. --IamNotU (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Azerbaijani language" page.